Albuquerque, N.M. - This past week, a jury awarded victory to the Albuquerque Police Department in the excessive force claim brought by Chandler Barr following a 2010 downtown shooting. An eight-person jury deliberated for a little over one hour before returning the verdict that Officer Leah Kelly was not liable in the shooting of the then 19-year-old Barr in a dramatic encounter at a busy intersection.
On September 14, 2010, Mr. Barr was walking around downtown Albuquerque brandishing a knife and slashing his wrist and arm, while warning unarmed security officers to stay away. Officer Kelly responded to a 911 call to the scene. Almost immediately after she exited her police car and ordered him to drop his knife, Mr. Barr changed directions and quickly walked toward Officer Kelly, ignoring her orders to stop. Officer Kelly shot and wounded Mr. Barr, who then filed suit for excessive use of force.
Mr. Barr had been discharged from a psychiatric emergency room that morning. He had a history of multiple psychiatric admissions. He also has an established history of violence, lashing out, and outlandish destructive behavior when attempting to get his needs met.
Albuquerque has been the scene of several police shooting incidents. These have risen sharply, and perhaps not without coincidence, after a 2005 incident in which a man with longstanding psychiatric problems executed Officer Michael King and Officer Richard Smith when they responded to a psychiatrist’s call to bring the man in for mental health evaluation, unaware that he had already killed three in a shooting spree.
The Department of Justice initiated a civil rights investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department in connections with these incidents, and in April 2014 issued a report, introduced in a highly publicized press conference, that asserted, “APD engages in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including deadly force” and cited “structural and systemic deficiencies” in the police department’s oversight, training, and policies as contributory factors. The regional news media, civil rights authorities, those interested in capitalizing on minority sensitivities in the November elections, and aggressive news media joined to cultivate a deeply negative and resentful feeling toward the Department.
The City of Albuquerque and counsel Stephanie Griffin consulted The Forensic Panel to assess Mr. Barr’s history, assess the triggers and motivations of his behavior, to evaluate the existing police procedure and to advise the Department about any shortcomings in its officer training in crisis management, and Officer Kelly’s use of force rather than less lethal means. The Panel has consulted on a number of police shooting cases addressing these and other psychiatric questions, as well as in responding to inquiries requiring reconstruction of movements and mechanisms of injury using its forensic pathology, radiology, and critical care medicine specialists.
Forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., The Forensic Panel’s Chairman, was the lead examiner. The case bore special interest to the practice because of its heavy involvement in Congressional legislation to upgrade crisis psychiatry, including how law enforcement deals with those in a mental health crisis.
Albuquerque had recently lost a civil case involving excessive use of force. And the intensity of national publicity and the ire of the Department of Justice hung over the prospect of a trial. Ultimately, however, Dr. Welner concluded that Mr. Barr was manipulating the situation as he had in other instances of dangerous behavior and would be otherwise undeterred from a violent confrontation had Officer Kelly not fired upon him. Dr. Welner worked with Ms. Griffin on identifying further source materials and in preparing for the deposition of both plaintiff and defense witnesses at trial.
Despite the psychiatric merits of the Police Department’s case, Ms. Griffin knew she was confronting a hostile jury climate created in large part by the vehemence with which the Department of Justice publicly impugned the Albuquerque P.D. In voir dire, Ms. Griffin found that many of her prospective jurors, including those eventually empaneled, had actually read the DOJ report. She hoped they could just look at the facts of the case, and get past the harshness of the DOJ report. But there was little way of guaranteeing who was irretrievably biased. The trial courtroom gallery also featured an array of plaintiffs and their attorneys waiting to capitalize in turn.
But after the case was presented and the facts laid out, the jury sided with the City of Albuquerque. After only one hour of deliberations.
“We ultimately came to very much believe in the merit of the case and put the reputation of this practice behind it, and behind Officer Kelly’s efforts to do the right thing,” observed Dr. Welner. “And what is especially admirable about Attorney Griffin and the City of Albuquerque is that they decided they were willing to risk a fight at trial because they were in the right, even as they knew the adverse climate could create a trial they regretted. They had everything to lose. Stephanie Griffin was unafraid, set an example for how you have to be unafraid if the facts support you. Here, the City of Albuquerque supported its finest. May this be a turning point to return the Department to collaborative and constructive graces with the people of beautiful Albuquerque.”
