Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 46
46 / 251
42, Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370
judge concluded in his Summary that “Brenda Harris
fired a shot which went past Groth’s shoulder.” This find-
ing was made-in disregard of Harris’ testimony to the
contrary and the physical evidence offered at trial. Ad-
ditionally, the trial court ignored the testimony of John-
son and Truelock and determined that “the evidence is
conclusive that [Hampton] was shot three times and that
he was dead when Deborah Johnson and Louis Truelock
left the bedroom.” The court also weighed the conflicting
evidence of the experts and found that the evidence: in-
troduced by plaintiffs’ toxologist, Dr. Eleanor Berman,
was “in error.”
In light of the evidence presented by plaintiffs, the
question of the seven shooting police officers’ liability
should have been submitted to the jury. Accordingly, we
reverse the verdicts directed in favor of these police of-
ficers on the individual counts. .
B. Nonshooters
In addition to their conspiracy allegations, plaintiffs
have presented a prima facie case under section 1983
against the nonshooters on the basis of their nonfeasance
at the BPP apartment. This court previously imposed
liability in damages for nonfeasance in Byrd v. Brishke,
466 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1972). The facts in Byrd are
strikingly similar to those alleged in the case at bar. In
Byrd Chicago police officers failed to deter other officers
who, in their presence, beat the plaintiff with fists and
clubs. Holding that purposeful nonfeasance of such
magnitude could serve as the basis of tort liability under
section 1983, we stated that “one who is given the badge
of authority of a police officer may not ignore the duty
imposed by his office and fail to stop other officers who
Rae punish a third person in his presence.” 466
2d at 11.
Plaintiffs in this case assert that the nonshooters are
liable, under the rule in Byrd, for failing to assist or
protect the wounded occupants. The officers entered the
apartment immediately after the firing ceased and
plaintiffs testified that the nonshooters were present
during the beatings and abuse which they said followed
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic