Plain Old Justice

Which White Cops Attacked Black Officer?

By K. W. Locke

    On September 15, 2017, a St. Louis judge found former police officer Jason Stockley not guilty of murdering Anthony Lamar Smith.  Stockley, who is white, had shot and killed the black man while pursuing him to make an arrest.

    The acquittal prompted large protests.  On September 17, St. Louis police officer Luther Hall attended a protest while working undercover, posing as a demonstrator.  Hall is black.

    The police department sent in other officers, in full gear, to control the crowd.  At least some of these cops were spoiling for a fight.  One of them texted others that "It's going to be a lot of fun beating the shit out of these shitheads."

    Some of the white cops in riot gear did not know that Hall also was an officer.  They rushed him.  Even though he offered no resistance, and told them he was an officer, they beat him severely, causing damage to his spine, jaw and lip.

   The FBI investigated, resulting in federal charges against five officers.  One of them pleaded guilty to lying to a grand jury.

    Another, Randy Hays, pleaded guilty.  During the trial of the other 3 cops, Hays was a key witness for the prosecution.

    Against at least two of the three officers, federal prosecutors presented what sounds like a pretty strong case.  Hays testified that he saw one of these cops, Steven Korte, kick Hall.

    Hayes also testified that he saw another of the defendants, Christopher Myers, nearby, but did not see Myers hit Hall.  However, another witness, an FBI agent who had been a St. Louis police officer in 2017, told the jury that he had seen Myers hitting and kicking Hall.
    
        Hall himself had taken a cellphone video.  Although it didn't show the officers engaged in the assault itself - which would have been difficult for Hall to record, considering that he was being hit and kicked - the video did capture moments leading up to the attack.  It includes the face of an officer in a riot helmet, whom the prosecution argued was Myers.

    Recently, a jury acquitted Korte completely, both of the charge of depriving Hall of his federal civil rights, and of a charge that he lied to a grand jury.   The jury also acquitted Myers of the charge that he deprived Hall of his civil rights.  However, it could not reach a verdict on the charge that he tried to destroy evidence by damaging Hall's cellphone.

    The third defendant was Dustin Boone, the cop who had texted that it was going to be fun "beating the shit out of these shitheads."  He had been charged with depriving Hall of his civil rights and with aiding and abetting the commission of a crime.

    The jury could not reach a verdict on either of these counts, resulting in a mistrial.  So, Boone may face trial again on both charges, and Myers may face a new trial on the destruction of evidence charge.

    Korte is absolutely free.  He also remains on the St. Louis police force, and possibly may seek a return to active duty.

    Eleven of the 12 jurors are white.  Did racial prejudice affect the jury's decision?

    My initial reaction was yes, there had to be prejudice.  Then, I realized that my opinion was worthless.  I didn't attend the trial, and all my information about it came second-hand, from a few news articles.

    Even  if  I had read a verbatim transcript of the trial, I would not be justified in second-guessing the jurors, who saw the witnesses as they testified and heard their voices.  They obviously did not put a lot of stock in the testimony of former police officer Randy Hays, who said he saw Korte hit Hall.

    But why didn't they?  Was it the way Hays answered questions on cross-examination?  Did something about his body language contradict his words?  I wasn't there and don't know.

    However, it would be plausible for the jurors to harbor a reasonable doubt, even about eyewitness identification.  It was dark on the night of the attack and the attackers wore riot helmets.

     When taken seriously,  requiring the defendant's guilt to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" sets a high standard for conviction.   But the word "reasonable" allows a lot of wiggle room.  A juror might not even realize that the race of a defendant could affect what he considered "reasonable."

     For instance, this blog has reported on cases where a jury convicts an innocent man, who happens to be black and poor, even in the face of significant evidence pointing to his innocence.  How else can such a dereliction be explained except as a result of racial prejudice?

    What amounts to "beyond a reasonable doubt" should not depend on the color of the defendant's skin.

     Why do we keep forgetting?