HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) - An Alabama police officer is going on trial Tuesday on a federal charge of using excessive force against an Indian man who was thrown down and partially paralyzed during a confrontation with the officer.

Madison police officer Eric Sloan Parker is charged with violating the civil rights of 57-year-old Sureshbhai Patel (suh-RESH'-beye pah-TEL') in February.


Patel was staying with his son in Madison and was walking in the neighborhood when police received a call about a suspicious person in the area.

Police video shows an officer talking with the man before slamming him to the ground. Patel is still recovering from injuries.

Parker says he's innocent and court records indicate the defense will present testimony to show Parker's actions were justified.

http://www.myfoxal.com/story/29929421/trial-set-for-officer-charged-with-abusing-indian-man



The old thread slipped into the archive.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1717029_Grandfather_visiting_Alabama_from_India_stopped_by_police_while_taking_walk__left_partly_paralyzed.html&light=alabama



ETA: New trial starts today Oct 26.

ETA: Hung jury and mistrial #2.

ETA: Feds are going for round 3. PG 12

ETA: Not Guilty. PG 14

ETA: April 18 2016 Page 20 Police chief found guilty of contempt of court.

ETA: Page 21 State drops charges. Can't prove the case.

Opening statements are near in the trial of an Alabama police officer accused of manhandling an Indian grandfather earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Madeline Haikala told 50 potential jurors to return to court Wednesday morning in Huntsville for final jury selection.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/news/nation-world/article33360204.html#storylink=cpy

Attorneys and a judge asked about 55 potential jurors whether they know anyone in the case. No one did.

Also, no one said they've already made up their mind about the guilt or innocence of Madison police officer Eric Parker.

http://news.yahoo.com/trial-set-officer-charged-abusing-indian-man-090705582.html

What kind of closet do you pull people out of when none of them have heard about the case?

An officers QI can be stripped by a judge.

That will come in the civil trial.

The kicker is it was dispatched as a burglary suspect not merely the generic "suspicious person" call.

Attorney: Officer's takedown unfortunate, but not criminal

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — Defense attorneys for a police officer accused of excessive force when he took down an Indian man say the encounter was an unfortunate escalation of tactics, but not criminal.

Prosecutors said during opening statements Wednesday that Patel spoke very little English and was confused by officers' orders before he was slammed to the ground. He was a grandfather who waited nine years for a visa to visit his son in Huntsville.



Parker's attorney Robert Tuten said the takedown was appropriate considering the circumstances.

http://news.yahoo.com/opening-statements-near-trial-alabama-officer-084913208.html

iirc there was some talk about it in beginning but the Chief put the squash on it because then it makes the officers case even stronger.

All depends on the call and if the caller wants to speak to an officer.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. -- A police officer didn't need to use a leg sweep to take down a 58-year-old Indian man who was partially paralyzed when he hit the ground, one of the officer's colleagues said Wednesday.

Madison officer Charles Spence testified that he drove up to the scene and saw officer Eric Parker holding the man's hands behind his back. Parker shouldn't have handcuffed Sureshbhai Patel unless he had probable cause that he was committing a crime or had been resisting officers, Spence said.

Parker's attorney Robert Tuten said officers are trained to be suspicious and must always expect the worst. The use of force was justified considering the circumstances, he said.

"It's unfortunate that Mr. Patel doesn't speak English. It's also unfortunate that Mr. Parker doesn't speak Hindi," he said.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/sep/02/alabama-police-officer-testifies-against-colleague-excessive-force-trial/323146/

The crucial evidence for the defense so far is that imaginary weapon, possibly a gun, or maybe a razor blade, or a knife, or anything that might have been tucked in the pocket of a small man reported by a neighbor for suspicious behavior.

The defense argues that when police responded to that call and found Sureshbhai Patel walking on the sidewalk in Madison that Patel was not compliant with police commands. The defense argues that Patel walked away and that he pulled away and, most importantly, that he reached for his pockets.


The takedown was unreasonable absent evidence of any kind of criminal activity, he argued. "They can't slam someone to the ground and ask questions later," Mody told the jury this morning.


Today the team of federal prosecutors put on much of its case, calling two police officers and a paramedic before ending the day with testimony from Sureshbhai Patel and his son, Chirag Patel.


The prosecutor asked if he pulled away. He said "no." Did he jerk his arms? "No, I was just stopped over there." He testified he had only a handkerchief and a betel nut in his pockets. He said he didn't understand anything that was said by the police.


Tuten asked: Did you reach into your pockets? "No, never." Did you pull your arms away? "No, not at all." Did you turn around when they frisked you? "No." Why would a police officer not want you to put your hands in your pockets? "What?"


As for the takedown, Spence testified that he did not see Patel reach for his pockets nor pull away. "I could not see if Mr. Patel was pulling away or if Officer Parker was positioning his hands."

"He appeared to hit the ground hard," Spence told the prosecutor when asked. Spence testified that he walked up, picked up Patel's shoe and put it back on his foot. He said Patel was drooling and his nose was bleeding.

Posey asked if Spence at any time saw any threat to Parker's safety? "No, sir, I did not."

But Spence also testified that the "front leg sweep" employed by Parker was a "standard takedown" taught at the police academy.

"We're trained to take people down safely for officer safety," said Spence.

"What about for people safety?" asked Posey.

"I can't testify to that," said Spence.


The defense asked Spence about criminal activity in Madison. Spence acknowledged that suspicious person calls can sometimes lead to arrests for outstanding warrants or ongoing crimes. He also testified burglaries are not uncommon in the daytime when people are at work.

Tuten also asked about Madison police policy, which does not require an officer to see a weapon or sustain an injury before taking action.

"Would a suspicious person walking away from an officer be a potentially dangerous situation?" asked Tuten. Spence said potentially.


The federal prosecutors also called Sgt. Clint Harrell, who was a corporal at the time and Parker's direct supervisor.

Harrell said Parker did not acknowledge performing a leg sweep until he watched the video later. Harrell also said he ordered Parker to revise his report on the incident to add more details. But when asked, Harrell said his own report was rejected by department officers and he was told to include fewer details.

Harell testified that an officer requires reasonable suspicion that a crime took place or is about to occur in order to put hands on a suspect. He said he was concerned when he found no evidence of a crime committed by Patel.


Federal prosecutors pushed the notion that a law-abiding citizen need not talk to police if they didn't want to and could just walk on. Harrell agreed. Although, when asked the same thing by the defense, Harrell said that it would depend on several circumstances.

Tuten asked if Parker was "basically a rookie" after about two years on the job. Harrell acknowledged that Parker was young and learning.



The case is scheduled to resume tomorrow at 9 a.m. with testimony from the neurosurgeon who treated Patel and two more government witnesses. The defense will begin to present its side later tomorrow.

Earlier in the day, Tuten laid out what to expect.

"Unfortunately, Mr. Patel, either because he didn't understand English or whatever reason, was not compliant," said Tuten, saying police have rules meant to keep them safe: "They don't let people reach in their pockets."

"If he had just complied, none of this would have happened," Tuten told the jury during opening statements. "It was unfortunate, yes, but it was also reasonable and it was not a crime."

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/feds_argue_cop_had_no_reason_t.html#incart_river

Way more info at the link.

"How was Officer Parker supposed to know when we was dispatched to that scene that this was a grandfather out for a walk?" Tuten asked the jury.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/09/defense_for_madison_police_off.html#incart_river

A second article with less info than the other one.




No mention yet of the actual 911 call and what was actually dispatched.