The Complications of Justification in the Sean Bell Trial
posted by Elaine Chiu
Tomorrow a judge will deliver his verdict in the most watched criminal trial of 2008 in New York City thus far. Three police officers are on trial for manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment for killing Sean Bell in a botched up undercover operation at a night club in Queens. The crux of the defense strategy is a justification defense. Were the defendants justified in using deadly force in their jobs as law enforcement officers? The prosecutor has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no such justification in order to secure guilty convictions.
This is a complicated decision for the judge. Fifty bullets were fired from the guns of the police officers that night and the evidence in the trial has described a plethora of different emotions. In their grand jury testimony, the officers expressed how they felt fear, shock, anxiety, and panic when they confronted Mr. Bell and his friends outside the night club and when Mr. Bell drove his car twice into their unmarked police van. They also testified that they believed that at least one of the occupants of Mr. Bell’s car was armed with a gun and thus, were scared for their own lives when they began shooting at Mr. Bell and his friends.
The State’s version of the events is somewhat similar but of course also different. Undermining the emotions expressed in the defense strategy, the prosecutor explained that the police officers were primarily angry and that their anger is what drove them to shoot repeatedly at Mr. Bell and his friends. The implication of this argument is that angry police officers are not in fear for their lives and that anger precludes justification but neither is true. It is entirely possible to be angry while also justified in using deadly force. While fear and shock may be more sympathetic emotions, a justification defense does not require them. As the prosecutor said in his closing argument, the truth about the emotions lies somewhere between the defense case and the State’s case. The formal doctrine of the criminal law though does not mandate any particular emotions; it is only concerned with the reasonable use of deadly force.
Complicating the defense strategy further in the Sean Bell trial are the number of shots fired and the passage of time. Not surprisingly, the police officers recollect that everything happened very fast, and that the shooting was almost over as soon as it began. Their perception of the passage of time is likely related to their emotional states at the time. Yet, as the prosecutors have made clear, the justification defense does not cover all fifty shots en masse, but rather law enforcement agents have an obligation to stop using deadly force as soon as their reasons for doing so dissipate. In other words, each shot has to be justified. In the heat of the moment though it is rather clear that the police officers did not reassess their need to use deadly force after each shot. Indeed, Officer Oliver who shot 31 times admits that he did not reassess until he ran out of ammunition and only reassessed at that moment because he had no other choice but to do so.
So what really happened here? Perhaps the police officers were justified in their initial shots but what about the later shots? A more complicated story emerges. Instead of only the reasonable use of deadly force, it is possible that panic and shock and reflex also played a part. I blogged on this point last year at PrawfsBlawg. Unfortunately, the doctrine and practice of criminal law rejected more nuanced understandings of defendants and more appropriate defense strategies that combine both justification and excuse.
April 24, 2008 at 2:24 am
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
Leave a Reply