Trial Update Day Seven

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

Champommier Trial Update – Day Seven

(Note: Day Six addendum- US also calls government policy expert (“Policy”) to testify. Plaintiffs’ attorneys call into question the legitimacy of the stop/detention of Citizen by task force members. When asked if Policy had ever mistaken another vehicle for his own when walking through a parking lot, Policy replied, “No. I know my own car”.)

United States calls expert on accident reconstruction who testifies that the skid marks testified to by Plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert as being caused by sudden engagement of the braking system by Champommier were actually tire marks caused by acceleration (i.e., of the “burning rubber” type).

The United States rests.

Judge instructs all attorneys as to the parameters of briefs to be generated arguing the points of law involved in the case of Champommier vs. United States of America (It is likely that the applicable standard set out in Graham v. Conner will be one of the aforementioned points of law). 

Interestingly, Judge appears to indicate that the shots fired by Champommier’s killer (DEA Agent) that were subsequent to the first shot (the only bullet to have struck Champommier and the shot responsible for his death) could, under the circumstances of this case, be deemed unreasonable. 

(It appears to this writer a matter of logic that emphasis be placed on the first shot for several reasons: Specifically, related to the instant case, it is the shot that killed Champommier. However, the reasonableness of the first shot is relevant in many deadly force cases involving gunfire because subsequent shots by other officers appear virtually immune to scrutiny, barring conclusive evidence to the contrary, in that they can often be deemed to have been rendered in defense of others by those officers simply saying that they were unsure whether or not that initial shot originated with the suspect. Thus, it appears that in cases where the officer firing the initial shot, and continues shooting, that officer is likely to have all shots scrutinized for their reasonableness.) 

Stay tuned....

Trial Update Day Six

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

Champommier Trial Update- Day Six

United States continues with its case-in-chief calling IRS Agent who was at the scene when Champommier was killed by DEA Agent as a constituent part of the "multi-jurisdictional task force". IRS Agent testified as to her position when the shooting began. IRS Agent testified that she had been on the side of Champommier's car opposite the shooter and in the general direction that the initial shots were fired by DEA Agent (i.e., generally, Champommier's 1 to 5 o'clock position). Plaintiffs' attorneys question IRS Agent as to her initial deposition, which appeared to contain inconsistencies as to whether she indicated Champommier's car had stopped. IRS Agent clarified that she meant to say Champommier's car was traveling at a constant speed.

Sheriff's Detective ("SD"), who was at the scene when Champommier was killed by DEA Agent, is called by the United States. SD, thus far, appears to be the only law enforcement official, other than DEA Agent, to testify to DEA Agent's position at the time Champommier was shot. SD testified that DEA Agent was nearer the group of law enforcement personnel detaining Citizen. This appears to contradict DEA Agent's testimony that he was "8 to 10 feet in front of" Champommier's car when Deputy was allegedly struck by Champommier's car.

It is anticipated that the United States will call an expert witness tomorrow and will subsequently rest their case-in-chief.

Trial Update Day Five

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

Champommier Trial Update- Day Five

Afternoon session only: Plaintiffs’ attorneys call Champommier’s stepmother who details the nature of her and her husband’s (Champommier’s biological father) relationship.

Plaintiffs next call Champommier’s father who details the nature of his relationship with his son, Zachary, including that Zachary served as his Best Man at the wedding to his second wife.

Plaintiffs call Champommier’s mother, Carol, who goes into great detail regarding the relationship that she shared with her son, Zachary, including Mothers Day cards Zachary had written to her and many photographs indicating the extent of their relationship. To quote decedent’s mother, “Zac was my past, present, and future”.

Plaintiffs rest their case-in-chief.

Attorneys representing the United States of America begin their case-in-chief by seeking to have the case dismissed. Judge cites decision by previous judge in earlier ruling on motion for summary judgment brought by the United States, which was denied. Thus, judge denied motion.

Government seeks to have report by ballistics expert for plaintiffs ruled inadmissible. Judge does not rule, but defers ruling until a later date.

United States calls first witness Special Agent (“SA”) who, in addition to Agent (Champommier’s killer), represented Drug Enforcement Administration as part of the “multi-jurisdictional task force” assembled in the parking area the evening Champommier was killed.

SA admits that use of public areas for debriefings is “common practice”. SA details that he was positioned at the north end of the parking area. Despite earlier deposition testimony, taken within the first few days after Champommier’s killing, that SA did not draw his weapon SA now testifies that he drew his weapon and trained it on Champommier immediately following the alleged contact between Champommier’s car and Deputy. SA testifies that since his fellow agents were in the line of his prospective fire, SA did not shoot. SA testified that Deputy, gun drawn and trained on not only Citizen but also his fellow task force agents detaining Citizen, announced himself as law enforcement to Citizen and ordered Citizen to “get on the ground”.

SA testifies that he could not identify Agent's exact position despite facing the area containing Agent and being within several feet of Agent. SA testifies to specific details about task force members who were beyond Agent and who were detaining Citizen, including which person stood where and which part of Citizen's person they were in contact with.

SA testifies that he did not see Champommier’s car stop. SA testifies that the calculus of time from the alleged contact by Champommier’s car with Deputy until the shots ceased was approximately “three to five seconds” and that the time from the alleged contact between Deputy and Champommier’s car and the first shot was approximately “two seconds”.

SA testifies that verbal warnings were indeed given to Champommier to “stop-stop-stop”. These verbal warnings, however, were given after Zachary had been fatally shot by Agent, a member of the plainclothes “multi-jurisdictional task force” assembled in a public parking lot in a busy, upscale neighborhood where the public had no notice of law enforcement presence.

Trial recesses until Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at which time the United States is anticipated to present additional testimony from witnesses and expert testimony. It is anticipated that the United States will rest their case-in-chief tomorrow.

Stay tuned....