A dozen officers took part in the 2018 arrest of a Bucks player. Only one was put on a list of officers with credibility issues.
In 2018, Milwaukee police officers arrested then-NBA player Sterling Brown, taking him to the ground and using a Taser. The encounter started over a parking violation.
The case cost one Milwaukee officer their career, resulted in discipline or retraining for 10 others and left taxpayers on the hook for a $750,000 settlement.
The officer who lost his job, Erik Andrade, was disciplined for social media posts he made after the arrest.
Those posts showed racial bias, according to the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, which added him to a list of officers with credibility concerns, findings of dishonesty or bias, or past criminal charges.
None of the other officers involved, even those who were suspended, landed on the list.
That includes a supervisor who admitted that he wrongly told Internal Affairs he saw a gun in Brown's car that night.
The case illustrates the decision-making behind who gets placed on a 'Brady/Giglio' list in Milwaukee County. Such lists take their name from two landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings and help prosecutors fulfill their legal obligations to share information favorable to the defense.
Veteran defense attorneys and some outside legal experts have argued the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office criteria for including officers on the list is too narrow, depriving defendants of crucial information.
WHERE TO WATCH: TMJ4 News latest report on 'Duty to Disclose' to feature Sterling Brown case at 6 p.m. April 8
District Attorney Kent Lovern has maintained his office is fulfilling its legal obligations.
In the case of Andrade, Lovern, then-chief deputy district attorney, went a step further and said prosecutors should no longer use Andrade for testimony in any future case. That decision factored heavily in Andrade's firing.
Brown's attorney, Mark Thomsen of Gingras, Thomsen and Wachs, still questions why Andrade is on the list, while the higher-ranking sergeant who made an inaccurate statement to Internal Affairs is not.
Thomsen said the sergeant appeared to lie to internal investigators and that should get him a spot on the Brady list.
'The goal of our justice system is not to send innocent people to jail, which means you've got to trust the people that are making the allegations,' Thomsen said.
Two sergeants were involved in the arrest of Brown, who at the time was a rookie for the Milwaukee Bucks.
One of them was Sgt. Jeffrey Krueger.
Krueger grabbed Brown during the arrest and takedown outside a Walgreens on the city's south side. He did not order the Taser to be used against Brown. That order was given by the other supervisor present, Sgt. Sean A. Mahnke.
Police body camera footage showed Brown staying calm and polite as the officers became increasingly confrontational during the interaction. The video contradicted early draft reports from officers, including Krueger, that described Brown as "aggressive."
In an Internal Affairs interview, Krueger described how he shined a flashlight in Brown's car, which was parked across two handicapped spots. Krueger said he saw a paper target with bullet holes and then looked at another sergeant, Mahnke, peering into the car.
'It clicked all at once,' Krueger told internal investigators. 'Uh, it started making a lot more sense. OK, you know this guy was agitated with Officer (Joseph) Grams, um, he got really agitated with me looking into his vehicle.'
'And now I see this gun,' he said.
Police did not find a gun in the car or on Brown.
During a deposition in the civil lawsuit, Thomsen questioned Krueger about his assertion that he saw a gun. Krueger asked to see the police records before answering.
'Oh, it was – yeah. That – I did not see a gun. No,' Krueger said, according to a transcript of the deposition.
'So if you never saw a gun, why are you telling internal affairs that you saw a gun, sir?' Thomsen asked.
'I must have misspoke and nobody caught it,' he replied.
To Thomsen, the reason the sergeant said he saw a gun was obvious: He wanted to justify the force used on Brown by implying there was a threat.
'When he said it, he knew it was a lie,' Thomsen claimed in an interview. 'That's not a mistake. Nobody makes that kind of mistake, not a sergeant with all the experience in the world.'
In addition, the internal investigators questioning Krueger knew no gun had been found, Thomsen said.
Krueger received a 10-day suspension for failing to be a role model for professional police service during Brown's arrest. He did not respond to an interview request from TMJ4 News for this story, and the Milwaukee Police Department declined a separate request to interview him.
Asked about Krueger's claim of misspeaking, Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said he did not have enough information to discuss the issue. Norman was not chief at the time of Brown's arrest.
In a follow-up email, the Police Department said none of the officers involved in Brown's arrest were disciplined for an integrity issue except for Andrade. Because of that, no other officers were referred to the district attorney's office for potential inclusion on the Brady list.
In an interview, Lovern, the district attorney, said people can and do misspeak, and later realize they were incorrect. He stressed he was speaking generally and not about any specific case, including Krueger's.
'That doesn't mean those were dishonest statements,' Lovern said. 'That doesn't mean that that earlier statement was somehow lacking integrity.'
"And there has to be an allowance for the fact that, frankly, people will make misstatements. People will have to correct the record later," he said, adding: "That's just the world we live in. That's just life."
Thomsen said he believed Krueger's words to Internal Affairs were not just a misstatement.
"When the sergeant who's supervising is able to say to Internal Affairs a lie, and everybody knows it's a lie, and keeps their job, what message does that send institutionally?" Thomsen asked.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Only one Milwaukee officer from Bucks player's arrest is on Brady list
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Xavier Hernandez death: El Paso DA gets investigation, likely to go to grand jury
An investigation into the death of Xavier Guadalupe Hernandez during an arrest on the side of a freeway is now in the hands of the El Paso District Attorney's Office. It will likely go to a grand jury to determine if criminal charges will be filed against police officers. Hernandez, 30, died in a controversial case recorded on an El Paso Police Department body camera video that raised criticism over how police handled what started as a call about a pedestrian on Interstate 10 and ended with Hernandez's death on July 13. More: El Paso medical examiner rules man who died in police struggle as a homicide El Paso District Attorney James Montoya, in an emailed statement on Wednesday, Aug. 20, said his office has now received the investigation conducted by El Paso police. "While the case is pending, we cannot offer any other comment about it specifically," Montoya stated. "However, it is the policy of the DA's Office to present all in-custody deaths and officer-involved shootings to a grand jury of El Pasoans for their review and determination of potential criminal liability." EPPD body camera video released this week showed Hernandez in an agitated state on the shoulder of the busy freeway in a situation that quickly escalated into a struggle as an officer repeatedly shocked him with a Taser. "Officer, what's your badge number?" Hernandez repeatedly yells in the video, which shows Hernandez stop breathing while handcuffed behind his back and held facedown on the asphalt by officers. An autopsy by the county medical examiner's office deemed Hernandez's death a homicide caused by "asphyxia due to chest compression during law enforcement subdual and restrain" with cocaine toxicity as a "significant" factor. DA: Grand jury to look at police deadly force cases Montoya, a Democrat, took office in January after defeating former Republican DA Bill Hicks in the November 2024 election. Montoya previously had an unsuccessful run for DA, losing to Yvonne Rosales in the 2020 Democratic primary. Rosales later ended up resigning from office amid accusations of incompetence and Hicks was appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott to fill in the remainder of her term. During the 2020 campaign, police brutality was a hot topic amid the George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, Montoya said in an El Paso Times interview that incidents in which police use deadly force should be automatically investigated. "Whether that is a discharge of a firearm, some kind of chokehold, any type of deadly force, including a Taser, which I believe is deadly force, will be presented to an El Paso grand jury for their review for potential criminal charges," Montoya said in 2020. Daniel Borunda may be reached at dborunda@ and @BorundaDaniel on X. This article originally appeared on El Paso Times: El Paso police bodycam video death case likely to go to grand jury
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Sade Robinson's family gets OK to refile wrongful death case against Maxwell Anderson's dad
The family of slain Milwaukee college student Sade Carleena Robinson can refile its wrongful death lawsuit against the father of the man who killed her, a judge ruled. The decision by Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Glenn Yamahiro on Aug. 19 might breathe new life into the lawsuit that Robinson's mother, Sheena Scarbrough, filed in June 2024. Her attorney amended the complaint in September 2024 so Maxwell Anderson's father, Steven, could be added as a defendant. Doing so meant serving Steven Anderson with the complaint and summons within a required 90-day window. In court papers, Verona E. Swanigan, the Arkansas attorney representing Scarbrough, said servers went twice to Steven Anderson's home in Sarasota, Florida — on Sept. 24, 2024, and on Oct. 2, 2024 — but were unable to hand him the documents. More: What happened to Sade Robinson? A timeline of the 19-year-old's murder and dismemberment case Court records show Steven Anderson on June 5 was dismissed from the action without prejudice, meaning a case could be refiled at a later date. Defense attorney Brian T. Fahl pushed for the matter against Steven Anderson to be permanently dismissed; he filed a formal motion to dismiss with prejudice, which prompted the Aug. 19 hearing. Fahl argued in court papers the plaintiffs had "ample opportunity" to serve him or leave a copy of the summons at his home. Yamahiro found there was "excusable neglect" in the failure to serve Steven Anderson, and ordered his dismissal as a party to the case be without prejudice. "I can tell you we shall continue to gather evidence by filing discovery to Maxwell Anderson," Swanigan told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an email. "We shall seek to do his deposition to hopefully determine the missing information that was not stated during the criminal trial." Fahl, of Milwaukee, announced during the hearing he plans to withdraw as Maxwell Anderson's attorney, but will continue to represent Steven Anderson. Maxwell Anderson, 34, was convicted on June 6 of first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse and arson in the gruesome April 2, 2024, killing and dismemberment of Robinson, 19. She was just weeks away from graduating from Milwaukee Area Technical College when she died. Maxwell Anderson was later sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, but has signaled in recent weeks his intention to appeal. What does Sade Robinson's family want from Maxwell and Steven Anderson? Scarbrough, of Milwaukee, is seeking damages from Maxwell Anderson for emotional distress. The lawsuit also seeks the proceeds from the sale last year of Maxwell Anderson's house, and to bar him from profiting from the "notoriety earned from slaying Ms. Robinson and destroying her family," the lawsuit reads. The home sold in May 2024 for $195,000, according to Wisconsin Department of Revenue records. A status conference in the lawsuit is scheduled for Sept. 17. More: Sheena Scarbrough told Sade Robinson, 'Baby, Mommy's got this,' the night before trial verdict Judge dismissed separate case against two Milwaukee bars Another lawsuit related to Robinson's death was dismissed shortly after the Anderson's criminal case wrapped up. Scarbrough had filed a separate lawsuit in April against two downtown Milwaukee hotspots – Duke's on Water Inc. and Twisted Fisherman, LLC. That lawsuit alleged workers at each establishment failed to ask Robinson, who was underage, for her ID, and that they served her multiple alcoholic beverages, leaving her "physically and mentally vulnerable" to the man who later killed her. Owners of each establishment testified during Anderson's homicide trial. They were asked questions that focused mainly on Anderson's interaction with Robinson, who prosecutors said was killed and dismembered a short time after the date. Yamahiro, who also presided over that case, dismissed the lawsuit against the taverns on July 22, online court records show. Chris Ramirez covers courts for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He can be reached at caramirez@ This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Sade Robinson's family can refile wrongful death case against Maxwell Anderson's father

Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
R.I. prosecutor told police to turn off a body-worn camera during her arrest. Do officers have to comply?
'I want you to turn your body cam off,' Devon Flanagan tells an officer during the Aug. 14 confrontation, Content Warning: Profanity. Body camera footage shows R.I. Special Assistant Attorney General Devon Flanagan and Veronica Hannan being arrested in Newport. 'Protocol is that you turn it off if a citizen requests to turn it off,' Flanagan said. Is that true? Not really, experts say. 'The state's body-worn camera policy is very clear that the request to turn off the cameras is something that an officer should consider, if asked by a victim or a witness to a crime – not to somebody who was suspected of the crime,' said Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up 'And it remains within the discretion of the police officer in any event,' Brown added. 'It's not an obligation.' Advertisement Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association President Thomas Oates III said officers in the Newport incident were 'well within policy.' 'I don't know that young lady, what knowledge she has of body-worn camera policy or what she thought it was, but whatever she was saying, she was inaccurate,' said Oates, who is also the chief of police in Woonsocket. Under the Advertisement Police could also decide to deactivate a camera in 'areas where there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy and [in] other sensitive locations,' the policy states. Those areas could include private residences, locker rooms, law offices, schools, daycare facilities, certain places in hospitals or clinics, and where 'First Amendment rights are being exercised,' including places of worship, newsrooms, and where peaceful protests are taking place, the policy states. Officers recording in those areas 'shall be mindful not to record beyond what is necessary to capture contact with members of the public, effect an arrest, or search for an individual,' according to the policy. Whether police mute or stop the recording, or only record audio in those areas should based on whether an officer 'observes activities or circumstances of a sensitive or private nature,' or if there are people present who are not involved with the police matter; who are minors; and who are witnesses and want anonymity, the policy states. Brown noted the alleged incident in Newport 'was out in public.' 'These are precisely the circumstances where the body cameras should be activated,' he said. Officers 'acted appropriately in not turning the camera off,' Brown said. Timothy Rondeau, a spokesperson for the Attorney General's Office, said on Monday that Flanagan's request is not part of the statewide body-worn camera policy, and confirmed the policy applies only to victims and witnesses of crimes. According to Oates, departments adopted provisions of the statewide policy to receive funding when Advertisement The Newport police Lieutenant Robert Salter, a department spokesperson, wrote in an email the department would not comment further on Tuesday regarding last week's incident. According to Oates, the decision for police to record depends on the circumstances. 'Obviously a case where there's an alleged disturbance involved, or someone potentially acting in a disorderly manner and is argumentative and doesn't want to comply with the commands of the police officers to clear them from an area, we're never going to turn the body camera off,' Oates said. Oates has not heard of many people requesting not to be recorded, he said. 'This is why it's important that body-worn cameras are existent,' Oates said. 'In a lot of cases, what it does is it causes people who are behaving badly to ... calm down and not behave badly when they know that they're being recorded and their actions are being documented.' It doesn't always work that way though, Oates said. Related : In Newport on Aug. 14, officers arrived around 9:51 p.m. at 24 Bannister's Wharf – the Clark Cooke House restaurant – after receiving a report of an intoxicated woman – later identified as Veronica Hannan – refusing to leave, police wrote in a report. During the encounter caught on video, Flanagan, who was with Hannan, repeatedly tells officers to turn off the camera. She also tells them several times, 'I'm an A.G.,' and as she is placed in a cruiser, she says, 'You're going to regret this.' Advertisement Police identified Flanagan as Devon Hogan, 34, of Warwick. The Attorney General's Office confirmed that Hogan and Flanagan are the same person. She was charged with willful trespass – a misdemeanor – and was given a summons to appear in court. Salter would not provide the court date on Tuesday. Flanagan has not returned requests for comment, and it was unclear on Tuesday whether she had obtained an attorney. Speaking on He said he gives police credit 'for treating her like everybody else,' and acknowledged Flanagan was incorrect about camera policy. 'She's embarrassed herself – humiliated herself – treated the Newport Police Department horribly,' Neronha said, adding that it was 'inexcusable behavior.' Still, it has been difficult to find and retain 'capable lawyers,' Neronha noted. If Flanagan keeps her job, she will not 'go on as if nothing happened,' Neronha said. 'There'll be a strong sanction here,' he said. Officers can also be seen on the video struggling to apprehend Hannan, 34, of Westport, Conn. She was arrested and charged with willful trespass, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest – all misdemeanors, police said. Court records show Hannan was arraigned on Friday in Newport County District Court, where a plea of not guilty was entered. She was released on $1,000 personal recognizance and a pre-trial conference is scheduled for Aug. 27. 'Veronica is obviously overwhelmed by this experience. It happened so quickly and with a lot of energy,' John R. Grasso, an attorney representing Hannan, wrote in an email requesting comment on Tuesday. 'Once we have the facts and she processes it, maybe we can speak more then.' Advertisement A now-removed LinkedIn profile listed Hannan as a senior manager for data and AI product management at PepsiCo. PepsiCo did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday. Asked about any concerns the ACLU has about government officials making comments to police such as those Flanagan allegedly made, Brown said officials can say 'whatever they want' during run-ins with the law. 'The question is how police officers react and whether they end up giving special treatment to somebody because they're a government official,' Brown said. 'In this case, they didn't.' Christopher Gavin can be reached at