Last summer, the Vanguard covered the trial of Brienna Holmes in which the jury split on both counts. They voted 10-2 to acquit Ms. Holmes of a battery charge and 6-6 on a charge of resisting arrest.
The DA in this case decided not to refile the charges and Ms. Holmes has now filed a federal lawsuit which alleges her treatment violated her civil rights through unreasonable seizure, excessive force, malicious abuse of process and battery.
Brienna Homes was a 20-year-old senior who was charged with battery on UC Davis Police Captain Joyce Souza and resisting arrest. Ms. Holmes was accused of both shoving the Captain and slapping her during the course of protest outside of UC Davis’ Mrak Hall where hundreds of students had gathered in protest to a proposed fee hike.
On the stand, Captain Souza claimed that Ms. Holmes stepped into the pathway and that she asked her several times to move. Captain Souza then tapped Ms. Holmes on her shoulder and felt the weight of Ms. Holmes on her.
Captain Souza described the initial shove she gave the defendant as an “extension” of her arms. Captain Souza then says that the defendant repeatedly struck her in the chest after the initial shove, at which point two sheriff’s deputies stepped in, grabbed Holmes, “placed” her on the hood of a patrol car and handcuffed her.
Under cross-examination, Defense Attorney Stewart Katz, who is also the attorney involved in the lawsuit, got Captain Souza to admit that the defendant had not used obscene or derogatory language and that there were more boisterous people who were closer to Mrak Hall.
Mr. Katz argued that Officer Souza instigated the situation. She walked up to Ms. Holmes and shoved her, and she fell back. Two of the Yolo County Sheriffs observed this and misperceived the situation. They used unreasonable force to detain her, so much so that she urinated on herself.
One of the points made throughout was that the defendant was very small in stature, and that likely led to the jury questioning the ability and willingness of the defendant to take on the police.
Deputy Sheriff Ryan Mez testified that he saw Ms. Holmes slapping Captain Souza in the face.
In the video, Mr. Katz showed Deputy Mez trying to put the defendant on the hood of the car. Mr. Katz described this as an unconventional way of gaining control. Deputy Mez was 5-7, 190, a well-built individual, and it seemed implausible that he would have trouble getting Ms. Holmes under control.
Deputy Sheriff Gary Richter, the partner of Deputy Mez, testified that it took 15 to 20 seconds to subdue the defendant. However, when Mr. Katz asked on cross-examination whether the defendant was resisting, both Deputies Mez and Richter affirmed that she was doing so while on the hood of the car. It turns out that Ms. Holmes’ arm was caught on her purse and under her body while she was on her stomach on the car.
The lawsuit contends that Ms. Holmes was an innocent bystander in the November 2009 protests, when officers targeted her, out of frustration with an event that seemed to be spiraling out of control.
Mr. Katz told KCRA, “I don’t think Brie did anything to deserve that.”
“They had no business prosecuting her to begin with,” Mr. Katz said. “They shouldn’t have arrested her. They shouldn’t have jacked her on the car, but they should have just realized, ok everyone ok sorry misunderstanding.”
According to the suit, Ms. Holmes suffered a variety of physical injuries, emotional distress and public humiliation as a result of the actions of the defendants.
They further allege wrongful prosecution by the DA’s Office, which cost Ms. Holmes legal fees and further humiliation, while at the same time, those who were arrested for trespassing were not prosecuted.
Jonathen Raven, spokesperson for the DA’s Office, called the lawsuit meritless.
“In the criminal case, six jurors felt beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Holmes was guilty of a crime,” he said in a statement from the DA’s Office.
UC Davis spokesperson Andy Fell told KCRA, “We believe the officers acted appropriately and certainly have no legal vulnerability.”
Mr. Raven’s comment misses the point. We saw the case of the Galvan brothers beating, where 22 of 24 jurors in the first two trials thought the defendants had committed a crime. That does not mean the police did not use excessive force in that case.
Jurors, as with most citizens, tend to give police officers the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, ten of the 12 members of the jury were prepared to acquit Ms. Holmes of the main charge, with the charge of resisting arrest less clear.
The question really comes to whether there was a legitimate arrest that Ms. Holmes was resisting. From the video, it is not clear what the defendant was doing wrong in the first place to get detained, and therefore any resistance may have been lawful.
However, none of that means that Ms. Holmes will prevail in her suit.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The question really comes to whether there was a legitimate arrest that Ms. Holmes was resisting. From the video, it is not clear what the defendant was doing wrong in the first place to get detained and therefore any resistance may have been lawful.”
A curious paradox emerges with the plaintiff contention that she was a “protester” but when the police were present she was an “innocent bystander.” One wonders just how passive this bystander was.
Similar to the demand on the prosecutor in the criminal matter, Ms. Holmes now bears the legal burden of proof with her allegation. Therefore, the above column quote is more accurately stated as the plaintiff has not presented any evidence other than argument to support her multiple allegations. Taking all the plaintiff’s allegations in the most generous terms, this remains a very weak lawsuit and is probably filed more for public posturing than for legal merit. If so, it succeeded as the claim has been widely published.
Relative size between the combatants is a common argument for excessive force allegations. In reality, a bigger stronger law enforcement officer is nonetheless constrained in subduing a person being arrested. The law requires minimal use of force to subdue, and that usually translates to longer and greater effort before the resistance is overcome without undue harm.
Other than a reported loss of bladder control, the “variety of physical injuries” were not detailed in any way. Apparently the video did not support the allegation either, as it surely would have been cited if it had.
“A curious paradox emerges with the plaintiff contention that she was a “protester” but when the police were present she was an “innocent bystander.” One wonders just how passive this bystander was.”
I think the discrepancy here is between the people inside the building trespassing after hours of public access versus Ms. Holmes who was not inside the building and not participating in illegal activities at the time she was confronted by police.
Was Holmes part of the protest at any time or not? My guess is she was. As such, she assumed the risk of getting caught up in the melee.
In so far as her lawsuit against law enforcement, she has not got a leg to stand on if she was a part of the protest, and there were not physical injuries as a result of her scuffle w the police officers…
Everyone knows this DA will protect any cops actions and any arrest since he needs to stats to raise his crime rate to get more money for grants or for his “false and misleading” press releases.
As for Reisig’s puppet Raven, who is an “at will” employee of Reisig, he will say whatever Reisig tells him to say, not a good idea to disagree with Reisig and tell him he is wrong when you can lose your job for doing so. (In legal terms we call that credibility of the witness)
What Mr. Raven (Reisig’s mouth piece) failed to mention is 6 jurors may have voted guilty, but the other six voted not guilty. Not what I would call a huge victory considering the DA/State has unlimited money, resources and time to make the case the way they want it, they pick the jurors, they decide what to file, they decide what evidence they have and then after all of that they can only confuse half the jurors enough to agree with them. Wow, those guys are good….lol
Elaine: She was at the protest, but she was not illegally inside Mrak Hall after public access hours.
From Roger Rabbit:
” . . . the DA/State has unlimited money, resources and time to make the case the way they want it, they pick the jurors, they decide what to file, they decide what evidence they have and then after all of that they can only confuse half the jurors enough to agree with them.”
Roger, you might want to re-think this remark. It is erroneous on at least a half dozen points of law and economics.
Yeah he’s part right. The DA does not have unlimited money, but they have more money, resources and time than typical defense attorneys, the office is better funded than the PD’s office, they have more investigators, they get investigation help from grants and other LEA’s.
They do get to decide what the file which should give them a huge advantage.
They have better investigation powers and therefore they pick evidence and often times fail to disclose evidence that would exonerate.
They along with the defense pick the jurors, not sure where that gives them the advantage.
dmg: “Elaine: She was at the protest, but she was not illegally inside Mrak Hall after public access hours.”
You didn’t answer my question. Was she a protestor?
It is no different than a lookout in a robbery being just as guilty of the crime as the robbers who went into the bank and took the money.
When you engage in part of the protest, you assume the risk of what happens at that protest…
ERM,
I think the point DMG is making is that those outside observing the protest inside Mrak Hall, which violated some law as it was after hours or whatever, were not doing anything unlawful and therefore are not a part of the “protest.”
So if she is engaging in the “protest” by simply observing, remarking, etc about what was happening, I guess she could be perceived as an active participant by LE…
I’m making a distinction between those who entered the building and those who did not. From what we saw at trial, there was no lawful reason for Ms. Holmes to be detained and it was her right to protest as long as she did trespass. There is no evidence that she did. If I am outside covering an event, I’m not really risking what happens at the protest. If I enter the building myself, I am.
How can any of you believe that the DA does not have unlimited money? Please point to one case where they were told no to funds? Point to one case that was not charged because of money? They get full reimbursement from the State of any murder case that goes over one million dollars. The DA has Investigators work all the overtime needed on any case he wants. The Def gets some say in the jury but the Prosecution has distinct advantages to set odds in their favor. They get to put on their case first, they get to sit next or closest to the jury, they get to do TWO closing arguments when the Def only gets to do ONE. How the hell can any of you think a criminal case is not stacked in many ways for the Prosecution?
Rabbit,
“Please point to one case where they were told no to funds? Point to one case that was not charged because of money.”
Told there were no funds, by whom? Is it wrong for the DA’s Office to charge people of crimes based on the evidence, nature of the crime and so forth? I wouldn’t want money to be a major deterrent as prosecutors decide to pursue a case (ie well we have a strong case, but the costs are such that we don’t want to seek justice…)
That said, there are certainly instances in which I think prosecutors have gone too far. However, the laws are what they are and same goes for sentencing.
Unfortunately, Rabbit, DA’s offices are not investigating and prosecuting as many crimes in some areas as much as they were before cuts to personnel/budgets and that’s a fact.
“The Def gets some say in the jury but the Prosecution has distinct advantages to set odds in their favor.”
They don’t get equal say in the jury selection process, is that the truth?
“They get to put on their case first, they get to sit next or closest to the jury, they get to do TWO closing arguments when the Def only gets to do ONE. How the hell can any of you think a criminal case is not stacked in many ways for the Prosecution?”
It’s true that the prosecution gets to close and following the defense’s closing give their rebuttal to the defense’s remarks. I think the reason why the prosecution is allowed certain “advantages” is due to the burden of proof resting entirely on the state. The defense’s job is to do whatever it can to create reasonable doubt and that can be done quite easily if the representation is adept at it.
As the saying goes, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.”
As to the seating arrangements, I don’t think either side has a legal right to jury proximity. That said, I believe you are correct in that the prosecution is customarily seated at the table closest to the jury. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for defense counsel to argue for “fair” seating arrangements.
The prosecution also gets to open, thus introducing the state’s case against the defendant. Again, goes to burden of proof. Defense gets to follow. What I don’t agree with are breaks between the prosecution’s opening statements and the defense’s. Prosecution lays out horrific elements of a crime and paints the defendant as all kinds of evil, then the jurors get a recess before the defense can rebut? I don’t think that’s right.
You also have to realize the DA gets to rebut a closing argument for a reason. The defense can say anything they want. They can use whatever ridiculous defense they want. Remember “If the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit.” Or the “They’re not my pants” defense. The DA is bound buy at least the evidence they have. The defense regularly forgets about evidence in their closing.
David, Mr. Rabbit doesn’t need you to encourage him when he’s wrong. His untrue statement doesn’t become “part right” just because you say something different than he did and then try to make a case for your own observations.
Mr. Coleman’s correct that Mr. Rabbit’s assertion is erroneous, your “part right” protestations notwithstanding. And you might might want to re-think your own comments supporting Mr. Rabbit’s: [quote]“They have better investigation powers and therefore they pick evidence and [u]often times fail to disclose evidence that would exonerate[/u].”[/quote] Your claim that the prosecution wins by frequently keeping secret evidence that it’s discovered which proves innocence of the people it charges and tries most surely fits right in Mr. Rabbit’s typical goofiness.
Knowing of your distaste for those who would unfairly accuse people of crimes, you certainly surprised me here. What’s your basis for suggesting that Reisig has won cases by ofttimes withholding exculpatory evidence from criminal defendants? What history can you cite that action has been taken against our DA for Brady v. Maryland violations?
By the way, both of you neglect to acknowledge the defendant’s “advantages” of presumed innocence and the requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You also fail to recognize the prosecution’s biggest “advantage” in keeping up its win-loss record: the fact that most of the cases they try involve guilty defendants!
OM Reisig, I mean Just saying, is really reaching here. Listen carefully, I will go slow for you, If me and you are in a room alone and you threaten me and I say you did this and you say you play Reisig and say did not, [b]that does not mean it did not happen[/b]. It only means it cannot be proven. So your bait and switch question asking for proof is ridiculously and may fool some but is really elementary to anyone who knows. Reisig, being of the Mustelidae family, knows how to hide and conceal his unethical acts. He does many things in private with no witnesses and he knows that it cannot be proven later since one person’s word against his word is NOT proof. [b]So for you or him to act all innocent just because it can’t be proven shows your ignorance, it surely does not prove it does not happen routinely.[/b]
As for the seating issue, you are incorrect, the DA/prosecution gets to sit closest to the jury, not a defense choice, pay attention next time you are in court.
As you know, there’s much variety in mustelid behavior. Just because a few members of the family have kept exculpatory evidence from innocent defendants, it doesn’t follow that all of them do (or that any specific one such as Reisig, ever did).
So, I’m Reisig and I’m in a room with you and no one else. I charge that you punched me in the nose. In fact, I over-charge you–with attempted murder. Just because I say it’s so doesn’t mean it’s true if it isn’t, no matter how many people have witnessed your foul comments about the D.A.
No one would tell you that “asking for proof is ridiculous” when Reisig accuses you of something you did not do. Wouldn’t you agree that what’s good for you is good for Reisig?
I’m not even asking David (and, now, you) for proof beyond a reasonable doubt the Reisig routinely and intentionally hides innocence proof from Yolo County defendants.
I say Reisig’s presumed innocent unless you and David reveal more than outlandish charges and the theory that Reisig’s so smart that he’s been able to keep his repeated Brady legal violations hidden so well that only you and David are able to attest to them. I’m just asking you two to offer a little something once in awhile to back up your never-ending invective to Reisig. Is he a polecat or the least weasel alive?
[quote][u]Paul[/u]: “A curious paradox emerges with the plaintiff contention that she was a ‘protester’ but when the police were present she was an ‘innocent bystander’. One wonders just how passive this bystander was.”
[u]David[/u]: “I think the discrepancy here is between the people inside the building trespassing after hours of public access versus Ms. Holmes who was not inside the building and not participating in illegal activities at the time she was confronted by police….I’m making a distinction between those who entered the building and those who did not. From what we saw at trial, there was no lawful reason for Ms. Holmes to be detained and it was her right to protest as long as she did (not) trespass. There is no evidence that she did.”[/quote] And, what difference would the trespass make for someone who was being prosecuted for battery on a police officer and resisting arrest outside?
I wonder how you say eight months later that “there was no lawful reason” to arrest Ms. Holmes from what you saw at the trial and that “it was her right to protest as long as she did (not) trespass” when she was obstructing the walkway.
There’s plenty of evidence that she repeatedly struck an experienced police captain (Souza) in the chest after repeatedly refusing to follow lawful requests to move back after Ms. Holmes stepped into the pathway. She was a member of the protesting group, clapping and cheering the other protesters who had volunteered to be arrested.
Ms. Holmes’ beating on Captain Souza was witnessed by two sheriff’s deputies who moved in to assist and to subdue her. Instead of stopping her violent actions, she refused to cooperate with the two. I’m mystified about how she could have end up surprised that she was arrested after this illegal behavior.[quote]“They further allege wrongful prosecution by the DA’s Office, which cost Ms. Holmes legal fees and further humiliation, while at the same time, those who were arrested for trespassing were not prosecuted.”[/quote] Trespassing while engaged a campus protest gets lenient treatment, especially when those arrested peaceably volunteered to be arrested. Assaulting a law officer and resisting arrest typically result in charges which, in turn, usually result in legal bills–even if the accused is young and sweet and small and otherwise righteous.
Since she was cheering the other arrests, it’s difficult to see why she’d see her own as humiliation. Maybe something else was humiliating, but she can hardly blame the civil suit defendants for her own attorney announcing to the world that she peed her pants that night.[quote]“Mr. Raven’s comment misses the point. We saw the case of the Galvan brothers beating, where 22 of 24 jurors in the first two trials thought the defendants had committed a crime. That does not mean the police did not use excessive force in that case.”[/quote] And it also does not mean that they that they did. You also missed the point. P.S.–Why you equate the terrible Galvan situation with this case?
Mr. Katz was successful in getting a hung jury (followed by the D.A.’s decision not to retry his client). I see very little in your report here that suggests he’ll be able to prove this civil case against Reisig and the law enforcement officers involved.
While her LAPD Daddy might have felt a little pride in her initial display of civil disobedience, I’ll bet it’ll be tough for him around the station house once his colleagues hear what her lawyer’s talked her into now.
JustSaying: I can probably name ten cases off the top of my head where Mr. Reisig and/ or his office was caught with Brady violations – would that be sufficient? Understanding of course that if he’s caught ten times, there are a number of times when he is not caught?
Just Saying:
“And, what difference would the trespass make for someone who was being prosecuted for battery on a police officer and resisting arrest outside? “
Actually it matters more to the second charge not the first. Because of the way the law is written, one must be lawfully detained in order to resist arrest. So was she lawfully detained? The police argue she walked up to the officer and started slapping her. She argues the police started it.
“There’s plenty of evidence that she repeatedly struck an experienced police captain (Souza) in the chest after repeatedly refusing to follow lawful requests to move back after Ms. Holmes stepped into the pathway. “
When it boiled down to it, there really wasn’t plenty of evidence that she refused to follow lawful requests. And apparently even less evidence that she attacked a police officer.
Incidentally, an experienced police captain with a very questionable record. Numerous complaints from her fellow officers and an incident a few years prior where she illegally ordered the arrest of student protesters inside Mrak Hall during business hours, which was legal since it is a publicly accessible building. Because of this, the DA had to drop charges, and when some of her officers refused to illegally arrest protesters, she administratively punished them.
“Ms. Holmes’ beating on Captain Souza was witnessed by two sheriff’s deputies who moved in to assist and to subdue her. “
Actually it wasn’t. What came out in trial is that both of them missed the first portion of the confrontation and only reacted to what they saw after that.
“P.S.–Why you equate the terrible Galvan situation with this case? “
Because Raven used the line of logic that if six jurors thought she was guilty, the police could not have used improper force.
The officer involved could have handled this much better. The girl had every right to be where she was. It doesn’t make sense that the girl would purposely hit the officer. I believe the girl’s version much more than the officer’s. There was no danger and no reason for her to touch the girl. The officer should have assisted in making sure the process of clearing the inside of the building went smoothly. What the officer did was make sure that it escalated into a level of violence. A “request” that is accompanied by a push, isn’t a request. Hopefully, this captain will not be allowed to respond to future protests on the UCD campus. As budget cuts hit in the coming year, there will be a community response. Hopefully, this officer will be needed elsewhere or given the day off.
[quote]“JustSaying: I can probably name ten cases off the top of my head where Mr. Reisig and/ or his office was caught with Brady violations – would that be sufficient? Understanding of course that if he’s caught ten times, there are a number of times when he is not caught?”[/quote] Ten true Brady violations would be sufficient to support your “often times” charge, in my opinion. In listing your cases, please be specific and give support for a contention that Reisig and/or his office deliberately failed to disclose requested exculpatory/impeachment evidence that they knew of or should have known of.
Mere defense charges of Brady violations don’t qualify. Cases overturned for other reasons don’t qualify just because the defense might have originally included Brady allegations as of their arguments. For example, of the local cases you cited in last year’s two-parter, “Preventable Error: A Report on Prosecutorial Misconduct in California 1997–2009,” the Lawrence Miranda case qualifies. As you wrote, the appeal court overturned one of the guilty findings because “the prosecutor violated defendant’s right to due process by failing to disclose to the defense the existence of material exculpatory evidence pertaining to the issue of whether defendant used a firearm while threatening to shoot the victim.”
lmao, Justsaying is such a phony. Notice how fast he started putting all the disqualifies, exceptions, exemptions, exucses and listing things that do not count. That proves itself that he knows Reisig is a crooked dishonest prosecutor that routinely hides and conceals things, but knows how to be sneaky and under the radar of “so-called” proof. Not to mention no has every tired to prove with any authority, hard to get proof win no wants to look for it or find it.
When he is giving is sorry defense of Reisig, it sounds like a defense attorney defending a career criminal, it goes like this: Your Honor I know my client has been accused of crimes over a 100 times and he has been arrested 50 times and his wife has a restraining order on for violence and he may have tattoos on his face and he hangs out with the Hells Angles, but he has never convicted of murder, you can’t show me any proof that he has every been convicted of murder, therefore he did not murder, all you want to do is throw out his past and my poor client has done nothing and you can’t show me any proof that he killed anyone……..
Sound familiar Juststupid? Give me a break, Reisig has cases over turned, he has been accused by the courts and his own cops that he hides evidence and being unethical, he is surrounding by scandal after scandal, and hides like a little girl behind his false press releases (oh yea lets not forget where he lied to the SAC BEE and they had to do a retraction, Proof he is a liar?) and still the people that love him keep yelling “NO PROOF”. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has feathers, it probably is a duck.
TO DG: I would not waste time arguing with a fool, they tend to have lots of practice at being foolish so they will win. Much like you should not roll around in the mud with a pig, you will just get dirty and pig likes it.
http://img855.imageshack.us/i/picture16h.png/
http://img218.imageshack.us/i/picture15xl.png/
http://img405.imageshack.us/i/picture13hr.png/
If a picture is worth a protester thousand words, how much is a deputy’s facebook status worth?
[quote]“Ms. Holmes’ beating on Captain Souza was witnessed by two sheriff’s deputies who moved in to assist and to subdue her. ”
“Actually it wasn’t. What came out in trial is that both of them missed the first portion of the confrontation and only reacted to what they saw after that.”[/quote] Thank you for responding. I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that they did not testify to seeing Ms. Holmes strike Capt. Souza? That they swore they didn’t see any of that happen. What “came out in trial” that they said they saw and were reacting to?
[quote]“Actually it (the trespass issue) matters more to the second charge (resisting arrest) not the first (battery on a police officer). Because of the way the law is written, one must be lawfully detained in order to resist arrest. So was she lawfully detained?”[/quote] Yes, it seems clear she was being lawfully detained. Evidence was presented that she started striking Capt. Souza after she refused to move back out of the pathway and was pushed back. She was one of the protesters [u]outside[/u] the building; whether she was inside at anytime would matter if she was being charged with trespassing or some other crime inside the building. Did anyone ever even bring up the idea of her being inside, trespassing, other than you? [quote]“When it boiled down to it, there really wasn’t plenty of evidence that she refused to follow lawful requests. And apparently even less evidence that she attacked a police officer.”[/quote] So, you’ve concluded that Capt. Souza perjured herself on most every significant fact? And, the other witnesses the DA thought he had to support her version recanted on the stand?
What was Ms. Holmes’ testimony, that she didn’t strike anyone or resist officers’ attempts to arrest her? Or that she did, but in self defense?
Bottom line, defendant was in the middle of the protest and assumed the risk…
This idea that it is okay to engage in “civil disobedience” is very unfortunate. It encourages young people to believe they can engage in protests any way they want, and get away w it – when in fact they may get caught up in the heat of the moment and wind up w a criminal record.
This defendant should have known when to cut her losses once she was acquitted instead of suing law enforcement…
As for the order in which opening/closing statements are given:
1) Prosecution must go first in opening statement, bc it is the prosection who has the burden of proof
2) Prosection also goes first in closing statement, and is given opportunity for rebuttal of defense’s closing argument, bc it is the prosecution who has the burden of proof
There is not much advantage to “going first”, bc the jury is required to listen to and weigh all the evidence, no matter what the order is.
JustSaying: Yes, Captain Souza perjured herself multiple times on the stand. Why don’t you go pick up the court transcripts before you continue to spew uninformed and inaccurate information.
There is no evidence that Captain Souza was beat on by the defendant-beyond the testimonies of her fellow officers. In fact, Captain Souza changed her story twice while on the stand. Even Deputy Richter couldn’t get his story straight either. While he was on the stand, he said he had been positioned in one area, when in fact the news video contradicted this.
Furthermore, Deputy Mez’s testimony contradicts both of Souza’s confused testimonies as well as the video. In fact, Deputy Mez’s credibility as a witness, and his state of mind during the arrest, should be in question given his attitudes towards people in Davis, his casual attitude towards deploying force (joking about using his taser,) and wanting to arrest people on a bad day. This can all be observed on the above links, all screenshots taken from his Facebook profile.
http://theaggie.org/article/2011/03/14/uc-davis-student-sues-police-county
The Aggie covers it based on their investigative work.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that there is something larger going on than a jury undecided over resisting arrest. Obviously, 10 of 12 people were convinced the defendant did not commit the initial crime of battery, which would make her subsequent arrest unlawful.
EMR: you should reacquaint yourself with the discourse of social movements and “civil disobedience.” Obviously engaging in any civil or democratic movement is out of the picture for you as you are glued to your computer. I am assuming you are a middle-class white male that has never been put in a position to stand up for anything greater than your own needs. Welcome to reality-not everyone is as apathetic as you.
JF: “EMR: you should reacquaint yourself with the discourse of social movements and “civil disobedience.” Obviously engaging in any civil or democratic movement is out of the picture for you as you are glued to your computer. I am assuming you are a middle-class white male that has never been put in a position to stand up for anything greater than your own needs. Welcome to reality-not everyone is as apathetic as you.”
You are wrong on all counts…
Elaine, even with JUSTICEFORCE’s Facebook statement by Ryan Mez available, I agree Ms. Holmes has a pretty tough burden in pursuing the civil suit charges she’s picked. (If Mez made these FB offensive comments, he’s made himself a lightning rod for complaints from every defendant with whom he’s involved and for credibility issues raised by their lawyers. Seems like no job or a desk job will be in his future.)
I’m all for non-violent civil disobedience. I’m against whining about getting detained or arrested (or, in this case, being made to get out of the way of officers hauling away a line of those who have been arrested). Important rules for effective civil disobedience include accepting arrest rather than fighting and accepting responsibility for one’s acts. The other protesters picked the “honorable” route; Ms. Holmes decided to battle it out with the cops.
David’s conclusion that she gets to fight off the officers because they were making an unlawful arrest doesn’t seem very close to what’s been described. I understand that theory may have contributed to a mistrial with only half of the jury convinced on that charge of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the other half saying they wouldn’t budge from their not-guilty opinion. Granted that’s way more than enough for those perpetually convinced that whatever Reisig does must be illegal and immoral.
JF: [b]please avoid personal characterizations of other blog participants. Aside from being wrong in the particulars you chose, it is also likely to get your posts edited or removed.[/b] — Don S
“Bottom line, defendant was in the middle of the protest and assumed the risk…”
Actually the defendant was on the periphery of the protest, not in the middle.
JustSaying:
I’m willing to list for you at least ten cases where I believe there to be a Brady violation. I am not willing at this time to attempt to meet your standards. There are clearly several cases that have actually gone to appeal and a finding was made. Some of those, the court ruled that it was not sufficient to overturn the conviction – does that mean that the violation did not happen such as what happened in Calixto Racimo. Then there is a the Halloween Homicide case where several people have said it happened, but it never ended up being adjudicated. Then there is a case like the Niazi case where judge Mock ruled and threw out an attempted murder charge. Then there is a case like the Noori case, where they won anyway. BTW, that’s five cases right there (counting Miranda).
JustSaying:
I’ll briefly respond here as well.
“Are you saying that they did not testify to seeing Ms. Holmes strike Capt. Souza? “
What I am saying is that they did not see the beginning of the confrontation, they only testified to what they witnessed, but they have no idea who started it or how it began.
“What “came out in trial” that they said they saw and were reacting to?”
They did not see Officer Souza shove Holmes, they only saw the struggle after that point and reacted based on that.
“Evidence was presented that she started striking Capt. Souza after she refused to move back out of the pathway and was pushed back.”
Evidence was also presented that Souza shoved her first and that she was not violating any laws at that time.
“Did anyone ever even bring up the idea of her being inside, trespassing, other than you?”
Her defense attorney.
“So, you’ve concluded that Capt. Souza perjured herself on most every significant fact? And, the other witnesses the DA thought he had to support her version recanted on the stand? “
I’ve concluded that Captain Souza did not tell the truth as to what precipitated the incident and no one else saw the beginning of the incident. She also changed her story, in her report she said she was shoved, on the stand she said she was slapped.
“What was Ms. Holmes’ testimony, that she didn’t strike anyone or resist officers’ attempts to arrest her? Or that she did, but in self defense? “
Her attorney argued that it was self-defense, that “Ms. Holmes put her hands up to block the attack. The officers used excessive force.”
dmg: “Actually the defendant was on the periphery of the protest, not in the middle. And for a lawyer, that’s not a legal claim. If she was not breaking the law, the police did not have the right to detain her.”
What is “on the periphery”? Define that term for me. From a practical point of view, if you join in a protest, no matter what part of it you are in, you assume the risk of getting caught up in it, including being arrested…
JS: “David’s conclusion that she gets to fight off the officers because they were making an unlawful arrest doesn’t seem very close to what’s been described. I understand that theory may have contributed to a mistrial with only half of the jury convinced on that charge of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the other half saying they wouldn’t budge from their not-guilty opinion. Granted that’s way more than enough for those perpetually convinced that whatever Reisig does must be illegal and immoral.”
Can you imagine how much restraint a police officer must use not to take some of these kids, like the ones who were going to go out onto I-80 to stop traffic, and put them over their knees and give them a good spanking?
Elaine: she was outside of Mrak Hall, the core of the protest was inside of Mrak Hall.
“Can you imagine how much restraint a police officer must use not to take some of these kids, like the ones who were going to go out onto I-80 to stop traffic, and put them over their knees and give them a good spanking? “
I’m hoping it takes no restraint since that would be illegal and be the biggest public relations nightmare ever.
[quote]“What was Ms. Holmes’ testimony, that she didn’t strike anyone or resist officers’ attempts to arrest her? Or that she did, but in self defense?”
“Her attorney argued that it was self-defense, that ‘Ms. Holmes put her hands up to block the attack. The officers used excessive force’.”[/quote] What I’m wondering about is the defendant’s testimony, not her her attorney’s characterization of it, and how the cross went. I assume she testified, based on your first-hand observations of the trial:[quote]“Ms. Holmes, according to Mr. Katz, told us what happened on stand. She was not looking for attention at the back of the demonstration. She was helping identify arrested people in a low-key way. Mild clapping and overall behavior are not consistent with someone about to attack an officer. Moreover, she did not know what was going on, no one told her she was under arrest.
According to Mr. Katz, the law of self-defense says that the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that actions were NOT in self-defense. Ms. Holmes put her hands up to block the attack.”[/quote] Your effort to clarify points is helpful to me in understand how you approach these issues. I hope you’ll indulge me a couple more times, and I’ll move on.
My problem is this was six months ago and i cannot find my notebook from that time. I apologize i dont remember her testimony other than what i have provided.