HAS CHARGING COPS BECOME POLITICALLY FASHIONABLE?

NICOLE PIFARI
Attorney
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC

For nearly two years, I tried to tell San Mateo prosecutors they needed to drop the case against San Francisco Deputy Linton Martin for the so-called crime they accused him of. I told them he acted in self-defense. I told them their evidence conflicted and made no sense. They refused to listen, asserting they cannot give “special treatment” to law enforcement officers.

This is a phrase I hear a lot these days from prosecutors: “We do not give special treatment to cops.” That’s not really true. I am here to tell you that, at least here in the Bay Area, law enforcement officers do get special treatment from prosecutors — in the form of being criminally charged for things no other person would ever be charged for.

Linton Martin is a perfect example. He was working at the San Bruno jail (a San Francisco facility located within San Mateo County), moving two inmates who were handcuffed together with a single set of cuffs. Without warning, one of the inmates punched him in the head with stunning speed and force. The blow instantly created a goose-egg swelling on his head that one witness would later describe as “just like in Looney Tunes.” About 60 seconds later, as fellow deputies arrived to assist with getting the attacker into cuffs, Martin felt the inmate tense up under his hands. Martin was the only deputy who knew about and experienced the violent assault that had just transpired. Given the sudden muscle tension he felt under his hands, he knew another assault was coming, and he acted to defend himself and others.

What happened next was described differently by each of the nine people who were crammed into the hallway. Anyone with experience interviewing witnesses after a stressful event knows that minor (and sometimes major) conflicts in accounts of the event are normal, because each witness has a different focus in the moment and thus emerges with a unique memory. The DA’s Office concluded that the multiple deputies whose stories were supportive of Martin’s force must be lying, and those few who feared they might have witnessed excessive force should be believed absolutely.

The result was that Martin found himself the subject of a criminal jury trial, accused of assault under color of authority. The witnesses against him were some of his own co-workers, and the witnesses for him were some of his other co-workers.

During the trial, the San Mateo prosecutor argued that Martin acted maliciously, out of anger, punching the handcuffed inmate in the face five times. But the evidence contradicted her narrative. She was unable to explain why the inmate didn’t seem to know he was punched, had no injuries and never complained about any pain. The prosecution based its entire case on two faulty witnesses who thought they had seen Martin throw punches, even though four other deputies and the inmate himself seemed to dispute this.

Again — if my client wasn’t a cop, this wouldn’t have gone to trial.

The evidence at trial made it clear that from where one of the prosecution’s star witnesses stood in a doorway 12 feet away, with at least seven large men between him and the action, he was the person least suited to describe anything that happened that day. Neither of the prosecution’s star witnesses could explain how a man the size of Martin could possibly punch someone multiple times in the face, leave no injury and leave the inmate unaware he’d been punched at all. The criminal investigator provided no viable explanation to the jury for his failure to incorporate the inmate’s assault on the deputy as part of the equation.

The judge apparently shared in our opinion that the People’s case suffered from a lack of proof. Using a power rarely utilized, he dismissed the charges and entered a judgment of acquittal, before sending it to the jury. Although they never had a chance to officially cast their votes, it appeared that the jurors agreed, as they hugged Martin in the hallway, shook his hand and thanked him for his service.

So why in the world did San Mateo try to convict this deputy? The biggest culprit was a faulty internal “criminal” investigation spearheaded by the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. The internal investigator assigned to this case came into it with a preconceived notion of what he would find, and used repetitive, leading questions to elicit the responses he expected and sought. These methods led to very lopsided witness statements with glaring holes left by unasked questions. The IA investigator completely failed to explore the concept of self-defense and didn’t ask a single question of any witness about the violent assault that had occurred seconds earlier. None of the witness officers had counsel present to round out questioning or flesh out the missing facts.

Each time we met with prosecutors, I tried to point out these issues, but they refused to back down, telling me they “have no bargaining power” because the decision to charge my client came “straight from the top.” “The top” was the San Mateo County District Attorney — who has a reputation for being a pro-law-enforcement district attorney, and has historically been very thorough and objective when considering criminal charges against cops for excessive force. Apparently, nothing I said about a lack of evidence or Martin’s right to self-defense was ever provided to or mattered to the DA. The DA told the local newspaper, “[the inmate] hit the deputy, but we have to pick somebody to prosecute and we’ve selected the deputy sheriff…” Their best pretrial offer was for my client to plead guilty to a single count of misdemeanor assault and serve 60 days in jail.

I fear that the DA’s insistence on taking this case to trial is a troubling sign of the times. What we heard from San Mateo prosecutors has become much more prevalent in law enforcement cases: “We can’t give cops special treatment.” The trouble is, we don’t want special treatment. We just want them to be treated like anyone else — fairly.

Luckily, in the case of Linton Martin, I was able to show through aggressive cross-examination that there were conflicting stories, a complete lack of injury and a faulty, lopsided investigation, which proved to be successful. A year later, Martin’s ordeal finally came to an end as the lengthy investigation into any administrative misconduct charges concluded that the allegations were not sustained. Victory is sweet, but it doesn’t change the fact that Martin had to live through a jury trial and three years of essentially working in a closet (the control room) because the Department refused to let him have inmate contact.

I believe Deputy Martin was charged because it is currently fashionable in many counties for district attorneys to bring criminal cases against law enforcement officers. Why should elected officials expose themselves politically, when they can just defer to the results of a jury trial? Even if they lose, they retain the ability to tell the vocal minority, “I prosecute cops.” And if future DA races result in the public electing cop-hating prosecutors, I fear we are going to see a lot more of these types of prosecutions in the future. If and when those occur, PORAC LDF will be there to provide needed financial and legal support to its members, and we at RLS will be proud to serve as our clients’ ultimate backup.

About the Author
Nicole Pifari is a member of the Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Legal Defense of Peace Officers Practice Group. She represents officers in administrative investigations, disciplinary appeals, criminal investigations and prosecutions, and Brady list appeals.