
Officer who used excessive force allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor after felony conviction
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.
The encounter
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.
A new approach by federal prosecutors
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
White House tries to water down Russia sanctions
Donald Trump is pressuring a US senator to weaken a Bill that would impose sweeping sanctions on Russia. White House officials hoping to mend relations with Moscow have been quietly contacting senator Lindsey Graham's office urging him to water down his Bill, which aims to cripple Vladimir Putin with huge sanctions. The Bill, backed by nearly the entire Senate, would impose 500 per cent tariffs on countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, which bankrolls Putin's war effort. Officials have been demanding the Bill include waivers that would allow Mr Trump to choose who or what was sanctioned, congressional aides told the Wall Street Journal. Other attempts to weaken the legislation include softening the language, replacing 'shall' with 'may' to avoid making the reprimands mandatory. Removing the mandatory nature of the sanctions would render the Bill effectively toothless and do little to hamper Putin's war machine, aides fear. 'We're moving ahead and the White House is included in our conversations,' Richard Blumenthal, senator and lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Bill, told the paper. Russia's war effort is funded by fossil-fuel exports. Moscow has adapted to existing sanctions with relative ease, turning to North Korea and China for support. Fearing the impact on pump prices, Joe Biden, former president, was unwilling to crack down on Russian energy exports. Mr Trump, has threatened to impose sanctions on Ukraine, as well as Russia, if the two sides fail to reach a peace agreement. 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' a White House official said. They added that the constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations'. Speaking in the Oval Office alongside Friedrich Merz, German chancellor, on Thursday, the US president said that the Bill should not move forward without his express approval. 'They'll be guided by me. That's how it's supposed to be,' he told reporters. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do.' Last week, Mr Graham and Mr Blumenthal visited Ukraine where they applauded the country's drone attack that destroyed 40 aircraft deep inside Russian territory. However, they were ridiculed and accused of 'stirring up' the conflict by key allies of Mr Trump, including Steve Bannon. 'By trying to engage Putin – by being friendly and enticing – it's become painfully clear [Putin's] not interested in ending this war,' Mr Graham said earlier this week. '[Putin] needs to see and hear that message as well from us, from the American people,' said Mr Blumenthal. Both said that failing to act now could pull the US deeper into the conflict later. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, Mr Blumenthal said, Nato treaty obligations could compel US troops into battle. Earlier this week, Russian negotiators tabled a long memorandum, resembling a complete capitulation for Ukraine, in a second round of direct talks with Kyiv in Istanbul. They demanded Ukraine must withdraw its troops from four eastern regions that Russia only partially occupies and that international recognition of Russian sovereignty over them and Crimea must be granted.


Sky News
31 minutes ago
- Sky News
Kilmar Abrego Garcia: Man wrongly deported from US to El Salvador has been returned to face criminal charges
A man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration has been returned to the US to face criminal charges. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was charged in an indictment filed in federal court in Tennessee with conspiring to transport illegal immigrants into the US, Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday. The indictment was filed on 21 May, more than two months after he was deported from the US, court records have shown. In a statement, Abrego Garcia's lawyer Andrew Rossman said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. "Today's action proves what we've known all along - that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so," he said. Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland despite an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection after finding he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if he was returned there. The indictment alleges that Mr Garcia worked with at least five co-conspirators to bring immigrants to the US illegally and transport them from the border to other destinations in the country. On Friday, Ms Bondi outlined the charges at a news conference: "The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring. "He made over 100 trips the grand jury found - smuggling people throughout our country... MS-13 [international criminal gang] members, violent gang terrorist organisation members... throughout our country. "He will be prosecuted in our country, sentenced in our country if convicted and then returned after completion of his sentence." Ms Bondi said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Mr Garcia to the US after American officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. Critics of Donald Trump have pointed to the deportation of Mr Garcia as an example of the excesses of the Republican president's aggressive immigration policies. US District Judge Paula Xinis has opened a probe into what, if anything, Mr Trump's administration has done to secure his return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information. Officials responded by alleging that Mr Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang - something his lawyers have strongly denied. In a separate statement, Pam Bondi also attacked what she called the "Fake News Media" and repeated the - yet unproven - allegations against Mr Garcia. "The Justice Department's Grand Jury Indictment against Abrego Garcia proves the unhinged Democrat Party was wrong, and their stenographers in the Fake News Media were once again played like fools. "Abrego Garcia was never an innocent 'Maryland Man'- Abrego Garcia is an illegal alien terrorist, gang member, and human trafficker who has spent his entire life abusing innocent people, especially women and the most vulnerable."


Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Mystery will surfaces in battle over tech mogul's $500million fortune
A mysterious will said to be the final wishes of Zappos founder Tony Hsieh has emerged five years after his death. The tech giant, worth over $500 million, died after a fire engulfed his friend's Connecticut home in 2020, having only retired three-months earlier from the billion-dollar firm. His family had until recently believed he left no final will, with a new report from the Wall Street Journal saying the document mysteriously appeared this spring. According to the outlet the document has Hsieh's signature on it and is dated 2015, five years before the 46-year-old died. In the months leading up to his death he had been battling severe drug and alcohol abuse. The will was delivered to the office of Nevada based estate attorney Robert Armstrong, who had never met Hsieh before or worked with him. He was named as an executor. The discovery has thrown his probate case into turmoil. Armstrong said in court filing seen by the outlet, that he was shocked to have received the document. The will is said to transfer over $50 million and several Las Vegas properties to a series of trusts with as yet unknown beneficiaries. It is also said to include several charitable donations including $3 million to his alma mater Harvard University. The rest would go to his family. Hsieh was inside a shed near the property in New London when he was caught in the fire At a hearing on Thursday there was no further clues as to how legitimate the document is, or where it came from. The court heard that after Armstrong received the will he got a phone call from a man named Kashif Singh. Singh told the lawyer that the will had been passed to him by his late grandfather, Pir Muhammad, who was named as a co-executor. The revelation has stumped those involved in Hsieh's estate and the court, with both sides unsure how to proceed. Armstrong, alongside attorney and co-executor Mark Ferrario, have claimed that Hsieh's family's legal team have been aggressive in their approach. In a filing, they said the family's lawyers had adopted a 'scorched earth approach' and made over 70 requests for documents to 'invalidate the will'. Dara Goldsmith, a lawyer representing the family, told the Journal: 'There is nothing 'scorched earth' about thoroughly examining a document that comes out of nowhere, more than four years after Tony Hsieh's death.' She added that Richard Hsieh, his father, 'has faithfully administered his son Tony's estate and guarded Tony's legacy.' Goldsmith told the court on Thursday that the family hadn't decided on whether to challenge the will. Prior to his death, Hsieh had gone on a massive buying spree, buying up at least seven multi-millionaire dollars homes, a private club and a vacant lot. He spent at least $50 million as part of his plan to relocate to the millionaires' playground of Park City, Utah. Hsieh, who was born in Illinois and was the son of Taiwanese immigrants, studied at Harvard University before he joined Zappos - then called - in 1999. As CEO, he helped transform the fledgling internet start-up into a billion-dollar business. Zappos was sold to Amazon for $1.2 billion in 2009, but Hsieh remained with the company until his retirement in 2020. For years, Hsieh also worked to revitalize downtown Las Vegas, pledging $350 million in 2013 for redevelopment. The same year he moved Zappos' headquarters into the former Las Vegas City Hall building.