Ninth Circuit Grants New Trial After Jury Clears LAPD Officers Who Tased Alex Aguilar 5 Times & Punched Him 3 Times
As the trial of Derek Chauvin in connection with the death of George Floyd began today, the trial related to the death of Alex Aguilar, Jr. is set to start again.
In an opinion issued on Friday, the Ninth Circuit laid out the facts of the Aguilar case:
On June 9, 2016, Alex Aguilar was arrested by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), including Officers Matthew Medina and Sergio Melero, for a nonviolent misdemeanor. At the police station, Aguilar attempted to swallow a bindle of heroin. Then, within one minute, Medina tased Aguilar five times and Melero punched Aguilar three times in the cheek. Aguilar struggled to breathe and lost consciousness. He died soon after.
The LAPD conducted an in-custody death investigation. The majority of the LAPD Use of Force Review Board recommended finding that the use of force was consistent with LAPD policy, but a minority opinion recommended finding that Medina’s taser use violated LAPD policy. The LAPD Chief of Police recommended that the Department endorse the minority position because “an officer with similar training and experience as Officer Medina would not reasonably believe Aguilar’s actions were violent or posed an immediate threat to himself or others at the time Officer Medina applied the TASER to Aguilar’s back.” The Chief recommended finding that the taser use was not “objectively reasonable” and was therefore “Out of Policy.” The Board of Police Commissioners, LAPD’s governing body, unanimously agreed with the Chief’s recommendations.
Aguilar’s family subsequently brought a lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, Medina, Melero, and other officers allegedly involved in the incident. Over objection, however, the district court deemed the LAPD findings inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, which states that
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
- negligence;
- culpable conduct;
- a defect in a product or its design; or
- a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that
Examples of remedial measures include “subsequent repairs, installation of safety devices, changes in company rules, and discharge of employees.” Fed. R. Evid. 407 advisory committee’s note. For instance, in Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1986), this Court affirmed the district court’s determination that a “disciplinary proceeding [against a police officer] constituted a remedial measure.”…
Here, by contrast, the LAPD conducted an in-custody death investigation, not a disciplinary proceeding. If the LAPD Findings had prompted disciplinary action, policy changes, or the like, then evidence of those subsequent remedial actions would have been inadmissible to prove culpable conduct. But the LAPD Findings themselves were retrospective, not remedial; they assessed what happened and whether the officers’ actions were consistent with LAPD policy, without meting out discipline or changing LAPD policy. Therefore, the trial court’s holding that Rule 407 compelled exclusion of the LAPD Findings was legal error.
The Ninth Circuit then granted a new trial based on this and other evidentiary issues, concluding that
If the jury had known…that the LAPD itself viewed Medina’s conduct as a violation of LAPD policy, then that likely would have altered the jury’s assessment regarding whether a reasonable officer in Medina’s shoes would have tased Aguilar five times. Because we cannot conclude that the jury’s verdict is more probably than not untainted by the erroneous exclusion of the LAPD Findings, we must vacate and remand for a new trial.
-CM