This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Assault and Battery
Police Misconduct

Emmanuel Bracy v. City of Los Angeles, Detective Carl Worrell, Detective Donald Walthers, Detective Richard Guzman, Detective Randy Rico, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: Jan. 28, 2017 | Result Date: Dec. 19, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:13-cv-09350-JC Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Brian T. Dunn
(The Cochran Firm)

Jamon R. Hicks
(Douglas Hicks Law APC)

Megan R. Gyongyos
(Cochran Firm )


Defendant

Allen Christiansen
(Ferguson, Praet & Sherman APC)

Cory M. Brente
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)

Peter J. Ferguson
(Ferguson, Praet & Sherman APC)

Kelly N. Kades
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)


Experts

Defendant

Samuel Marullo
(technical)

Harry A. Markel
(technical)

Facts

Emmanuel Bracy sued the City of Los Angeles and Detectives Carl Worrell, Donald Walthers, Richard Guzman, and Randy Rico, in connection with an officer-involved shooting that allegedly occurred on June 24, 2010, at around 11:30 in the morning in Pacoima.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The detectives allegedly confronted plaintiff as he sat inside his vehicle. The detectives yelled at plaintiff to put his hands up. Believing he was being robbed, plaintiff complied. Then, without warning, the detectives proceeded to shoot at plaintiff. The whole time, plaintiff had his hands raised. Plaintiff contended that he was no threat to the detectives and that the detectives' conduct violated his civil rights.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that plaintiff had committed an armed robbery of the Check N' Go, a check cashing store in San Fernando. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, he was under surveillance by members of the LAPD's Special Investigation Section, who were investigating a series of armed robberies of check cashing stores in the San Fernando Valley.

When the detectives confronted the plaintiff, he began to point a handgun in their direction and an officer involved shooting occurred. The defendant detectives contended that their use of deadly force was lawful, as they reasonably believed that plaintiff presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or their fellow detectives.

Result

The jury rendered a unanimous defense verdict.


#124756

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390