Update from Zac's Mom

All updates are taken from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

From Carol Champommier (Zac's mom):

"The trial will continue tomorrow, April 1, from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm. Tuesday will be from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. So far, we have learned that all bullets were fired from positions of safety for the officers. There is no physical evidence that a pedestrian was ever on the car. There were no injuries to ANY officer, including the deputy allegedly struck by Zac's car. Forensic evidence has shown that Zac was stopped or barely moving when he was killed. There was NO verbal or any other kind of warning given before taking his life. We will continue to fight for justice."

Trial Update

All updates are from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

Champommier Trial Update: 

The case of Champommier v. United States of America began on Tuesday, March 26th, and will resume MONDAY, April 1st, at 1:15 PM. The case will be heard in Judge Michael Fitzgerald's Courtroom, 16th floor, rm 1600. 312 North Spring Street in Los Angeles. See Justiceforzac.blogspot.com for more details. Attire is business casual, no flip-flops. Federal court is more formal than state court. You can come and go in the courtroom, at any time. Community involvement is critical in showing the judge that this case matters to the community.

Trial Update Day Four

All updates from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

Champommier Trial Update- Day Four

Testimony given by Supervisor (someone in a high/higher position) for Los Angeles area Drug Enforcement Agency operations. Evidence revealed that an encrypted cable/report was sent to the DEA headquarters in Washington, D.C., explaining the events/circumstances surrounding Champommier’s killing by DEA Agent. Cable/Report contained statements alleging that Champommier had received verbal warnings and had been shown law enforcement identification prior to being shot at. Testimony from Day One and Two contradict the assertions in said cable/report since Agent, Deputy, and all law enforcement officials in the immediate vicinity of Champommier’s car testified to not having identified themselves as law enforcement and to not having given verbal warnings prior to shooting Champommier.

Testimony given by expert witness author/researcher who produced the learned treatise often cited by Plaintiffs’ forensic experts. Testimony essentially became bogged down in the minutiae of giving or taking tenths of seconds for unholstering a weapon and whether Agent’s having been bumped into by the operation’s supervisor shortly before perception of Deputy allegedly being struck by Champommier’s car could have disturbed Agent’s focus, thereby adding time to the calculus of the overall time of “perception of events” to “decision to use deadly force” to “mechanical execution of that decision”

Trial will resume Monday afternoon (April 1, 2013). It is anticipated that Champommier's parents will testify.

Trial Update Day Three

All updates taken from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

Champommier Trial – Day Three

Testimony by Deputy: Deputy claims to have been struck by Champommier’s car in the public parking lot on the evening in question (i.e., June 24, 2010, the claimed impetus for use of deadly force on Champommier) when, while crossing a parking lot traffic lane, he had drawn and trained his weapon in the direction of his colleagues who were in the process of detaining Citizen. Testimony put Deputy’s weight at approximately 240 pounds at the time of the encounter. 

(Previous testimony had been given by Plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert who gave the opinion that it would be “impossible” for a man the size/weight of Deputy to not have caused some damage to the vehicle’s hood if what law enforcement reported to have happened in fact happened. Testimony also showed that there were no finger or palm prints on the area of the hood that Deputy claimed to occupy) 

Deputy described himself as ending up in a seated position on the car’s hood but was not specific as to whether he got off the hood before or after shots were fired by Agent. Plaintiffs’ counsel examined Deputy, who was presented with the information regarding the alleged injuries suffered from the contact with Champommier’s car. Deputy was apparently placed in the position by Plaintiffs’ counsel of having to admit that medical treatment rendered shortly after the event failed to detect injuries that would be anticipated when one is “rammed” by an automobile- No bruising; no contusions; no lacerations; no broken bones.

Testimony by Agent-Supervisor, described as the supervisor of the “multi-jurisdictional task force”: Agent-Supervisor testified that he has personally attended approximately 50 debriefings held in public parking facilities since Champommier’s killing, indicating that the practice continues to this day. (It would appear to this writer that the public should want this practice abolished or limited to disasters or instances public necessity)

Plaintiffs call expert in law enforcement policies and procedures to testify as to whether the conduct of law enforcement on the night in question aligned with the actual policies and procedures. Witness testified that there was a series of critical and ultimately fatal mistakes made by law enforcement that resulted in Champommier's death. When counsel for the United States asked this witness what action should have been taken when Deputy was struck, policy expert stated that since it was apparent that Deputy was uninjured Champommier’s license plate should have been reported to Los Angeles Police who would have then investigated the matter versus ‘self help’ by undercover agents who would have then been deviating from their mission in order to deal with Champommier.

Stay tuned…..

Trial Update Day Two

All updates from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

Champommier Trial Update- Day Two

Morning: Drug Enforcement Agency Officer (“Agent”) alleged to have been responsible for Champommier's killing continued testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the events of the evening in question, including confirming that no identifying garb was worn by any member of the task force that could have served to warn the public of law enforcement presence in the public parking lot surrounded by several eateries. Agent testified that it is not unusual for law enforcement to use public areas for debriefings following operations but that such debriefings are to be done in a manner which considers protecting the public and, when possible, out of public view.

Agent gave testimony as to his "perception" of the events that included the alleged contact between Champommier's car and pedestrian Deputy Sheriff ("Deputy") that was stated by the Agent as providing the justification for use of deadly force. 

Agent added to testimony given by LAPD detective given on Day One of the trial describing a detention of a person ("Citizen"), whom Champommier had met online the previous night and had gone to the area to meet. While attempting to locate Champommier, Citizen, who had been looking for Champommier’s car, was contacted by agents of the task force for “acting suspiciously” and for allegedly “looking into the cars” belonging to task force members. Agent testified that two members detained Citizen and appeared to have Citizen contained/controlled. At this time, Deputy Sheriff (“Deputy”) approached Citizen, and the two task force members detaining him, with his service revolver drawn and pointing in the direction of not only Citizen but also the two task force members. Agent stated that he did not feel this to have been unsafe or dangerous. 

Shortly thereafter, Agent testified to the contact between Champommier and Deputy. This was observed by Agent from a distance of approximately 8-10 feet beyond Champommier’s car in the direction the car was facing. Agent testified the contact occurred on the extreme driver's side of the car's hood and further described the Deputy as having been lifted in such a way that Deputy was parallel to the height of the roof of the car before landing on his left side on the car's hood with gun still in hand.

However, Agent’s recollection of Deputy’s time on the hood and dismounting from the hood of Champommier’s car was poor and could not be established, despite being within a few feet of both Champommier and Deputy. Agent testified that events “happened so fast” and that there was “no time to think”. Agent testified that Deputy was still on the hood of the car as the car drove past and still fired his weapon in the direction of Champommier and Deputy, allegedly still on the hood of Champommier’s car. 

Agent testified to thinking that shortly after Champommier’s car initially contacted Deputy that Agent had entertained the notion that said contact might have been accidental but that Champommier’s alleged acceleration following the contact with Deputy brought about fear for Deputy’s safety and necessitated use of deadly force. Agent then testified that he felt Champommier intended to injure Deputy and that Agent also feared that Champommier would injure him, despite testifying that he was never in the car’s path.

Coroner testified to injuries sustained by Champommier, stating that a single bullet had entered the left arm, traversing his chest cavity, exiting his right arm.

Plaintiffs called ballistics expert who testified his opinion as to the number of bullets, their trajectories, and the likely scenario by which the shots were rendered and by whom. The amount of time estimated to formulate the need to use deadly force (“perception of need” + “decision to execute”) and the time to mechanically implement the decision to use deadly force (unholstering weapon and discharging it) was estimated to be anywhere from 3-5 seconds. Ballistics expert for the plaintiffs used several position distances occupied by Agent to the position Champommier occupied behind the wheel of his car. This information was then corresponded with the time estimated to execute use of deadly force (i.e., perception + decision + mechanical implementation) to determine that Champommier’s car was either fully stopped or barely moving, but not moving more than 5 m.p.h. at the time of the shooting. (This, of course, stands in stark contrast to law enforcement reports of Champommier’s car traveling at a high rate of speed and, in fact, accelerating into Deputy.)

Lastly, audio recording of Citizen conducted by LA County Sheriff’s investigators and obtained the morning following Champommier’s killing was played. Citizen described having been accosted by an unidentified group of males, describing them as “a bunch of rednecks” that he felt were about to rob him or beat him up. Citizen stated that he was accosted and was initially acting in self defense to avoid what he felt was unlawful contact until a badge was produced, at which point Citizen stated that he “complied fully” with all directives issued. It was at this time that Champommier’s car appeared to make contact with Deputy, whom Citizen described as having “stepped into” the path of the car. Citizen stated that he thought the driver, whom he did not know to be Champommier – the person he was there to meet- was simply trying to escape an apparently dangerous scene consisting of plainclothes law enforcement agents with guns drawn and who were, essentially, indistinguishable from gangsters. Citizen repeatedly stated that video cameras must have recorded the events and would corroborate his version of events as truthful.

To be continued.....

Trial Update Day One

All updates are taken from the United Citizens Against Police Violence page on Facebook.

Champommier Trial -- Day One

Champommier's case, like that of DJ Henry, Joey Pinasco, and several others, involves the car-as-deadly-weapon scenario, as one of the fundamental issues involved in justification for the use of deadly force.

The day began with eye and ear-witness testimony as to the general congestion of the area on that Thursday evening, June 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, the general number of shots heard, the fear felt by passersby by the actions of the shooters, all in plainclothes and without discernible identifying information as law enforcement agents. A picture of chaos in the public parking lot where Champommier was killed emerged. The issue of policies and procedures utilized by the "multi-jurisdictional task force" was also scrutinized by plaintiffs' attorneys.

The plaintiffs called their forensic accident reconstruction expert who testified to the broken glass pattern and the skid marks. His opinion was to conclude that Champommier had hit the brakes, most likely to avoid injuring the deputy that ran into the path of Zac's car and that the shot that killed Champommier, which followed shortly after, was rendered while Champommier's car was in a position of being either at a full stop or, at a maximum, going no more than 5 miles an hour. Forensic evidence put on by the plaintiffs showed that Champommier's car then sped away after he had been fatally shot through his driver's side window, when he succumbed to that gunshot wound a short distance later.

Stay Tuned

The plaintiffs' forensic expert also disputed the official account (see LA County Sheriffs Log 160, dated June 25, 2010) which described the sheriffs deputy that Champommier allegedly "rammed" as having been essentially tossed into the air by the impact and landing on the hood as "impossible" since there was no physical evidence that an over 240 lbs. man had damaged the hood of Champommier's car in any way. Not a dent, not a palm or finger print, not one bit of evidence that a 240 lbs. man had made contact with Champommier's car, one the apparent bases for use of deadly force against Champommier (i.e., defense of others).

The plaintiffs' forensic expert also alleged that evidence had been tampered with. Pictures of the shattered driver's side window glass taken both the evening of the shooting and the following day showed that a rivet that had allegedly been dislodged when Champommier's car finally crashed after he lost consciousness had been "placed" among the shattered glass of the driver's side window. The rivet was not seen among the glass on the pictures taken in the evening but was seen in the photos taken the following morning.

Lastly, the DEA agent responsible for Champommier's killing was called to the stand. He had to pass in front of Champommier's mom, Carol, on the way to the witness stand. This writer will not attempt to describe the scene since there are no words. 

Champommier's killer will be first on the stand tomorrow. Not only will the car-as-deadly-weapon scenario be scrutinized as a legal justification for using deadly force, but Champommier's killer will likely be scrutinized as to whether or not he acted as a reasonable officer under the circumstances in using deadly force.

The time has come

In the matter of Carol Champommier vs. The United States of America, et al....

The trial begins next week.  This trial will be tried by a judge as the case has been brought before the Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). That Act mandates a bench trial. This means a jury will not be deciding if these DEA Agents were negligent and reckless when they shot and killed Zac.

As this will be a bench trial, it should go very quickly. According to estimates, it should take about seven days in total. Opening statements should start on the first day of trial and then testimony will follow pretty quickly. Likely, the civilian witnesses will testify followed by the shooters and then the experts, although the schedule is not yet firm.

We would like to encourage as many of Zac's friends to attend in a show of support for Zac and Carol. Here are the details:

When: Tuesday, March 26th

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Where: 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-4701,
16th floor, room 1600.

The Honorable Judge Michael Fitzgerald will be presiding.

Directions

Approaching Downtown on the Northbound 101 Freeway:

Travel north on the 101 Freeway. Exit on Alameda Street and turn left. Go two blocks and turn right on Temple Street. Go two blocks and make a right on Main Street. Courthouse is on your left hand side.

Approaching Downtown on the Southbound 101 Freeway:

Travel south on the 101 Freeway. Exit on Temple Street and turn left. Go four stop lights to Spring Street. The courthouse is located on the northeast corner of Temple and Spring Street.


Parking:

One hour metered parking is available on Temple Street between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

There are also parking lots available at the following locations:

Spring St. and Arcadia St. (one block from courthouse)
Main St. and Arcadia St. (one block from courthouse)
Los Angeles Mall Parking Lot - Los Angeles St. and Temple St. (underground parking, enter on Los Angeles St., across the street from courthouse)
Main St. and Macy St. (across from Olvera Street, 2 blocks from courthouse)

Metro Information:

Ride Metrolink Ventura County Line [UNION STATION] heading south

From: CHATSWORTH STATION/10046 OLD DEPOT PLAZA RD Leaves: 07:02AM
To: UNION STATION/800 N ALAMEDA ST Arrives: 07:50AM

Pay $9.25 + keep Media for next vehicle *METROLINK tickets must be purchased BEFORE boarding *, Monthly Pass: $243.25

Ride Metro Rail Red Line [NORTH HOLLYWOOD STATION] heading west
From: UNION STATION Lv: 07:57AM
To: CIVIC CENTER STATION Ar: 07:59AM

Additional Information
Total cash fare = $9.25
Trip time is about 57 minutes.
Trip distance is about 29.24 miles.
*All times are approximate. Traffic and weather can cause delays.
Please allow extra time for boarding and alighting.

Web Links:

United States Courthouse--Spring Street

Metrolink