NET Journal; 269d; Trial: The City and County of Denver vs. Lauren R. Watson. Part 4

Don't you have the wrong name? She's. Yes. Um... Why'd you do this, This Is Good? I checked you, I didn't know for that day that time, the morning election is going to be in the president. Yes. No, we're ready. Let the record show that we are continuing with the jury trial, sitting county of Denver versus Lauren Watson.

You're on our road. Should it be? Quite a Mr. Right, I'm working for him. His next witness, I would ask a permission to recall Officer Cantwell for a few additional questions on cross examination. Do you have no objection? Yes, I do have an objection, you know, I don't know, I feel that unless there's some very valid reason which we probably should take up, I would object the rules required cross examination of the time the witness is on the stand except for unusual circumstances that these exist out with drama objection. May I see the attorney's at the bench please?

I think the ruling on this question really depends on the discretion. I would like to hear from you briefly and I have heard a point that I pointed to the area and discovered some things about the benching graph of the case. I didn't know when he was on the stand but he hadn't his testimony. I was at the end of all the time. Not too long. I'm returning to too long. I wish to have Mr. Cantwell. Well, you know, I think that he had a right, nobody's close to the case yet and he has a right to call whoever he wants in. Sorry, but when he can call the officer for crossing the examination, I guess I might have no objections to that. I guess more of the time. It's not necessary for me to rule on this question. All right, in that case, Mr. Morgan, would you please call to your next witness?

Mr. George Barney. Trial. The city and county of Denver versus Lauren R. Watson. This is the fourth and last day of the trial of Lauren Watson for resisting a police officer. At the time of the trial, Watson was a leader of the Black Panther Party in Denver. I know this from outside the record of the trial. It's not clear what the jury assumes. You will recall that yesterday the prosecutor tried to ask Terry, the South African college student, about Mr. Watson's philosophy. The defense objected in Judge Weinjank quite vehemently cut off that line of questions, expressing her concern that if they were permitted, a mistrial might result. So we just don't know how much the jury knows or assumes about Watson's role as a Black militant or how that might affect their judgment.

The presentation of evidence is almost over. There are two key issues. First, we can't well in the Denver police trying to harass Watson, keep him from making his speaking date that day at Ford Collins. But where are they acting reasonably and making an arrest for a traffic violation, for refusal to show a driver's license, and for looting a police officer? If they were trying to harass, then their arrest may be no good, and the resistance charge, which is all that is left, may fall. The second issue is exactly what happened at Mr. Galloway's gas station. So far, Davies has gotten in some pretty good evidence. The inconsistency between officers can't well infrasini, and best of all for Davies, Galloway's testimony about Watson's non-resistance. These two issues are different. Either officer can't well did or did not yell white power at Watson, did or did not threaten Watson with harassment. The situation in the filling station, however, is inherently chaotic and confused.

Nobody has to be lying for that it have been differing recollections and interpretations of what happened there. Get put right here in the corner. Raise your right hand please. He's always been a testimony about to give you for his court, and he'll have to make sure to help you guys. I do. Sir, would you please state your name and your occupation. I am George Varnie, senior intake officer of juvenile law. Very, very briefly, in a minute if you can do it, so tell us basically of what your duties consist. I work in the intake office. I admit and release children. I confer with law enforcement officers, with probation officers, with out-of-county sheriffs, and with guests who are seeking their way about the juvenile hall. Let me direct your attention to the sixth day of November, 1968.

On that date, you recall having seen a Denver police officer by the name of Cantwell. Yes, I do. Would you recognize Officer Cantwell if you sign again? I would even recognize his voice on the telephone. Is he here in the courtroom? He is. Would you point him out please? Right there. I have exhibit B, please. Mr. Varnie, I'll hand you what's been marked for purposes of identification as plaintiff's exhibit B. I'll ask you to examine exhibit B and tell the court if you recognize what exhibit B purports to B. Yes, I do recognize it. It is. On it, such a fifth admission. What is the exhibit B? It is a copy of the juvenile hall records.

Do you happen to have nowhere the original of these records of which exhibit B is the copy? Do you know where the original is? Yes. Where? In my pocket. You want to take the original out of your pocket and I'll ask you to compare it with the photocopy and ask if exhibit B appears to be an accurate photocopy of the original. It is the exact copy. Now, Mr. Varnie, referring to exhibit B, can you tell us whether or not what time you saw us or can't well at juvenile hall on November 6, 1968? Yes, he came in just about 10 o'clock a.m. in the morning. And did he remain while you typed up this slip? Did you just for a few minutes?

A few minutes. What time do you leave? He left a little after 10 probably. Oh, not. Say five minutes after 10? Oh, I couldn't say just to write five minutes after 10. It was after 10. He left between 10 and 10 and 30. Somewhere along there. Do you remember what transpired after you made that entry? Can you recall offhand what took place after you put 10 o'clock on that slip? Well, it was just after election day and probably the course of the conversation was just election. Did you chat with him for a while? Oh, a little while, not too long. Well, it was probably within the course of, I had to say, about 30 minutes. I don't recall right at the exact time. I have no further questions. Your Honor, I will begin for the admission of Exhibit B. May the witness be excused.

Yes. Mr. Barney, thank you. You have no reason to keep Mr. Barney. You may be excused from the court. Your Honor, I have no further rebuttal evidence to offer. And it's time I have no objections to the defendant recalling officer, Cantwell, to understand he would like to do. Before you're saying this one. Yes, we would. Well, Officer Cantwell, just for a few minutes across examination. Officer Cantwell, we just need to do the witness and understand that you are still sworn and under oath at this time. Officer Cantwell, relating back to yesterday about your testimony, I would like to have you now draw a diagram of the area involving twenty-ninth in California, twenty-ninth in Marion, and the route you took from juvenile hall to twenty-ninth in California and back. All in one page?

Well, yeah, I think if you draw a small enough scale, you can get it on there. This is California Street here. If you're not all here, you're parking the back here, come out to Sally. On the 28th, it came down on the 30th. On the California, I got right here, I received a phone call. I made a phone call. Well, I was making my left hand turn to go back right in this vicinity as we were. And this is the alley here. It's the alley right here. It came right on through there, maybe left hand turn. Come on, I just didn't know how much more you want. Well, half a block here, half a block here, long block here, too short, whichever you prefer. Block here, and then a long block here, right?

Yes, sir. Now, the block here, so we've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eight blocks, right? He bucks the one. That you traveled in that five minutes. Is that right? And according to Mr. Barney's testimony, didn't leave that on 1030, is that correct? You heard his testimony, didn't you? No, you're on it. Jack, we've got several questions with the council. I'd like to witness the answer first. All right, let's have one question. We have no further questions. No, redirect your honor. Thank you. Your honor, I wonder. I have no further evidence to present. I don't know. We have any. Sir, I have just a moment. There, I have just a moment. This time, I'd like to inform the court that we have no surrebuttal and the rest of the case.

All right, all the evidence is now before the important jury. Is that correct? Direct your honor. At this time, then, we are going to have to take a recess in order to get the instructions on the law ready for the jury. I will assume that this will be a long enough recess that you may take a coffee break if any of you would like to go down to the lunchroom. Again, the same instructions to each of you concerning no discussion, concerning the case, no communication with the attorney. I would ask you to report back to the courtroom at 20 after 11. When you do return at 20 after 11, would you go directly into the jury room and adjust the door so that you cannot hear the argument. All right, you are excused at this time for coffee. At this time, your honor, we would like to renew our motion under rule 129 of the rules of criminal procedure for the county court's motion for a judgment of acquittal.

As the court will recall, this motion was made to the court at the end of the state's testimony. Of course, the rule provides that the motion may then be renewed at the close of all the testimony. And in 129B provides if a motion for judgment of acquittal is made at the close of all the evidence, the court may reserve decision on the motion. Submit the case to the jury and decide the motion. Either before the jury returns a verdict or after returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. And then goes on to provide for a 10-day period for renewal of the motion once again. Your honor, our motion is substantially the same as it was before with the added testimony before the court relating to many alleged resistance in the filling station at 34th and Franklin. The testimony substantially was that Mr. Watson was at the phone as Mr. Frazzini and Mr. Cantwell suggested. And then as Mr. Frazzini testified and Mr. Gauy and the young lady from South Africa testified.

Mr. Watson, while at the phone the officers came in the door grabbed Mr. Watson spun him around and handcuffed him with no discussion contrary to in line with what Mr. Frazzini said. And contrary to what Mr. Cantwell said regarding a advisement of his rights and a request to replace his hands on the wall seemed to be none of that. Now I would like to require further court to the case of Landry versus Daily 288 Federal suff at page 194. You may recall the testimony Mr. Gauy that when Mr. Watson turned around it was somewhat of a one a reflex action and two being spun about by the police officers. I think this is a parallel is the factual situation in the case of Landry versus Daily and quoting from the court's decision says nor do we find probable cause for prosecuting Reverend Lawrence on the charge of resisting arrest.

The only act which supports the charges Lawrence is pulling his arm away from Reardon. I think that's what tenant Reardon of the Chicago Police Department. When Reardon placed him under arrest the testimony of all witnesses indicates that this movement was almost a reflex action not that it was a reflex action that was almost a reflex action. I would suspect we can infer that there might have been some hostility info. The apparent unintentional nature of this action when coupled with the admitted willingness to submit to the custody of the officers immediately thereafter his admitted willingness and Mr. Watson admitted that he was willing and did not. It was not unwilling to the custody of the officers immediately thereafter requires the conclusion no probable cause exists for the charge of resisting arrest and accordingly the enjoying the state court from pursuing in any prosecution along those lines. Again, there's been no evidence showing specific intent and in fact not enough evidence your honor to show a resistance that could possibly allow this jury to.

I speculate on the facts. I think the facts are clear. I don't think that the court can say as a matter of law that the jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this charge of resistance. No blows were struck. No officer was hit. No officer was pushed. The only thing is that officer can't well lost his balance when Mr. Watson turned around when he had his back to them. Officer can't well lost his balance and that's the only testimony of any overt act. Which I think brings us squarely within Landry versus daily the only testimony even by the prosecution's witnesses for Zini said that was the only thing that happened. But they then handcuffed him and drug him up. I don't believe the court under the law is quoted to you throughout this case and I'll be more than happy to reiterate those citations and that the quotations from those courts in all jurisdictions regarding this that this court can allow this jury to speculate on this case. Therefore, we would ask the court to grant the motion or at the very least exercise is discretion under rule 129 B and reserve the motion for reserve ruling on the motion.

Thank you. Mr. Morgan. I'm happy that I can be brief on this rebuttal argument, Your Honor. The test, of course, which the court must follow at this time is in reviewing the evidence, not as the trial of fact, but as a matter of law, is to determine, again, whether or not. There is, if there's a conflict in the evidence, and if there's any competent evidence upon which the reasonable men might differ, then it becomes purely a question for the jury to resolve. For the court, in other words, to grant the motion at this time would require that the court, as a matter of law, find that there was no credible or competent evidence to support the material allegations of the resistance ordinance.

There has been enough evidence to indicate from the testimony that Watson was under arrest the first time that he was asked for his driver's license and said he didn't have to show it. I think a total of at least three times he was placed under arrest. This certainly would, if the jury believes this evidence, this would certainly lend great credence to and would explain without any doubt the actions of the defendant in struggling when he was placed under arrest in the service station when they had to take him into custody by force. We have evidence that he did offer physical opposition to the officers in the service station. There is contrary evidence that he didn't. Well, this is purely and classically a matter for the jury to determine.

I would feel it would be error on the part of the court to grant the motion in the contradictory state of the evidence. This is classically a case for the trial or fact to determine. May we battle argument Mr. Davis. I have no. Well, basically it appears to me that there's two questions. The one question is whether there's any evidence of physical struggling resistance, which the jurors reasonable men could believe. And the question on that question I have already ruled on. Both officers have testified that in fact there was swinging of arms, a swinging officer loose. I was attempting to move his body so that it was difficult to get handcuffs on a general struggle as they were attempting to search him and get him out the door. And this is the same ruling I made before.

So there's a prima facie case. Now the second question. There's a question to fact for the jury. The second question is I understand Mr. Davis argument, which which I would like to think about a little more perhaps really goes to the nature of this struggling. Obviously, this isn't a swinging of the fist of the police officer. This isn't a very aggravated resistance perhaps in the spectrum of resistances. And if I understand the argument of Mr. Davis, the question is whether this action that was testified to that is their prima facie really rises to the dignity of a resistance, whether this really goes to the charge itself or whether it maybe goes to penalty, how serious it might be. On this question, what I am going to do is to reserve ruling on the motion. I think there is evidence by the police officers what this evidence means, the interpretation, the court will consider if necessary at a later point.

Court will reserve ruling on the motion until after the jury is verdict. I would at this time, your honor, like to submit to the court and to copies of which will go to Mr. Morgan. Three special instructions, which I would request be submitted to the jury relating to the case and for which I'm prepared to argue the law and support there. What I would like to do is see if we can expedite this a little bit is to see if there's any instructions that you are not in opposition to Mr. Morgan. Give both of you a chance to look at the court's stock instructions.

We have a stock instruction that places the defendant in with the rest of the credibility of witnesses instruction. I would call one I've had another court, which is basically this instruction, but which includes. It just says the words including including the defendant. Your honor, I'm tendering this instruction, which is a stock instruction, which has been approved. It's approved and had used as a matter of course without objection in the district courts of every judicial district of this state. I assume that was a stock instruction. If it's not considered a stock instruction, then I'll tend it. Well, your honor, I don't think that stock instructions are not anointed with holy water. That doesn't seem to make them acceptable. It singles him out. I would say that the way this case has been going, that Mr. Davies probably has a point that this last paragraph, now I'm not particularly worried about the first paragraph, but the last paragraph.

It singles out the defendant more than say the police officer would be single out as a witness. Mr. Davies, what part of your evidence do you feel goes to the question of specific intent? And the reason I'm asking this question is to see really whether this instruction goes to the facts. What specific evidence goes to specific evidence? I don't. Your honor, the definite, in fact, we've missed a stock instruction. Well, let me ask this, is resisting a police officer, the prohibition against resistance, or is resisting a police officer a crime? It is criminal and nature of violation of ordinance. Was it a crime? I mean, the man can go to jail for 90 days and 300 dollars fine. The definition of a crime in Colorado is joint operation of act and intent.

Is this Malum prohibition? Is that what you're talking about? What do you want to do about the Colorado Supreme Court's decision on ordinance violations? What does it say? Mr. Morgan mentioned it. Do you have that with you? Yes, I think I do. I'd like to do that. Ten Colorado. I'd like to see it. Can I excuse to get that? I'll tell you what, I think we're going to have to all be excused to look up the law. So let's hold on until I hear his arguments on the last instruction. And then we'll take a short recess to get the statute set. If you were confused by the negotiations between the lawyers and the judge over the instructions, I'm with you. Instructions of the legal framework within which the jury is to find the facts and thereby decide the case. Some of these instructions are standard, such as who has the burden of proof and what is a reasonable doubt. Other instructions relate to the facts of each case, and on these the judge is much more on her own. For example, Mr. Davies lost his attempt to get the judge to take the case away from the jury and dismiss it herself

on the theory that Mr. Watson swinging around was just a reflex action. We can be sure that Davies will try to get her to lay that same issue before the jury so that they can decide on that basis. Lawyers and judges see the instructions as crucial. If the judge is too favorable to the defense, the jury may be misled and acquit when they should convict. If she turns down a request by the defense, which an appeal court later says should have been granted, she may be reversed. I suppose that's why she wants a chance to look up the law before issuing the instructions. If the instructions of the lawyer's notion of how they can make themselves understood to laymen, I suppose viewers who are not lawyers can make a judgment of their own as they hear this able and conscientious judge instruct the jury. A judgment about how successful that form of communication is. After the jury is instructed, the lawyers will make their closing arguments. I urge you to put yourself in their position now. Davies, the defense lawyer, made a lot of the issue of police harassment at the beginning of the trial.

While badly was he hurt by Varney, the rebuttal witness, who made it pretty clear that Cantwell was somewhere else, when Watson and Terry said he yelled, white power. If you were in Davies shoes, would you now still be pushing the harassment issue? More basically the question is what do each of the lawyers want the agenda in the jury room to be? Of course the jury will have to consider what happened in the gas station. Was Watson still talking on the phone when the police broke in? Did Watson deliberately hit out at the police or was he just by reflex swinging around? Well they also discuss Officer Cantwell's motives, in effect put him and his department on trial. Is it in the defendants or the prosecution's interests that this jury in this case do so? The jury really has two roles to play. One is fairly specific, though difficult, deciding about the facts as they heard them. But there is a broader reason we have juries. We have the notion that a jury reflects community norms, community values, and that brings us back to where we started.

What community? Who's community? Mr. Watson's community? The second role of the jury is a much harder and more uncertain one. It can represent prejudice, favoritism, resentment, fear, and a lot of other things we don't want in the system. Or if the system works, it can represent justice. All the evidence in this case is now before the jury. And at this time I will read to the jury the instructions on the law. Section 847.1-1 of the ordinance. It shall be in lawful for any person to resist any police officer and remember the police department or any person duly empowered with police authority while in the discharge or appearing discharge of his duty. The complaint is a mere accusation against the defendant and is not in itself any evidence of the guilt of the defendant and no juror should permit himself to be influenced to any extent, however slight, against the defendant because or in account of the filing of such complaint. The law presumes the defendant to be innocent and this presumption continues

until overthrown by evidence sufficient to exclude all reasonable doubt of his guilt. This rule of law which closed every person accused with the presumption of innocence and imposes upon the prosecution the burden of establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not intended to aid anyone who is in fact guilty to escape but is a humane provision of the law intended so far as human agencies can to guard against the danger of an innocent person being unjustly punished. The burden of proof is upon the city to prove each and every material allegation in the complaint regarding any charge to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you find from the evidence that the city has failed to so prove any one or more of the material allegations in the complaint regarding any charge you will find the defendant not guilty of that charge. Upon the other hand if you find from the evidence that each and every material allegation in the complaint regarding a charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt you will find the defendant guilty of the charge.

You are further instructed that while you are not to find the defendant guilty if you entertain a reasonable doubt of his guilt, you are not to search for a doubt. The doubt referred to must be such a doubt as would naturally arise in the mind of a reasonable person upon review of all the evidence in the case. It means a serious, substantial and well-founded doubt and not the mere possibility of a doubt. The court instructs the jury that they are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the way to be given to the testimony of each witness. You should take into consideration their means of knowledge, strength of memory and opportunities for observation as shown by the evidence in the case. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of their statements, the consistency or inconsistency of their testimony, the motives actuating them so far as such motives appear from the evidence in the case. The fact, if it be a fact that they have been contradicted by other evidence in the case, their bias, prejudice or interest, if any has been shown,

their manner or demeanor upon the witness stand, and all other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence, which in your judgment affect the credit due to them respectively. If, after considering all the evidence, you find that any witness has willfully or corruptly testified falsely to any fact material to the issues in the case, you have a right to disregard the whole or any part of his or her testimony. When the defendant testified as a witness in this case, he became the same as any other witness, and his credibility is to be subjected to the same tests as are legally applied to other witnesses. In determining the degree of credibility that should be accorded to his testimony, you have a right to take into consideration his demeanor and conduct on the witness stand. In order to find the defendant guilty of the charge of resistance, you must first find, beyond a reasonable about, that the police officers had probable cause to make the arrest.

You are further instructed that the term probable cause means facts and circumstances within the police officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, which are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed. You are instructed that if you find the police officers had probable cause for arresting the defendant, then in order to convict the defendant of resistance, you must also find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant intended to resist the arrest by the officers through physical force and violence and did in fact deter the police officers in the performance of their official acts and duty. You are further instructed that the mere remonstrating with or criticizing an officer in the performance of his duties cannot amount to resisting a police officer. You are further instructed that intent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances shown in evidence and need not be proved by direct evidence.

You are instructed that if you find that the physical movement on the part of the defendant was merely a reflex action in response to his being grabbed by the police officers, then you must find the defendant not guilty. These instructions contain the law that will govern you in this case and in determining the facts you should consider only the evidence given upon trial. Evidence offered at the trial and rejected by the court and the evidence stricken from the record by order of the court should not be considered by you. The opening statements and the arguments of counsel and the remarks of the court and of counsel are not evidence. The argument statements and objections made by counsel to the court or to each other and the rulings and orders made by the court and the remarks made by the court during the trial and not directed to you should not be considered by you in arriving at your verdict. No single one of these instructions states all the law applicable in this case but all of these instructions must be taken, read and considered together

as they are connected with and related to each other as a whole. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will have these instructions with you if you need to refresh your memory on any of the instructions on the law. You will also have with you the exhibits and two forms of verdict. I would ask that all six of you sign your names to either one or the other of the verdict forms. In other words, it must be unanimous verdict. At this time, we will have closing argument, Mr. Morgan. Mr. Davies and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have now arrived at the happy point in these proceedings. When you have received all of the raw material necessary from which to fashion a verdict, you have heard all of the evidence that will be presented during this case. You have been now completely instructed upon the law.

And I must emphasize if for no other reason than as a reminder to myself that these words of final argument are probably not deathless prose to be remembered a thousand years hence but as the court instructed you, the final arguments of counsel are not evidence. You don't render your verdict based upon the final arguments but on the law and the evidence. The question is whether or not you are convinced from the evidence that the city has shown that the defendant Lauren Watson resisted a police officer while in the discharge or, as the first instruction says, the apparent discharge of his duty. The charge itself is simple.

There is a little bit more to it than that when it comes to determining the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. And I think probably as far as this case is concerned or any case in which witnesses on both sides give contradictory evidence where there are two or more accounts of an event. It is very important of course to apply the instructions which the court gave you on the credibility of witnesses. And let's just stop for a moment and I'll very briefly call your attention to the evidence which I think makes it abundantly clear that officer can't well had probable cause to make the arrest. In fact, I believe if I recall the evidence in this case he placed Mr. Watson under arrest at least three times verbally before the police officers that came to assist him were able to aid him in taking him into actual custody.

Now we are fortunate in this case that although the jury does not have the opportunity of taking notes or making memoranda as you go along and it was a long trial, we're in our fourth day. Still we have an account of the incident that was made shortly after the incident which was testified to first if you will recall orally by officer can't well and subsequently the written account was offered and admitted into evidence. Planets exhibit a page and a half line by line account of what occurred. Now the defendant is not on trial for any of the matters referred to that led up to the charge of resistance.

He's not on trial for the traffic charges. The only thing he's on trial for is the resistance. However, as the court instructed you in order to find the defendant guilty of the charge of resistance you must first find beyond a reasonable doubt that the police officers had probable cause to make the arrest. I would think it would be very difficult to find a case where a person was contacted initially for a very minor traffic violation and when asked to exhibit a driver's license refused then being told you're under arrest for failing to have on your person and fail you to display a driver's license. The person gets back in the car when the officer went back to get his ticket book takes off, is stopped again, then told he was under arrest for eluding the police officer, takes off again, granted not at a high rate of speed

and finally at the scene that culminated in the alleged resistance when told to put his hands on the car so that he could be searched for weapons again and left the scene that scene and went into the service station where by this time a number of officers arrived and as you recall the evidence, the evidence which the city offered showed that there was a struggle as they attempted to take Mr. Watson into custody. He struggled before he was handcuffed, he struggled after he was handcuffed. I would think it would be very difficult to review this evidence and find that there was a reasonable doubt that the officer had probably caused to make the arrest. They tried three times before they were ultimately successful.

Now the instructions continue and manage the jury that even if you find probable cause for arresting the defendant in order to convict him, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to resist the arrest through physical force. It would seem to me and it would seem reasonable for the jury in weighing all of the evidence in the case to take the circumstances of a person such as the defendant, Mr. Watson, being told on three separate occasions at three separate locations you're under arrest and in each of the first three instances, the defendant leaving and the officer having to follow and the entire episode culminating in the necessity of a number of police officers having to push the way into the area of this service station to use force to take him into custody all while he was struggling.

It would seem to me that taking all of the evidence, all the conduct of the defendant leading up to the actual physical opposition which he showed that would certainly leave no doubt that he had the intent not to be taken into custody. The next instruction number 10 recites very properly the defendant's theory of the case taking only the defendant's evidence in the case from one witness. You are instructed that if you find that the physical movement on the part of the defendant was merely a reflex action in response to his being grabbed by the police officers and you must find the defendant not guilty. As I recall one of the witnesses testified that from his view testified in substance that from his view when Mr. Watson turned around and when the officers were trying to take him into custody the event where officer can't well was dislodged from him that this was a mere reflex action or at least mostly a mere reflex action.

That was the testimony of at least one defense witness and if you believe that that was the fact that all I was to this case was Mr. Watson and turning around when he was being taken into custody by a reflex action when he was told that you're under arrest and they tried to take him into custody by force. He merely turned around in a reflex action and this was the result of the officer being dislodged from him. If in your view that's all that happened I would have to agree you find him not guilty if that's all that happened. I think probably in this case it is the simplest summary of the entire case to inquire again as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the testimony of a given witness.

Watson's testimony was that officer can't well had had numerous contacts with him and that had threatened him and that Watson felt in some fashion that possibly the officer was out to assassinate him if I recall the evidence. Well I suppose in all fairness if you believe that if that sounds reasonable to you taking all the evidence in the case and applying it I'd have to say if you really believe this is so. If you believe that officer can't well in effect one harassed the defendant as they testified if you believe that you'd have to believe that he fabricated the testimony of the physical opposition to the arrest you'd have to believe that he fabricated the whole chain of events.

On the other hand if can missing all the evidence in this case you believe as I urge upon you the evidence I think reasonably and clearly shows but officer can't well didn't know this man he certainly didn't know who was in that car. He saw a traffic violation he tried to stop him he was going to issue him a simple ticket the man took off. If you believe from the evidence rather that officer can't well was doing what we would hopefully expect our peace officers to do enforce the law as the agents of all of us then I would say you would have no choice but to find the defendant guilty. All right closing argument. Thank you honor. Ladies and gentlemen I'll try and be as brief about this as possible though it has been a long trial and I'm sure you'll understand any overextension of my time and your patience.

You'll recall that you made many promises on for dear examination. We talked about reasonable doubt presumption of innocence and you all agreed with those principles and all agreed that you would like to have them applied to you now of course is the time that you have to make good on that promise and I'm sure that you all will. We've heard a lot about what you have to find to convict the defendant of course you have to find that Mr Watson actually resisted the arrest by officer can't well in the filling station and you have to find that fact beyond a reasonable doubt you can have no doubt in your mind whatsoever. Now then the question is you have to somehow out of this rather large spectrum of facts and incidents that went on you have to come up with a conclusion that as far as your concern beyond any reasonable doubt you have no question in your mind under the definition is given to you that Mr Watson resisted the arrest by Mr Cantwell.

Now first of all I think it's important for you to remember one thing Mr Watson testified on his own behalf he was asked did you intend to resist this arrest. His answer was no. Now then taking officer Cantwell's testimony recall that he testified in the morning that when he stopped Mr Watson the first time he did not place him under arrest we got the report and the report he says he did place him under arrest. Now one of those two times he wasn't accurate was it just a memory lapse the report he made that's going to be an evidence was not under oath.

The statement he made on the stand and direct examination that he did not arrest the defendant was made under oath this is not a sworn statement and I want you to keep that in mind. Now then officer Prazini testified you all recall that he testified that he got a call and he came to 28th and Marion now they were stopped at 29th and Marion the first stop was made at 29th and Marion is your recall that he picked up Mr Watson and Mr Cantwell driving along the street at 28 maybe it was 29. It doesn't matter he saw them that he got behind Mr Cantwell that another officer as I recall this depend on got behind him and they followed Mr Watson to 34th and Franklin and neither Mr Watson nor Mr Cantwell nor Mr Prazini nor Mr Dependo stopped in that entire period of time and yet Cantwell says they stopped twice and the defendant said they stopped twice now where was Prazini was he there wasn't he. Why is there such a fantastic discrepancy all right came back to Cantwell he indicated that he pulled into this station Mr Watson pulled into the station he said you're under arrest for loading a police officer and put your hands on the car we're going to search you.

Officer Prazini says no I was right there simultaneously and that didn't happen well this is these are their witnesses our witnesses happened to agree with officer Prazini that that wasn't said but they can't even remember what happened. Watson went into the station Cantwell says they broke their way in at first he said it was him and Prazini in the report he says it was he into Pinto another discrepancy that he can't remember he says he went in and he went up to Watson he says put your hands on the wall I'm going to search you. And he says Watson refused to be searched and they had to subdue him officer Prazini was right there he doesn't remember that he says he says as do the defense witnesses say they just ran in and grabbed Mr Watson one on each arm Watson turned around and Cantwell lost his balance and Dependo was there too no mention of this request that he put his hands on the wall

and that he submit to a search none whatsoever even though Cantwell under oath says that's what happened. Now here's a picture of a melee of three officers at first apparently according to their testimony other people in this small station two people one that owns a station another person there a general melee going on he is putting up a fantastic struggle according to Cantwell now he can't was being thrown off his feet and it's all this time he's saying Mr Watson you have a right to a lawyer anything you say maybe held against you if you can't afford a lawyer will get one for you it stretches the imagination especially in light of the fact that Cantwell has been contradicted throughout this thing by Prazini and yet there were no discrepancy shown in Mr Watson's story through cross examination he has the right to cross examination he didn't show any discrepancy not the kind of discrepancy that were Mr Cantwell's testimony

there was no other witness for the defense who took that stand and contradicted Mr Watson whereas they put a witness on the contradicted Mr Cantwell in many very serious specifics of the story a young lady you saw her examine her demeanor young lady from South Africa what's her interest she heard Cantwell come up the car the second time to know I just want to harass her all right she's lying too they're all lying even though they're no discrepancy in their story they're all telling the truth even though they can't agree on what the truth is together it does not make sense ladies and gentlemen and it's on that that this man is saying to you you affect a substantial portion of this young man's life I don't think you can do it

the system won't allow you to do that the finest system of justice in the world will not allow you to do that Mr. Galloway he owns a filling station he's a hardworking man he's trying to make a living at 34th and Franklin he's sitting there he says Watson comes in to use the phone that's that everybody agrees on that when the police came in the dormist to watch him was on the phone they came in they grabbed him he turned around he didn't struggle he didn't nobody's ever said he swung issue of resistance in this case that when he turned around can't well lost his balance and according to can't well there are a lot of people around two other officers on one person he lost his balance therefore he resisted arrest Galloway says no he saw the whole thing and Watson didn't resist arrest Mr. Watson took the stand under oath and that did you intend to resist this arrest no I didn't

he says I was in fact they were had my arm up they had another arm here certainly you were two if Mr. Watson had on this particular occasion as soon as they came in that door what would be the extreme of non-resistance you lay down you go limp that he'd be in here for resisting arrest what can he do that's not resisting arrest nobody got hit no police officer got hit pushed can't well lost his balance that's it that's this case I hope that you will read these instructions very carefully I would like to very briefly direct our attention to three of them first of all you must realize that you have some steps to go through in this case before you can convict in the first instance you must say the police officers had reasonable grounds or probable cause

to go in that feeling station and arrest Watson now then is a man who is you know resisting arrest and wants to get away from the police officer under the police officer set of facts going to keep stopping his car and go back to the officer and say what is it if can't well tell him he was arrested the first time it was a little redundant on the part of Watson to stop the second time and go back and say no I submit it didn't happen I submitted happened the way mr. Watson and the young lady said it happened now then you have to say all right the police officer first of all you have to say was that did he have reasonable cause to arrest Watson because if he didn't then there can be no resistance to the arrest I think you understand that you cannot resist an unlawful arrest once you can say if you can't answer that question in the affirmative that is

that there was probable cause then you need to go any further that's the end of the case you must return and not guilty verdict but let's say that you do say well I maybe had reason to go in there and arrest Watson then you have to say did what Watson do amount to resistance and you cannot you know from the instructions number one that is whatever he said to the officer and there's been some confusion about that some discrepancies about that in addition to the fact that there seems to have been there's some testimony that the officers were keeping a little verbal abuse of their own mere words you can't amount to a resistance guy comes up and says you're under arrest and you say I'm not going you can't take me forget it get out of here as they cuff you it's no resistance and when you're walking down the street and you see officers police officers

carrying color television sets out of a warehouse if you say to them hey where are you going with that you can't do that proper comment there's nothing in the evidence and is merely inflammatory prejudicial and very improper and counsel knows it I think I have a very wide latitude not that wide your honor well I think this jury is wise enough to use Mr. Davies examples for the purpose in which he shows to give examples and will not be prejudiced he may proceed with his closing argument thank you the point is the ladies and gentlemen that people have a duty to demonstrate with police officers if they in fact they're doing something wrong and the point is that if there were little more of that in some instances some very bad things might be avoided

it's merely an example to show you why the law in its wisdom says the merely monstrance and criticism and so forth cannot be resistance even though you're being arrested you must find that the resistance was through physical force and violence and did in fact deter the police officers in the performance of their official act in the number one they weren't deterred and number two there's no evidence of physical force and violence the only evidence is one turning around which one witness a disinterested witness described as a reflex action and it's here instructed there that if you find that to be a reflex action and you find that was the alleged facts then you must acquit the defendant so you see your works cut out for you I think it's cut out for you because there are a lot of peripheral issues in this case question whether can't well did in fact come around the house you don't have to decide that beyond a reasonable doubt the issue is did they have grounds to arrest him

and if in fact when they did arrest him and they did arrest him they didn't run out of the gas station after chasing down the street arrest him without much difficulty and use some force on him in responding to that initial grabbing when he turned around and can't well went off balance and you say that beyond all reasonable doubt this young man should be punished for the crime of resisting arrest after you read these instructions I don't think you can I certainly hope that you won't I think that you must pardon the defendant not guilty thank you very much thank you Mr. Davies the city which has the burden of proof has opportunity for rebuttal argument I have no doubt that the jury takes comfort in the lessons of history that evenly strongest gales and hurricanes blow themselves out eventually

and this is even true of the sound and the fury of this trial is just about to terminate there's very little that I have to say in rebuttal I think it's probably unnecessary to take as much time as Mr. Davies did in commanding on each and every discrepancy among the witnesses on the defense side but just as an example you remember that the young lady from South Africa said that when they got to 34th in Franklin that all four of the males got out of the car and went into the service station right then and their witness the service station attendant said no Mr. Watson came in alone so if we want corroboration from the other side we can say that Terry the young woman from South Africa corroborated officer Cantwell's testimony that when the officers tried to get in there were a number of people blocking the door I must comment with a mixed feeling of admiration

and something less than that of Mr. Davies' tactic of trying the police officer although there was no evidence that there is it's common knowledge that people steal color TV sets I don't think there was any evidence that this is a custom of police officers but it is a familiar tactic don't try the defendant, try the police officer, throw red herring, throw dust in their eyes I think what it boils down to ladies and gentlemen is simply this if in fact you believe and I mean it's very sincerely and I know you do if you believe from the evidence that this police officer fabricated if he correctly testified falsely you should find the defendant not guilty and the officer should be certainly very severely punished if he lied under oath basically our whole system and this is why we have laws on resistance

our whole system of law in order depends upon people settling their differences in court and not out on the street if we're going to have officers as conservators of the peace people are going to have to comply with the law of not offering physical opposition when they are accused of something on the street but litigate the matter in court we have two choices if you believe that the officer was performing his duty we either have to at some point or another decide to uphold law in order and have order in our society or follow the law of the jungle and have chaos thank you very much may I have instructions please they also have exhibits A and B

are you ready to be sworn? you solemnly swear by the ever living God that you will to the utmost of your ability keep this jury together in some private or convenient place without meat or drink except water unless by order of court that you will suffer no one to speak to them or speak to them yourself unless by order of court except to ask whether they have agreed upon a verdict when they have agreed you will return them to court I'll let you take the jury out I'm not going to recess the court

please go with the battle of Mrs. Dondelanger I'm not going to recess the court unless you need time Mr. Morgan Mr. Davies you may be excused would you let the court know where you are going to be so we can reach you I was told that what Davies did a hell of a job you know well how much does Davies get paid a year and how much does our Mr. Morgan get paid a year you know how many cases is Mr. Davies working on at this moment and how many cases is Mr. Morgan working on

there's no comparison I can't blame I don't blame Mr. Morgan because he did the hell of a job for the time he had and the facts he had brought up to him I had to keep telling him you know what new facts because we didn't have time to get together you know I think it is unfair no court in this country it would pertain to me unless it was a court made up selected or hired by or whatever by my peers people black people who live in the black community who are the situations that I face and I deal with that all black people in the country face and deal with judge from this community responsible to the people in this community I mean I came on a job wanting to be a policeman and I want to do the best I can and personally I think I have done the best I can it's more than just a job I mean it's not like coming home at five o'clock at night each supper watch TV take the family to the movies and then come home at night

go to bed, get up, eat breakfast and go to work and all that's in front of you is the same thing was in front of you yesterday a policeman's life is not that way your shifts rotate every month you don't never know what time you're going to get home you may get home an hour late two hours late your wife starts worrying you know the words yet you know maybe he's got shot so you don't know a policeman you have to be a certain type of an individual to be a policeman I know there's one fellow came on and he got a rock going at him and hit him in the foot and he said that's it man he said I don't have to take this stuff and he quit what if a thousand policemen did that we all got through the rocks what are we all suppose we don't take this with quits you can't I mean I've got a family that I want to protect too well that was a fascinating trial because in a way that was just a real sort of a microcosm of what the problem is today in the world we have the police that are very unhappy with the black militants

we have the black militants that are extremely unhappy with the police and this is just a beautiful little example of this conflict and it's not just in Denver I'm sure it's in every large city and some middle size cities the black militants may be out to provoke the police and the police are very unhappy about these militants and will seek any possible excuse for giving them citations charging them with violations of law and that there may be situations in fact where one of the militants may be charged with a violation where you or I might not be charged with a violation this happens tell someone thinks of a better way to handle the problems I think it's maybe not the best of all possible solutions to solving problems which is what happens in that courtroom we're solving problems but until someone comes up with a better idea I think it's pretty good it's much better than having the officer arrest someone and saying that's it I have great hope in the system

for the system no I believe in it I really do I don't think I just don't think I could be a judge if I didn't it works it has problems it could be better but it works and I don't know of any better system you know what I just found out? no I'll take a minute to see if I can he just put the coin he's going to tell you how to do it you want it? hands with my judge was guilty and there was two hands out of three okay well that's what they did so I suppose we just hope that not for two hours I was hoping that they would up on order I'm gonna give you a final instruction after it's gonna be good it's gonna be extra you think that's what it is right? I blew the coin? no no I have never tried this I was joking before I've never seriously tried to predict a jury's British because any time you try you wrong What do you think about what did you predict the jury? Well, I think it's always possible to predict the jury. I think that the fair decision, the just decision would be in the quillums.

I've been in the alarm, so why this jury panel, as you know, has highlighted marks in the court. It's sort of my prediction is that they're liquid, and it's somewhat of a self-denined prophecy, because I think there's, I predicted that the panel would convict, because it was made up, and my whole argument about the construction of the jury panel would be supported by that. At this point, it's difficult to tell. We pray for an acquittal and we'll take what we get, I suppose. Well, my feeling was that we had a reasonable, although not a serious case. It was a technical violation that jury could go either way. I think if they returned a verdict of guilty, that it's a very proper verdict, and I have enough faith in the jury system that they returned a not guilty verdict, I think that's a proper verdict also. Thank you.

Please rise. Let the record show we are continuing with the case of City and County of Denver, versus Lauren Watson. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached the verdict in the case? We have, Your Honor. All right. Would you please hand your jury verdicts to Mrs. Don Blinger, the bailiff, who will hand them to me so I can read them into the record? In the case of the people of the State of Colorado and City and County of Denver,

versus Lauren R. Watson defendant, the verdict reads as follows. We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty as charged in the complaint file herein. Section 847.1-1 resistance. The verdict form is signed by six jurors. Is there any, uh, four deer that either cyber-fired? No, Your Honor, I don't desire the jury to be pulled. Oh, the jury will not be pulled. You have now completed your duties as jurors in this case and are discharged with the thanks of the court. Now, let me add just a few more words. As you've, as you've been well aware, we've had a documentary being filmed in here during these four days. It is absolutely impossible to film a jury deliberating on a case. This has never been done and it never will be done. The gentlemen who are putting together this documentary have expressed some interest in filming some conversations with the, with you and with the attorneys

for the purpose of trying to show the viewing audience, people, how a jury thinks how they reach a decision. They would like to, if you desire to, take pictures of some discussion at this time with the attorneys on how you reached your decision. The court would have no objection, neither attorney has any objection and what I would say to you is this, if any one of you would prefer not to have this film as far as you're concerned, you do not have to do it. In other words, you may just leave now. This is up to you. If any of you would have no objection to discussing the case with the attorneys, as you may do, but to have this film while you're doing it, then I would ask that you remain and as I pointed out, the photographers would like to take pictures of this. This is entirely in your own discretion. You do not have to be filmed. You do not have to discuss this before the cameras if you don't wish to do so.

I leave this up to you. I thank you personally for your attention these long four days. I wish to thank both attorneys, and I mean this very sincerely, for a very well-presented case. I very much appreciate the courtesy and the thinking that went into arguing this case and behalf of both the city attorney and the defense attorney. The court at this time will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 8.30. The court did not reflect enough of an opposition to constitute resistance or if it involved a disbelief of the, particularly officer camp well's testimony.

That's the thing. I was primarily because was for chance of that the basis. I'm interested. It just wasn't quite proven conclusively on a reasonable doubt that there was resistance. Well, that was my feeling of what the verdict probably, personally, what it should have been based on was the fact that there wasn't enough physical opposition. That's what it was. Every time I've really talked to a jury, it's restored the faith I've always had in the jury system because there's something about six people get together that seemed to arrive at the truth better than any other way I know of. And I'm very happy to know that was your reasoning. That was one of the reasons I don't like to find not the only was the fact that it wasn't quite proven to be on the reasonable doubt. That it was really resistant in other words, that's right. But you did believe officer camp well's testimony is being the truth. I believe partial of both sides. Right. We didn't disbelieve. Everybody. We didn't believe anybody. Well, fine. I appreciate you giving this information.

You just have to resist inspecting it. Let me say this. If I thought myself that some police officer were deliberately harassing somebody or deliberately lying about material allegations, we shouldn't have a man like that on the police force. And we, and we've always believed he was conscientious and honest, honest officer. Right. I think that he was trying to, it just didn't, it just didn't work. He said to judge by facts only and facts didn't point to it without a doubt. Well, I agree with you all hardly. My personal opinion was that it was a weak case in the facts, but it was strong enough to present the jury. Thank you so very much. I wish to thank you. I think you did your job. I hope that you benefited from the experience so much. You should do it. I think it's an important function that you did in LA. I've benefited a lot. Thank you very much. You said we tried.

Well, and you did. And we're very grateful in that. It gives some evil faith in the system that perhaps they feel a little bit disenfranchised from itself. But very good job, and I appreciate it. As I understand it, I caught just the tail end of Mr. Morgan's comments. I understand that she just didn't feel it was that reason about it. It just didn't group it past the reason you don't know. Yes. There was a doubt. Striping, no getting, no scars. Apparently, you know that anyway. And it was such a crowded place. Right a place. That you can't really say what happened. Right, it's difficult for anybody in a situation like that. As far as I personally do. Obviously for Zini said, he rushed in. He grabbed him and spun him around. Right. I mean, if that hadn't been in the testimony, I'd believe I could have found a man guilty. And everybody was sure that he was on the phone, so he'd have to turn around. Right. And as they spun him around, I think that's where the resistance charge could stand from. That's what I said. It was no reasonable doubt. How many ballots did you take? I don't wish to know who voted how, but I just wondered what was the first ballot you recall?

It was five to one. Five to one. And then there was only one other ballot here, did you? Of course. Well, there was only one there. There was only one ballot right away. And it was five to one. Five to one for a quid, one person. I think so. Yes. The question arises with me is that everybody's on their own. And so many stories are told. And you just wonder how somebody, yeah. Have you learned anything? Oh, what? Learn something every day. Well, you wrote enough. They're right at book. It's been quite an experience. You know, what I'm wondering is whether or not you've debated all about the fact. One thing you did was listen to that online, honest country, police officer. They just wasn't in the physical opposite. Which, you know, they just believe the fact that they didn't think that it constant resistance. They just believe the defense on the chase. Well, that's what they believe. Some of what the defense said, too. But they didn't believe you without harassing them and so on. The thing is, and this is why every time I talk to a jury, I'm just convinced it's the best method to get this.

Well, the moral story is, you know, really. The moral of the story is that these complaints should be solid. Well, I feel this way. You know I do. But this was enough borderline as I told the jurors that I didn't feel it was my function to be the judge in this case. Now, sometimes I do. I got through out of case against Washington Week before. That was just painfully no good. But this one I felt there was enough to go to the jury. And they, it must have been fairly good. They went and delivered it over an hour. Almost two hours. There were many stories come alive. Right. Thank you very much. Really did a good job. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I think you did too. I love to win. I love to win. Now, there's the victor. Now, that's the victor over there. That's the winner. Be quiet the whole time.

About a year's free service. To whom? Who are you? You. Well, I will turn green with envy when he sees you. I don't think so. Perry Mason will even have... I don't think so. We're lucky. And justice on our side. Really? You know. You're not congratulating the jury. Okay. Well, I am. That's the end of the meatloaf. I have a question. So it doesn't shoot the hell out of the... For a jury selection system? No, it doesn't. One. I think he can answer further, man. The fact is, you know, the fact that we won't change it, you know. We won't change it, you know. It's absolutely nothing, you know. If all of us had an attorney-like landing. The fact that we won as black people would still be on the basis that we had confident confidence. We are not going to have in this kind of a capitalistic system, you know, where the majority of attorneys are equally as much capitalistic as anybody else in the society.

Charge big fees and everything like that. Where even a small portion of poor people, to press people, black people, are going to have confident counsel. And all the jury system, Mary, the court system mounts to as a contest. The fact is, a cloud like Morgan should never beat you on any case. Well, don't you think really, Lauren, that there might be just one small element in this, that the system of justice we have may be a good one? No. What would you replace it with? See, that's exactly the point. The very fact, you know, that I am a black man, you know, I have to care less whether six white people who live on the other side of town think I'm guilty or not. That's the whole thing right there. What the hell do I care what they think? I could give it down, you know. And as much as they could, you know, could give it down, what I think. And yet they're sitting up here, you know,

making decisions about my life. That's not justice. He's a good, just attorney, because he believes in the system of justice. Now, in other hand, you know, I don't believe in it at all. Well, but Lauren, how many trials have we had now? Five, six. Yeah. At least, right? You've been acquitted on each one with the exception of one minor challenge, right? Don't you think that after a while, aren't you going to start deciding maybe the system does work? We've been successful. The system does not work because I'm still the victim. What has happened to the officers who brutalized me, surrounded my home, you know, dragged me off to jail. They haven't been penalized for this trial. They get paid while they're sitting there, you know, figuring out trying to get their lie to get them. You know, it's a just system for white people. I've never, you know, like, for some white people. For middle class and other, it's a just system. For poor people, for black people, it's an injustice system. And competent attorneys for even the lowest, poorest black man in the community,

or the lowest poorest white man in the community, it would not be a system of justice. You know, because the people who created the injustice in the first place were not on trial here today. The officers should have been here on trial. They should have been the ones trying to keep the jury from sending them up the river for 20 or 30 years. Not me. You know, like, you know, even after listening to Leonard's closing argument, you know, I was more and more angry at myself, you know, for not beating a shit out of them in the first place. You know, I should have resisted a rep. You know, I should have killed both of them, you know, when they came in the door. And that would have been justice to me. I'll run them. You know, I'll run them. Close the key. Got two, 14. Maybe he'll take it up there. Two, 14. 19. 31. Newport. Go 15 additional. I'm not off that.

Please need. Okay. You need to be back. 206. Hit and run. Car ran into a garage. 33.58 over, okay. That's an old car. It's reading the description of a one at the party. It's a five-mail. And according to 45, we've had your things. I can put it in a truck too. Third place, home, heavy bill. Maybe a conflection. Got brown hair with gray. Where is bonding? This is NET, the public television network. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And again. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.