Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, W.Va.
| Citation | 81 F.3d 416 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1925,94-1925 |
| Parties | 44 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 94 Geunita M. HINKLE, Administratrix of the Estate of Bea Wilson, deceased, as Administratrix, and on her own behalf; Patricia L. Wilson, individually and for John Wilson and Adam Wilson, minor children, who sue by their mother and best friend; Bea Wilson, Jr.; Harold W. Wilson; Mildred J. Wilson; Harold R. Wilson; Gloria J. Norman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA; Dan Boroff, individually and as The City Manager of the City of Clarksburg; City of Clarksburg Police Department; Thomas C. Durrett, individually, and as Chief of Clarksburg Police Department; L.L. Lake, a/k/a Lanny Lake, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; John Walker, individually and as a Clarksburg Police Officer and Supervisory Officer; Ronald Alonso, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; Clifford Floyd, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Supervisory Officer; Grant Smith, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; Mark Waggamon, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer; Gary Lowther, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer, Supervisory Officer and Training Officer; Robert Starkey, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Larry Robey, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Raymond Mazza, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Charles Reich, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; James Watkins, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Training Officer; Michael Brown, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Police Firearms Instructor; Joseph K. Luzader, individually and as a Clarksburg City Police Officer and Firearms Instructor; John Doe; Richard Roe; Donald Doe; Robert Roe, Police Officers, Police Supervisory Officers, Police Training Officers and Police Firearms Instructors of the Cit |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-91-64-C(S)) ARGUED: Rocco E. Mazzei, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellants. Daniel C. Cooper, Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Amy M. Smith, Timothy R. Miley, Steptoe & Johnson, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge RUSSELL wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge WILKINSON and Judge NIEMEYER joined.
Bea Wilson was shot and killed by Clarksburg, West Virginia Police Officer Lake after a ten-minute standoff during which Wilson, who was intoxicated and armed with a shotgun, locked himself in his apartment and threatened to kill anyone who came through the door. Wilson's estate and family filed this civil rights suit against the City of Clarksburg and numerous police officers and government officials contending, inter alia, that Officer Lake used excessive force when he killed Wilson, and that the police officers subsequently conspired with government officials to cover-up the wrongdoing.
Appellants, Wilson's estate and family, filed this appeal from the district court's order entering judgment against them upon a partial grant of summary judgment and a jury verdict in their civil action. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
In the early morning hours of January 25, 1990, Clarksburg police officers responded to a domestic violence call at Bea Wilson's apartment. Wilson was intoxicated and inside his apartment with his young son, Adam. Wilson armed himself with a shotgun and ammunition and threatened to kill anyone who came through the door. The officers took up position outside the apartment: Officer Alonso stood just outside the closed apartment door, while Officer Lake manned the stairs leading upstairs and Officer Smith covered the stair-landing near the front door of the building. Officer Floyd arrived at the scene and remained on the porch of the building. Officer Alonso attempted to negotiate with Wilson, who responded by allowing Adam to leave the apartment.
Because the apartment door remained partially open after Adam exited, Officer Lake could see Wilson in the apartment with the shotgun. When Wilson requested to speak with his wife, Officer Alonso told him that his wife was near the front door and would speak to him.
The dispute over what happened next forms the basis for this appeal. Appellants contend that Officer Lake unjustifiably fired a fatal bullet into Wilson's back. The police officers offer a different version, contending that Wilson began moving toward the open door with his right hand extended on the barrel of the shotgun holding several shells, while his left hand was on the trigger. As Wilson reached the threshold with his gun, Officer Lake ordered Wilson to stop and drop the gun. Wilson stopped walking toward the door, but he failed to drop his gun. Officer Lake again commanded Wilson to drop the gun; Wilson raised the shotgun as if to shoot, at which point Officer Lake fired one shot that grazed Wilson's arm, entered his chest, and exited his back. Wilson spun around from the force of the blow, and he fired his shotgun into a stuffed chair in the back of the room. Wilson fell face first away from the door; he was pronounced dead at the scene.
When Dr. Saoud, the County Coroner, arrived at the apartment, he initially noted that Wilson died from a bullet wound to the back. Doctor Saoud based this conclusion on the relative sizes of the wounds. He noted the chest wound was larger than the back wound, which normally indicates that the chest wound is an exit wound. Doctor Frost, the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, performed an autopsy and concluded that Wilson was shot in the chest. Doctor Frost based his conclusion, in part, on an examination of the fibers from Wilson's sweatshirt. Fibers surrounding the bullet hole on the front of the shirt were facing inward, while those on the back faced outward. According to Dr. Frost, the chest wound was relatively larger than the back wound because the bullet first grazed Wilson's arm, which interrupted its angle such that it did not hit Wilson's chest straight on.
Six days after the shooting, Officer Walker, the chief investigating officer for this shooting, removed Wilson's sweatshirt from the property room and threw it away in the city dumpster. Officer Walker contends the sweatshirt was covered with blood and was beginning to emit a foul-smelling odor. Although the sweatshirt was evidence of whether Wilson was shot in the chest or back, Officer Walker saw no reason to keep it.
Approximately seven months later, Appellants obtained a court order to exhume Wilson's body. Appellants hired Dr. Wecht, an independent medical examiner, to conduct a second autopsy and reach a conclusion about whether Wilson was shot in the chest or back. Doctor Wecht was unable to examine the chest wound, however, because the entire wound had been excised. Doctor Wecht testified that the chest wound was "obliterated by a puckered incision, ..., closed tightly by thick, white string." Nonetheless, Dr. Wecht opined that Wilson was shot in the back.
Appellants' lawsuit alleged a state claim for wrongful death, and various complaints of civil rights deprivations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 & 1986 (1988). Appellants contended that Officer Lake used excessive force against Wilson, that city, county, and state officials subsequently conspired to cover-up the truth and prevent Appellants from seeking redress in a court of law, and that the state medical examiner violated Appellants' due process rights by disposing of Wilson's internal organs without first notifying the family. Appellants also contended Officer Floyd was directly liable for the shooting under a theory of supervisory liability, that the non-shooting scene officers were liable, and that the City of Clarksburg ("the City") was independently liable for providing its officers inadequate training.
The district court dismissed most of Appellants' claims at summary judgment, concluding that Appellants failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the existence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice, potential supervisor liability, or the inadequacy of the departmental training program. Appellants' claims of excessive force and wrongful death proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict against Appellants on both counts; this appeal followed.
We first consider Appellants' claims that the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment on their claims of non-shooting officer liability, supervisory liability, inadequate training, conspiracy and denial of due process.
inadequate training
Appellants contend the non-shooting officers at the scene were independently liable for failing to prevent Officer Lake's use of excessive force. Complementary to this claim were Appellants' contentions that the City was liable for providing its officers with inadequate training to handle the type of domestic situation they encountered at Wilson's apartment, and that Officer Floyd was liable as an acting supervisor at the scene.
We see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...resulted in the deprivation of a constitutional right. Glassman v Arlington County, VA, 628 F.3d 140 (2010) (citing Hinkle v City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416 (4th Cir. 1996)). A Plaintiff must come forward with specific evidence that each member of the alleged conspiracy shared the same cons......
-
Nance v. City of Albemarle
...in furtherance of the conspiracy which resulted in [the plaintiffs’] deprivation of a constitutional right ...." Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir. 1996).Other courts also have emphasized the need to prove a deprivation of a constitutional right or privilege. See, e.g.......
-
Wahi v. Charleston Area Medical Center
...was done in furtherance of the conspiracy which resulted in Appellants' deprivation of a constitutional right." Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 421 (4th Cir.1996). "Appellants have a weighty burden to establish a civil rights conspiracy. While they need not produce direct evidenc......
-
Abraham v. Raso
...Dec. 12, 1995), aff'd, 91 F.3d 125 (3d Cir.) (table), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 435 (1996); see also Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 420 (4th Cir. 1996); Abbot v. City of Crocker, 30 F.3d 994, 998 (8th Cir. 1994); Webber v. Mefford, 43 F.3d 1340, 1344 (10th Cir. 1994......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...to recreate events at issue must be substantially similar to the actual events to be admissible. See Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F. 3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals in Hinkle encouraged trial judges to first examine proposed videotaped simulation evidence outside the p......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...lead to its exclusion, provided it fairly and accurately portrays the proponent’s version of events. E.g., Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg , 81 F.3d 416, 424-25 (4th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a computer-animated videotape is essentially like a real-life re-creation and thus it must be suffic......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...to recreate events at issue must be substantially similar to the actual events to be admissible. See Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F. 3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals in Hinkle encouraged trial judges to first examine proposed videotaped simulation evidence outside the p......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...to recreate events at issue must be substantially similar to the actual events to be admissible. See Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F. 3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 1996). The Court of Appeals in Hinkle encouraged trial judges to first examine proposed videotaped simulation evidence outside the p......