How Rule 609 Steals Justice from Police Brutality Survivors

[SummerMadness]

How Rule 609 Steals Justice from Police Brutality Survivors

Police violence survivors and their families encounter significant hurdles while pursuing justice that often does’t come. A new investigative report, published by Vice News* yesterday (October 30), explores a legal rule—the so-called “Rule 609”—that can help violent police officers avoid punishment while demonizing their accusers.

Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute says that Rule 609 allows attorneys to discredit a complainant’s testimony by bringing up their criminal record. Vice News notes that while most federal complaints against police officers for excessive force don’t go to trial, rules like 609 allow those that do to usually end in law enforcement’s favor.

The report focuses primarily on Latasha Cure, a Black woman who sued the Miami-Dade Police Department after two officers fired 27 bullets at her friend’s car in 2009. The friend and her boyfriend died from their wounds, with Cure suffering a bullet in her leg. It took seven years for the case to go to trial, at which time the officers’ attorney repeatedly brought up prior convictions that were unrelated to the shooting:

The jury was allowed to hear in great detail about all four of her convictions, for bank fraud and grand theft. Not so for the officers’ disciplinary records, which the judge refused to allow into evidence—one officer, Ryan Robinson, had a disciplinary file that included two off-duty DUIcar crashes in April 2014. In one crash, he injured two girls in a supermarket parking lot.​

​

I think it's quite simple, if you're going to allow the smearing of victims based on their past actions, then you should certainly allow the disciplinary record to be part of the case.

 

[Dave-W]

If they cannot bring up a rape victim's past sexual history, they should not be allowed to bring up prior legal trouble in this case either.

 

[LoAmmi]

If they cannot bring up a rape victim's past sexual history, they should not be allowed to bring up prior legal trouble in this case either.

Agreed. It reminds me of an instance where a person was on trial and it came out that he had abused a dog in his 20s. That was allowed as evidence and the defense attorney later commented that he knew the case was lost as soon as jurors heard that the man had once abused a dog.

 

[SummerMadness]

Agreed. It reminds me of an instance where a person was on trial and it came out that he had abused a dog in his 20s. That was allowed as evidence and the defense attorney later commented that he knew the case was lost as soon as jurors heard that the man had once abused a dog.

Right, unless the case involves animal cruelty, then it should not be allowed in as evidence. The news report mentions one officer had a DUI, which I would consider to be off limits; disciplinary action involving officer conduct with suspects, sure, but if you got in trouble for something unrelated to the crime, it should not be included.

 

[LoAmmi]

Right, unless the case involves animal cruelty, then it should not be allowed in as evidence. The news report mentions one officer had a DUI, which I would consider to be off limits; disciplinary action involving officer conduct with suspects, sure, but if you got in trouble for something unrelated to the crime, it should not be included.

Yeah, I think a past history with the current offense could be fair game because it may establish a pattern. But random other things? No.

 

[Freodin]

I have heard about this approach that is used in the US judicial system: "everything you say can be used against you in court". As well as everything else that gets dug up from your past. Prosecutors don't want to serve justice... they want to win. So they bring up the negatives and ignore anything else. (To be fair, defenders do the same, for the same reason.)

But in this case...
... to throw dirt at the accusers, and prohibit the same kind of dirt to be brough up against the accused? And that as a standing judicial rule?

Could you imagine this happening at a "regular" trial?

"Well, the man who claims that my client beat him brutally and stole his wallet has an unpaid parking ticket from ten years back and was once convicted of faredodging as a teenager. My clients 3ß pages of criminal records? Irrelevant, totally irrelevant!"

But of course if it is a police officer... yeah, then it is indeed irrelevant.


They don't even try anymore to pretent they serve justice...

 

[MoonlessNight]

Prosecutors don't want to serve justice... they want to win. So they bring up the negatives and ignore anything else. (To be fair, defenders do the same, for the same reason.)

And thus the central idea behind the adversarial system is explained.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How Rule 609 Steals Justice from Police Brutality Survivors

​

I think it's quite simple, if you're going to allow the smearing of victims based on their past actions, then you should certainly allow the disciplinary record to be part of the case.

That's not quite the same thing.

 

[Ringo84]

It's still a bit early in the holiday season, but:

"Pray for peace, people everywhere".
Ringo

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll clarify my earlier post...

A cop's disciplinary record and a citizen's criminal record are not the same thing...and it would be wrong for the court to treat them as such. It would be like a civil case where you accuse someone of owing you 100$ and not paying you back. Your lawyer attacks the other party's character and brings up their multiple convictions of fraud (relevant) and in attempt to smear your character, he brings up the week you left work early and got disciplined for it (irrelevant).

The problem with a lot of police brutality cases is a lack of evidence...not this rule which the article claims is nefarious for some reason. A case of police brutality should stand on its own...if there's no witnesses, no physical evidence, no video or audio evidence...then it's basically the person claiming assault against the cop. Attempts to bring up disciplinary records are shoddy attempts at smearing a cop's character...never mind that the media does this all on its own in the court of public opinion.

I think people would be astounded at the number of criminals who claim police brutality hoping that the mere suggestion of impropriety will earn them their freedom. I can only guess...but I'd say there's probably hundreds upon hundreds of false claims for every one that has any merit.

 

[Freodin]

So you don't think that it might be relevant for a case of police brutality if the cop in question has been disciplined for brutality before? Or a general disregard for the rules?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you don't think that it might be relevant for a case of police brutality if the cop in question has been disciplined for brutality before? Or a general disregard for the rules?

Disciplined for brutality before? Something tells me that won't be on a cop's file. That's a crime, not a disciplinary measure, so it's a bit like the police department saying "Hey, we caught you drug dealing/taking bribes/murdering that poor man...we're gonna give you 20 days off! Make sure you don't do it again mister!". It would open them up to all kinds of lawsuits. I dunno, perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt you'd see it in there.

Secondly, in a criminal trial, the prosecution can only offer character evidence (which is what bringing up the defendant's criminal history is) if the defendant has brought up character evidence themselves. I find it pretty unlikely that the lawyer for the case in the OP had no idea about this...or the rule regarding the cop's disciplinary record...so why do you think he'd choose to make the trial about this "unfair" rule? My guess is he realized the police brutality angle was pretty weak.

The justice system has a lot of real problems...problems that deserve attention. This isn't one of them. Vice news is typically slanted to the left of the left. I'd call them the Breitbart of the liberal media if I didn't already call Huffington Post that.