Judge throws out case against police officer charged in takedown of Indian grandfather

There will not be a third trial.

Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala just threw out the case against Madison police officer Eric Parker, who faced up to 10 years in prison for excessive force in the sidewalk stop of an Indian citizen.

Judge Haikala late Wednesday filed a 92-page opinion, ending with: "The Government has had two full and fair chances to obtain a conviction; it will not have another."

A team of three federal prosecutors had twice tried Parker last year for the takedown of 57-year-old Sureshbahi Patel on the morning of Feb. 6, 2015. Both trials ended with a deadlocked jury.

At the conclusion of the second trial on Nov. 4, defense attorney Robert Tuten argued that the federal government had failed to support the civil rights charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. Tuten moved the judge to acquit Parker.

Judge Haikala had not ruled for more than two months, with both sides predicting a ruling any moment for the last few weeks. Earlier today, federal prosecutors had filed a motion arguing against acquittal, arguing that a reasonable jury could view the video and listen to testimony and decide Parker intentionally used excessive force in slamming Patel into the ground.

Parker twice testified that he lost his balance and fell. He also testified that Patel repeatedly jerked his hand away from Parker. "It concerned me that he was going for that weapon I presumed he had," testified Parker.

Patel, who had just arrived from India to help care for his grandson, testified he does not speak English and did not resist. "I did not try to run away but I did go back a couple of steps to show them my house, my house," testified Patel through an interpreter at the second trial. "They put their hands on me and I was just standing and did not move."

On the morning of Feb. 6, a neighbor had called police to complain of a "skinny black guy" who is "just kind of walking around close to the garage." Police found Patel walking along the sidewalk. But Patel could not answer questions and the confused encounter ended with Patel in an ambulance.

Dr. Cheng Tao, the neurosurgeon who operated on Patel at Huntsville Hospital, twice testified that the takedown left Patel unable to walk or grip his hands. Tao told both juries that he replaced one vertebra in Patel's neck with a metal cylinder and plate.

Parker still faces a state charge of misdemeanor assault in Limestone County.

"The result in this case is by no means satisfying. Hindsight brings clarity to a calamity," wrote Haikala in the conclusion of her opinion. "Mr. Patel's celebrated arrival in this country to begin a new life with his son was interrupted in two tragic minutes."

"If Mr. Parker or Mr. Patel could take that time back, both would surely do things differently and avoid the events that have forever changed both of their lives."

"Mr. Patel had--and has--just as much right to be free from excessive force as every citizen of this country. He is welcome here, and it is appropriate to grieve
his injury."

"However, that injury, standing alone, does not provide the basis for a
criminal judgment against Mr. Parker under 18 U.S.C. SS 242."

The judge writes that Parker is presumed innocent and that evidence offered at two trials has not eliminated reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

"Two juries have communicated as much after lengthy deliberations that produced thoughtful questions and, ultimately, deadlock. The Court has no reason to expect a different result in a subsequent trial given the totality of the evidence that the parties have provided."

The case drew international interest, drawing Indian diplomats to Madison and prompting Gov. Robert Bentley to issue a letter apologizing to Patel and to India.

Madison police quickly moved to fire Parker and had him arrested for assault, as the video played repeatedly on TV stations across the United States and India.

The office Alabama Attorney General took over the local criminal charge, which carries up to one year in jail. That case was postponed pending the outcome of the federal trial.

On March 27, U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance held a press conference to announce the indictment of Parker for deprivation of rights under color of law. She said there is a constitutional right to be free from "unreasonable force."

"Police officers are sworn to uphold the law and protect the public," said Vance that day. "The public must be able trust the police."

But the case proved divisive in court. Three Madison police officers testified that Parker acted unreasonably. The officer who pulled up as Patel hit the ground testified he observed no threat: "To me, he appeared to be in his 70s."

But a long list of training officers from Madison testified that Parker did nothing to violate department policy. Former patrol officer Lauren Poniatowski testified that she observed nothing in the video contrary to policy. Tuten asked if officers have to hesitate before using force. "No, sir," said Poniatowski, "hesitation will get an officer killed."

The first trial ended with a jury split along race and gender. Ten white males pushed to acquit and two black female jurors pushed for guilty.

The second trial saw both sides grew more divisive, as Tuten opined in his opening statements for the defense:  "When you come to the U.S. we expect you to follow our laws and speak our language. Mr. Patel bears as much responsibility for this as anyone."

And Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Posey closed with: "It's not only police lives that matter. All lives matter."

And the second trial saw dueling experts, as one police trainer from Louisiana testified the takedown was too violent: "Lumberjack, that's what it reminds me of, somebody cutting down a tree in their yard."

But defense experts got into slow motion analysis of signs of resistance, from turning the feet to clenching the fists. "It was difficult to see. It looked like maybe a head turn," said on expert for the defense, adding: "In the slow motion (video) that played you could see his feet shift." He said that is often an indicator before flight.

Call to police about Indian grandfather in Madison

But the specific federal charge required that Parker had not only deprived Patel of his right to be free from excessive force, but that he had done so willfully.

And having heard the evidence twice, having watched the video of the takedown dozens of times from two angles and at various speeds, the judge found the charge was not supported in the evidence.

"The Court does not mean to suggest that a single, split-second decision can never arise to the level of a constitutional violation so egregious that it supports a finding of intentional conduct," wrote Judge Haikala. "The record in this case simply is not strong enough to eliminate reasonable doubt."

Key excerpts from the judge's analysis and opinion:

Regarding the check subject call: "The record demonstrates that a reasonable officer in Officer Parker's position would suspect that the individual who the known caller described was involved in a burglary."

Regarding Patel, a permanent resident, not having identification: "...Mr. Patel, a resident alien, violated 8 U.S.C. SS 1304(e) when he left his son's house without identification. That is a misdemeanor crime for which Officer Parker could have arrested Mr. Patel."

Signs of resistance: "The slow motion clips from the Government's enhanced dashcam video supply objective evidence of resistance. The clips show that immediately before Officer Parker took Mr. Patel to the ground, Mr. Patel took a step to the side with his left foot and turned to face Officer Parker."

On not speaking English: "Trial testimony indicates that Mr. Patel had the opportunity to become familiar with simple English commands like 'stop' and 'come' because Mr. Patel had visited his son in Alabama twice before Mr. Patel moved to the United States, the more recent visit lasting eight months."

On Patel's credibility: "The dashcam video contradicts Mr. Patel's adamant testimony that he walked away from the officers only once and he took only two steps, evidence that is particularly damaging to Mr. Patel's credibility because the record demonstrates that counsel for the Government showed Mr. Patel the enhanced dashcam video the morning before he testified, and that video confirms that Mr. Patel walked away three times before the takedown. Mr. Patel may not have understood the questions that the interpreter was conveying to him, or Mr. Patel simply may not want to acknowledge that he walked away more than once and took more than two steps. In either case, his incredible testimony undercuts not only his assertion that he did not walk away from the police but also his testimony that he did not jerk his arms away from Officer Parker while Officer Parker tried to restrain his hands for a pat down."

On the use of force: "The takedown was based on what Mr. Patel did--he clearly walked away from officers, he clearly turned to look at Officer Parker and took a step while Officer Parker was restraining him for a pat down, and there is strong though disputed evidence that he jerked his arm as Officer Parker was trying to restrain his hands."

On two officers vs one suspect: "It logically follows that a fairly inexperienced officer, who received no training in defensive tactics since attending the police academy and who is charged with responsibility for the safety of a new officer who is not certified to act independently, might react quickly to resistance from a subject to prevent the situation from escalating into one that the young field training officer might not be able to control."

Missing evidence: "The Government's case suffered not only from substantial direct contradiction from its own witnesses and from evidence put on by the defense, but also from telling gaps in the record. For all of the Government's diligent efforts to enhance the dashcam video, the enhanced video fails to capture critical pieces of evidence. The video does not show whether Mr. Patel placed his hands in his pockets as he walked away from Officers Parker and Slaughter.... It is also impossible to see Mr. Patel's hands while Officer Parker attempted to frisk him and warned him to stop pulling away."

Parker tried to protect Patel: "Officer Parker also testified that as he began to execute the takedown, he directed his body toward the grass and away from the concrete sidewalk because he did not want Mr. Patel to hit the hard concrete. The dashcam video confirms that Officer Parker tried to direct Mr. Patel's fall to the grass rather than the sidewalk."