logo
Officer who used excessive force allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor after felony conviction

Officer who used excessive force allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor after felony conviction

Washington Post19 hours ago

LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles sheriff's deputy will serve four months in prison on a misdemeanor conviction for using excessive force after the new Trump-appointed U.S. attorney offered an unusual plea deal despite a jury convicting him of a felony.
The victim's attorney asked a federal appeals court to reinstate the felony conviction, but the court declined to do so on Thursday.
Deputy Trevor Kirk was recorded tackling and pepper-spraying an older woman while she filmed a man being handcuffed outside a supermarket in June 2023. A federal jury in February found Kirk guilty of one felony count of deprivation of rights under color of law, a crime that carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years. Felony convictions also prevent law enforcement officials from continuing to serve or owning a gun.
But when U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli took office a few months later, federal prosecutors offered Kirk a plea deal — a dismissal of the felony if Kirk pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, and a recommendation of one year of probation. A judge agreed to the lessened charge but sentenced Kirk to four months in prison on Monday.
Essayli said in a video posted online that prosecutors also offered Kirk a misdemeanor plea agreement under the prior administration, which he turned down.
'After reviewing this case extensively and thoroughly and carefully reviewing the facts and the law, I made the decision to re-extend the misdemeanor plea agreement to Deputy Kirk,' Essayli said.
In court filings signed off by Essayli, prosecutors wrote they believed that Kirk's actions fell on the lower end of the excessive force spectrum, the woman did not suffer 'serious bodily injury,' and that the case was prosecuted improperly.
Some former prosecutors and police conviction experts called the step highly unusual, especially without any indication of prosecutorial misconduct, ethical violations or new evidence in the case. It follows President Donald Trump's vow to 'protect and defend' law enforcement officers from prosecution and his efforts to assert greater control over the U.S. Justice Department.
'It's very unusual to offer a plea deal after a conviction,' said Jeffrey Bellin, a former federal prosecutor from Washington, D.C., who is now a law professor at William and Mary Law School. In cases where it could happen, there's usually new evidence of innocence, 'not just the same evidence from a different perspective,' he said.
Kirk's attorney, Tom Yu, said they filed a motion for acquittal that was denied but planned to appeal the decision.
Caree Harper, who represents the woman Kirk injured, said in court filings that the federal government changed its account of the incident to make Kirk's actions seem justified.
In the original indictment, prosecutors wrote Kirk 'violently' threw the woman to the ground. In the new plea agreement, the government alleged the woman 'swatted' at Kirk and 'resisted,' Harper wrote, which she said was not proven in the criminal trial nor testified to in civil litigation.
She said her client did not commit a crime, had no weapon, and did not try to flee or resist. She suffered from a black eye, a fractured bone in her right wrist, multiple bruises, scratches and significant chemical burning from the pepper-spray.
Harper said the plea agreement sent a 'dangerous message' that law enforcement officials could be convicted of a felony and still 'cut a backroom deal after the trial.'
Philip Stinson, a former police officer and attorney who studies police misconduct, said the plea deal offered to Kirk was 'seemingly without precedent' in federal court cases prosecuting police officers for their on-duty crimes, according to his search of an internal database of more than 24,000 arrest cases in the last 20 years involving sworn law enforcement officers.
LA County Sheriff's Department spokesperson Nicole Nishida said Kirk will remain employed with the agency but relieved from duty while it conducts an internal investigation to determine if any policy or procedures were violated.
Kirk's case is the latest showing the Trump administration's plan to take a lighter hand in the federal government's traditional role in prosecuting police misconduct. Trump's April executive order on policing promised the 'unleashing' of law enforcement and support for their legal defense.
The Justice Department announced in May it was canceling proposed consent decrees reached with Minneapolis and Louisville to implement policing reforms in the wake of the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. The department also announced it would retract its findings in six other sweeping investigations into police departments that the Biden administration had accused of civil rights violations.
Trump-appointed federal judges have also played a hand in dismissing cases against police officers, including murder charges against a former Atlanta police officer who shot and killed an unarmed man hiding in a closet in 2019.
Experts say the reliance on the federal government to perform this policing oversight comes from the close relationship between local prosecutors and police officers, who regularly work together to investigate crimes.
'We are often looking at the federal government to serve as a check and balance for local law enforcement officials who are accused of really egregious activity toward the public,' said Devin Hart, a spokesperson for the National Police Accountability Project.
All four members of the original prosecutors withdrew from the case after the new plea deal was presented, and at least one resigned from the office, according to court filings. Two others took the buyout offered to federal employees, spokesperson Ciaran McEvoy confirmed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Parents raise safety concerns at Stricker Middle after assault leaves boy with concussion
Parents raise safety concerns at Stricker Middle after assault leaves boy with concussion

CBS News

time31 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Parents raise safety concerns at Stricker Middle after assault leaves boy with concussion

Parents are speaking out about what they call a troubling pattern of violence and lack of accountability at General John Stricker Middle School in Dundalk, following an alleged assault last week that left a sixth-grade student with a concussion, and no immediate call home. Video of the May 27 incident, which shows a student motionless on the ground while several adults stand nearby, has triggered outrage and prompted other parents to share similar concerns about safety and communication at the school. "Looking at the video—I just want to go through the video and help my child," the victim's mother told WJZ. "It's a bunch of adults just standing there. It makes me angry because the amount of people that were just standing around... they had no type of sympathy or empathy." The mother says the school never called 911 or even notified her. She rushed to the school herself, later spending hours in the emergency room where her son was diagnosed with a concussion. "It happens every day." Following the report, other parents have taken to social media to voice their frustrations. Destiny Saffell, whose son witnessed the assault, says such violence has become routine. "It happens every day. There's at least four or five fights every day," she said. Saffell also says her own son suffered a hand injury earlier that same day, but the school nurse never contacted her. Only after she took him to the hospital did she learn he had a slight fracture. "The nurse didn't call me, didn't send a message, an email, didn't give him a Tylenol. She just gave him an ice pack and sent him back to class," Saffell said. Saffell's son also described witnessing the hallway assault firsthand. "When I tried to peek in and then get back to class, I saw the kid getting his head stomped in," he told WJZ. Both families say they plan to withdraw their children from Stricker Middle School, citing what they describe as a "culture of neglect." BCPS releases statement regarding notification protocols In response to WJZ's inquiries, Baltimore County Public Schools issued a statement regarding their parent notification protocols: "Regarding the incident at Stricker, the parent arrived at the school just a few minutes after the incident before administrators had an opportunity to call home. The same applies for injuries or sickness—parents would be notified as soon as possible per our standard processes and protocol." That explanation has done little to calm concerns for some. "General John Stricker just doesn't care," Saffell said. "They're just there for their paycheck, to make the admins happy and do what they've got to do to keep them off their backs—and that's that." BCPS told WJZ the students involved in the assault have since been disciplined. Parents, however, say it's too little, too late. WJZ will continue to follow this story and any response from BCPS leadership.

Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles

The Hill

time34 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles

MIAMI (AP) — The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store