It is often difficult to get actual charges against a police officer, but former St. Louis Officer Rory Bruce, 35, was an exception. After all, it was a police video that clearly showed him verbally abusing a teenager and then sucker punching him while handcuffed. One would think it would be an easy conviction, even without the testimony of the 16-year-old boy. That is if the judge watched the video. She did not. Judge Teresa Counts Burke showed no reason to actually watch the video before ruling and now the police union is demanding that the department rehire Bruce.
One the video from 2012, Bruce is shown on the left as he pulls the teenager out of the police van with the words “Stand out here with us…you lying piece of shit.” There are words and then a punch from Bruce decks the kids.
The police union appears to have watched a different video. Jeff Roorda with the St. Louis Police Officer’s Association insists that he can see the suspect moving in a threatening manner and Bruce defending himself: “It’s one forearm blow as he’s trained to do.” Bruce later on the video says “I told you I wanted to search you and you came out of the thing and started lunging at me.” There is no lunging that I can see on the video.
The police fired Bruce on the basis of the video and the prosecutors brought charges. However, Burke declined to watch the video. I am not sure why. Clearly it is a problem with no testifying victim but that does not rule out a charge or a conviction. If there is no witness to a bank robbery but a bank video, a judge would not simply refuse the evidence and acquit. There are various ways to authenticate a video that is taken by a police camera. If the prosecutors failed to authenticate, it is not referenced in articles but such a failure would itself be quite suspicious.
Roorda praises the judge for not watching the video which is describes as a “gotcha-head hunter” tool for cops. He inexplicably states, according to the article below, that such video should only be used to protest officials. Thus, it would seem that the video can only be used as a defense of officers in abuse cases and not as evidence against them. That would seem a bizarre claim but it appears close to what happened in this case.
Now that Burke cleared the officer, Roorda wants him rehired.
By the way, Burke’s partner David Wilson, 28, is also under investigation for striking another teenager in his custody. Both were probationary officers.
Source: Kmov
I was the person who authenticated the videotape or photos I shot as evidence obtained during surveillance. It’s pretty boilerplate. The video is marked as evidence and I’m asked if this is the video/dvd I shot of the plaintiff. I’m then asked if it was always in my custody. I’m asked if the video/photos truly and accurately depicts what I saw and shot. I’m then asked if it was edited. In almost all cases it was edited. I would shoot hours of footage on plaintiffs. I found the best amount of video to show a jury is ~23 minutes, the length of a sitcom sans commercials. I would then be given my unedited footage and asked the same questions regarding chain of custody. Then they’re admitted as evidence. It’s quite routine. The police dept. has to have persons designated as record keepers who could testify and authenticate.
The underlying concept that documentary evidence must be authenticated is a basic one in our legal system. The specifics are generally governed by statute which establish the technical requirements which must be met before a particular document can be admitted. A judge, acting properly, is not engaging in sophistry. Rather, such a judge requires all the parties to abide by the applicable statutes. There may be an argument for amending the applicable statutes in connection with certain types of documents–over the years many such laws have been amended to make the process less burdensome and costly. However, I would condemn a judge who chose to ignore the rules in order to convict any defendant–whether a police officer charged with excessive force, Julian Assange, or Martin Luther King, Jr.
There’s no much you can do to punish the police in a Police State, which is where we about to go and already are in many cases. However, the person in handcuff certainly has cause for filing a civil lawsuit on the basis of various injuries.
There should be a mass emptying of police stations like a septic tank is emptied.
G.Mason: A judge can compel a witness to testify or face contempt charges. However, a judge who tries to compel a witness to testify in a certain way makes a mockery of his position. My big problem with the reaction to the judge in this story is that people want her to make decisions to facilitate a desired outcome. However, as the trier of fact the judge is required to determine what the outcome will be after considering all the admitted evidence. Her job is not to browbeat witnesses into giving what she might believe is truthful testimony–it is to disregard testimony she believes is untruthful in coming to her decision. Even if she disregarded the second officer’s testimony as lacking credibility, the original problem remains. There was no witness testimony authenticating the recording so as to permit her to consider its contents.
lottakatz: I think the wealthy/powerful are always in a better position to utilize procedures or resources. I don’t see any way of eliminating that disparity in the legal system any more than in any other institution. However, I will always respect a judge who enforces the rules of evidence equally regardless of the identity of the accused or the nature of the charges more than one who does not.
So the judge cannot compel proper testimony from a witness?
If witness testimony is false then that is perjury as well. He should be tried for such.
blhlls: “One problem is that the availability of recordings has been created by advances in technology which also increase the potential that recordings will be falsified or edited in imperceptible ways.”
While that is very probably true, and call me cynical, I suspect that concern will act in the favor of the powerful, not the powerless/citizen.
“When Fowler viewed the footage, he testified it differed from his recollection of events”
Yea, who ya’ gonna’ believe, me or your lying eyes?
There are two justice systems in St. Louis and there always have been.
Authentication requirements apply to any document that a party seeks to have admitted into evidence. The laws vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to the specific technical requirements. There have always been cases in which relevant evidence was excluded due to an inability to meet authentication requirements. Many years ago, getting a photocopy of a document into evidence was fraught with problems even if there was no dispute that it was an accurate copy. Revisions to applicable law have almost eliminated that issue, though an unwary practitioner can still be caught short. As recordings become more and more available as evidence, we may see similar changes. One problem is that the availability of recordings has been created by advances in technology which also increase the potential that recordings will be falsified or edited in imperceptible ways.
So all it takes is an “I don’t remember it that way” and the two officers who were involved are home free? What about the other officer who appears later in the video does he also have convenient memory issues?
Why does the prosecution have to authenticate a police video?
According to the St-Louis Dispatch’s website (the Fowler mentioned is the other cop) The Burke ruling on not authenticating seems ridiculous to me… why would Fowler agree to authenticate a video of he and his partner possibly committing wrongdoing? That’s all it takes to get clear evidence tossed out?? geez… :
——–
“But the video never made it into evidence because the law required prosecutors to authenticate it with someone who had personal knowledge of the events. Bruce refused to testify against himself, on the same constitutional grounds as the teen.
That left Fowler, who claimed the same but was forced to testify after prosecutors granted him immunity from charges and obtained a last minute order from another judge.
When Fowler viewed the footage, he testified it differed from his recollection of events. Burke ruled he thus couldn’t authenticate it. That left only the testimony of a few police employees, who couldn’t say much because of hearsay rules.
The decision on the video brought the complicated case to an abrupt end. “Not guilty,” announced Burke.”
———-
From information at another site (Ex-cop law student commenting at Carlos Miller’s Photography is not a Crime), it appears the officer’s partner was given immunity and the prosecutor expected him to provide the testimony to authenticate the recording. While we all know we may need to have alternate ways of authenticating necessary evidence in case a witness goes sideways, I don’t know any experienced trial attorney who hasn’t been caught off guard at least once. If you’re lucky, the trial goes on long enough that you can obtain another witness to cure the deficiency. This trial (a misdemeanor before a judge) was probably very short.
How do you lunge at someone when you are facing the opposite direction?
If the judge was right in refusing to watch the tape b/c the prosecutor didn’t provide authentication, then the bricks should be thrown at the prosecutor.
I’m shocked, apparently they didn’t charge the kid for assaulting the officer
From the good judge’s official bio, “… an ex officio board member of Lawyers for Kids”. Har-dee-har-har.
Use of videos to protect the officers only. Sadly that would fit in with all the other abuses we see by police and court officers.
My nephew (30) was writing me he could not believe when I told him about 2 court cases I had, one in small claims, one in common pleas where perjury was proven against the defendant and yet the judge ruled in defendant;s behavior and the proof against them be damned. He thought, as I used to, that recourse in the courts was where the blindfold remained on so that justice was done based on proof. How sad this is becoming less and less so.
disgusting justice my ass!
Robinh: There is a very big difference between the two judges. In the one referenced in this post, the judge properly refused to view and consider inadmissible evidence as she was legally required to. In the other case you reference, the judge refused to respond to a report that her court officer had just removed a litigant and assaulted her before returning her to the courtroom. That judge had both the authority and an obligation to take action in connection with that report.
blhlls I find if absurd that a tape in police custody cannot be trusted to be not falsified, even when it implicates the cops acting illegally, against police interest. This is sophistry taken to an extreme. You gotta be kidding me. In that case, NO evidence that police have can be trusted to be accurate.
Gene, Interesting fact about the cast, didn’t know that. When the show first aired there was some blowback from former POW’s, saying it wasn’t an appropriate topic for a comedy. Bob Crane was a disc jockey @ our local AM station WBIS, in Bristol, Ct. Did you ever see the flick, Auto Focus? It’s pretty creepy but I liked it. Crane was a real sex addict. Kinnear did a good job, but Willem Defoe was superb as his enabling “friend.” I still believe he killed Crane, although he was acquitted. You’re right about a remake, putting together an ensemble cast like that is unlikely.