Friday, November 19, 2021

Andrew Brown: North Carolina: Tampering with evidence? Police killing: CNN Reporter Chris Boyette) reports that a lawsuit now alleges an officer's weapon was altered after shooting and before admitted as evidence..."An amended lawsuit filed by the estate of Andrew Brown, Jr. alleges one of the officers who fatally shot him told investigators that he "altered" his gun after the incident and before the weapon was seized as evidence. Brown, a 42-year-old Black man, was killed on April 21 by Pasquotank County deputies in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as they were attempting to serve a warrant for his arrest. District Attorney Andrew Womble announced in May that the deputies who killed Brown were justified in using deadly force, saying Brown "recklessly" drove at the officers on scene while trying to flee arrest. The lawsuit alleges that Pasquotank County Sheriff's Investigator Daniel Meads told the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) during an investigation interview that he "altered the gun he used to shoot at Brown's vehicle while he was in a dark room inside Brown's house and before his weapon was confiscated as evidence." It is unclear what the lawsuit means by "altered" nor the impact that would have on the investigation."


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The suit alleges Meads did not tell SBI investigators about this when they first interviewed him, and only told the investigators after it was seen on another officer's body camera footage that he had removed his magazine inside Brown's house. Meads told SBI interviewers "that he manipulated his magazine while inside Brown's house in order to see how many shots he fired prior to surrendering his weapon as evidence," the lawsuit says. A police detective from the town of Kitty Hawk, North Carlina, who was on the scene at the time told SBI investigators in an interview that Meads asked him to shine a flashlight on him in Brown's house so Meads "could count the remaining rounds in the magazine of his Glock-17," according to the lawsuit. The detective also told SBI investigators Meads "was stressing out about how many times he fired his weapon at Brown's vehicle," the lawsuit says."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The arrest warrant for Brown was unlawful because it was not signed by a judge, the lawsuit claims. The suit also says the two ranking officers initially on the scene when police confronted Brown -- Pasquotank County Sheriff's sergeants -- told SBI investigators in each of their interviews that they did not fire their weapons because they did not see any indication that Brown had a weapon. One of them told investigators he did not think Brown's car was going to hit him, the lawsuit says."


STORY: "Andrew Brown police killing: Lawsuit now alleges an officer's weapon was altered after shooting and before admitted as evidence," by Reporter Chris Boyette, published by CNN, on November 13, 2021.

PHOTO CAPTION: "Andrew Brown Jr., 42, was killed on April 21 by Pasquotank County deputies in Elizabeth City, North Carolina."


GIST: "An amended lawsuit filed by the estate of Andrew Brown, Jr. alleges one of the officers who fatally shot him told investigators that he "altered" his gun after the incident and before the weapon was seized as evidence.


Brown, a 42-year-old Black man, was killed on April 21 by Pasquotank County deputies in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as they were attempting to serve a warrant for his arrest.


District Attorney Andrew Womble announced in May that the deputies who killed Brown were justified in using deadly force, saying Brown "recklessly" drove at the officers on scene while trying to flee arrest.


The lawsuit alleges that Pasquotank County Sheriff's Investigator Daniel Meads told the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) during an investigation interview that he "altered the gun he used to shoot at Brown's vehicle while he was in a dark room inside Brown's house and before his weapon was confiscated as evidence."


It is unclear what the lawsuit means by "altered" nor the impact that would have on the investigation.


The suit alleges Meads did not tell SBI investigators about this when they first interviewed him, and only told the investigators after it was seen on another officer's body camera footage that he had removed his magazine inside Brown's house.


Meads told SBI interviewers "that he manipulated his magazine while inside Brown's house in order to see how many shots he fired prior to surrendering his weapon as evidence," the lawsuit says.


A police detective from the town of Kitty Hawk, North Carlina, who was on the scene at the time told SBI investigators in an interview that Meads asked him to shine a flashlight on him in Brown's house so Meads "could count the remaining rounds in the magazine of his Glock-17," according to the lawsuit.


The detective also told SBI investigators Meads "was stressing out about how many times he fired his weapon at Brown's vehicle," the lawsuit says.


Meads' attorney did not respond to CNN's request for comment.


Why the lawsuit was changed: 

Harry Daniels, a lawyer for the Brown estate, said the lawsuit was amended to include specific allegations against the officers involved because more detailed information came to light after the legal team gained access to the SBI investigation files.


The SBI told CNN that the files were not public record and would not allow CNN access.


The lawsuit now names as defendants Meads, Pasquotank County Sheriff Tommy Wooten, Deputy Sheriff II Robert Morgan, Cpl. Aaron Lewellyn and Western Surety Bonding Company, an insurance company for the department.


Attorneys for Morgan and Lewellyn did not respond to CNN's request for comment, nor did Western Surety Bonding Company. Wooten's attorney Christopher Geis said he would be filing a response.


"We will be filing an answer to the allegations when the time comes, and that answer will speak for itself," Geis said.


The warrant wasn't legal, lawsuit says:

The arrest warrant for Brown was unlawful because it was not signed by a judge, the lawsuit claims.


The suit also says the two ranking officers initially on the scene when police confronted Brown -- Pasquotank County Sheriff's sergeants -- told SBI investigators in each of their interviews that they did not fire their weapons because they did not see any indication that Brown had a weapon. One of them told investigators he did not think Brown's car was going to hit him, the lawsuit says.


The suit, which does not name the district attorney as a defendant, claims Womble knew or should have known about various statements made in the SBI interviews cited in the lawsuit.


Womble did not respond to CNN's request for comment.


The amended lawsuit makes allegations of assault and battery, wrongful death and wrongful death negligence / gross negligence against all individual defendants.


Plus, it makes allegations of assault and battery against Wooten in his official capacity as sheriff and allegations of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against Meads, Lewellyn and Morgan.


The suit requests a trial by jury and seeks more than $30 million in compensatory and punitive damages."


The entire story can be read at:


https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/13/us/andrew-brown-amended-lawsuit/index.html
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic"  section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL, FINAL, FINAL WORD: "It is incredibly easy to convict an innocent person, but it's exceedingly difficult to undo such a devastating injustice. 
Jennifer Givens: DirectorL UVA Innocence Project.