The defendant was white. The jury was white. The victim was black. The video was black and white. And it never happened.
When the video was released of Chad Holley being beaten, it sent shock waves though Houston. It was so inflammatory, so “shocking and sickening,” that they wanted it hidden from view.
When this video was first released, the outrage was that the Houston Police Officers giving Chad Holley a good beating were only charged with the lesser offense of official oppression rather than assault. No matter, as it turns out.
Via the AP, former officer Andrew Blomberg was acquitted of official oppression because there was no beating. It didn’t happen.
During his trial, Blomberg, who is white, testified that he didn’t mistreat Holley and denied kicking or stomping on the teen’s head or neck. He said he only used his foot to move Holley’s arm after he refused to comply with an order to put his hands behind his back.
Jurors declined to comment after the verdict.
I suppose “I didn’t see nuttin'” probably wasn’t one of those moments jurors wanted captured for posterity.
Prosecutors told jurors Blomberg kicked Holley several times and Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland Jr. testified that he believed Blomberg kicked and stomped on the teen.
Defense attorneys countered he was only trying to secure a potentially armed suspect. Several officers testified supporting Blomberg’s claim that Holley was resisting arrest.
They told about how bad and dangerous Holley was, as if that has any relevance. But it’s always a great play for cops. Not because it explains or justifies their actions, but because it makes the jurors feel that the victim deserved it and, well, he got what was coming to him. It’s a variation on the old Texas defense, he needed killin’.
Was the beating of a black teen by white cops a racial thing? Was the acquittal of that white cop by a white jury a racial thing? Blomberg’s lawyer says no.
His attorney, Dick DeGuerin, also said “it is not and was not a racial thing.”
“It’s been made into that by others for their own reasons,” he said.
Asked why there weren’t any blacks or minorities on the jury, DeGuerin said most of the African-Americans in the jury pool had already made up their minds that Blomberg was guilty.
If this is true, then explaining the verdict becomes exceptionally difficult. Unless you accept the premise that what you see on that videotape just didn’t happen. Maybe it looks different in Houston.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is why Texas should spend more money on education and less on police/prosecution. The police can do this beacuse the people are too stupid and ignorant to care or know the difference. The tales of false prosecution/misconduct out of Texas are pathetic. In the end it is supported by the people, the pay for it and don’t take an interest or care.
Rodney King all over again, and it’s been this way for awhile now. Now that cameras are cheap and plentiful, we’re seeing more and more incidents of police brutality.
Trial aside, this is only going to lead to more racial tensions towards the system and towards the police.
Between this and the likely acquittal of George Zimmerman I fear that cities are going to burn.
It’s sad. In some ways, it’s a miracle that charges were even filed. It will also be a miracle if the federal § 1983 claim is sustained, given that SCOTUS’s ever-expanding definition of what is “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment almost always allows this sort of flagrantly abusive behavior to get filed under Qualified Immunity. And after Pearson v. Callahan, the lower court can just throw the suit out without passing on whether the officers’ conduct was unconstitutional. Gotta love the Rehnquist-Roberts Court double team.
Do we even know for sure that the video got played at the trial?
And why did the prosecutor let in evidence of the victim’s bad character?
Smells like 1919 Whitesox.
If we read the story, we know that the video was played at trial. If we think it’s sufficiently worthwhile to ask the question in a comment, we take the tiny step of looking for an answer. “Aha!”, we say to ourselves. We have an answer.
Prosecutors don’t let in evidence. Judges do.
As for the small of old white sox, I defer.
Your point about reading the story first is well taken.
As far as the evidence of Holley’s bad caharacter coming in, judges tend to rely on prosecutors to object to that kind of evidence. Strenuously (meaning appeal) if neccessary. Not to excuse the judge, but primary responsibility for this fiasco and proximate cause for the unjust verdict probably does lie with the prosecutor.
Welcome to the wild and wacky world of criminal law, where there’s no such thing as interlocutory appeals and defendants have a constitutional right to present a defense (which, in fairness, seems to given far greater breadth when the defendant is a police officer).
Are you saying that the prosecutor might still appeal the adverse evidentiary rulings in this case (assuming s/he preserved the objections)?
I, for one, wouldn’t mind a new trial.
No. There is no appeal after an acquittal. There is similarly no appeal prior to a final judgment of conviction. Kinda makes you feel sorry for the prosecutor, except for the fact that they usually hold all the cards. Weird how the sense that the government holds the upper hand changes when it’s a cop on trial.