Any criminal defense lawyer who’s tried a case knows the feeling of getting punched in the gut when the judge softly utters the word “denied” after you’ve tried to call an expert to testify on behalf of the defense. False confession expert. Eyewitness identification expert. Police procedure expert. Your defense may depend on it, but the judge won’t care. Denied.
Yet the lawyer for Edward Krawetz somehow managed to get an expert on the witness stand to opine that the defendant’s conduct was “objectively reasonable.” How could that be, you ask? Well, Krawetz was a Lincoln, Rhode Island cop and this was his conduct.
You saw that, right? You saw how the drunk, belligerent woman, sitting on the curb, hands cuffed behind her back, drunk, attacked the officer with her bare foot, swatting at his shin? Do you have any idea how much a barefooted swipe at a shin can hurt? Must not let it happen again, or the officer might be permanently disabled on full pension and not be there for us when rapes need to be stopped.
The other police officers present did not seem terribly concerned about Krawetz’s boot to the head of this woman, who had committed the heinous disorderly conduct. The suit who approaches the officer immediately after the boot struck head struck pavement, the one who appears to be wearing a press badge type cord around his neck and asking Officer Krawetz for directions to the nearest Dunkin’ Donuts.
Notice how Patrolman Enos wasn’t asked whether this young woman needed a damn good lesson in respecting police authority? Anybody want to guess what his answer to that question might be?On Thursday, the defendant’s fellow police officer at Twin River that evening testified that Officer Krawetz never expressed concern for his own safety, never said he feared serious bodily injury, never yelled out that he was in pain and never sought medical attention.
“Did he in anyway indicate to you, that he felt he was in danger of serious bodily injury?”
Patrolman Russell Enos replied, “No.”
I recall something being said to me as a youngster about not hitting girls. I took it to heart, and even extended the message as far as not kicking women in the head with a heavy boot. This was true regardless of whether they were handcuffed, barefooted or seated on a curb, where there wasn’t a chance in the world they could do any actual harm.
And for this, the court permitted an expert, because the jury couldn’t possibly determine the ultimate fact without such thoughtful assistance as to whether the cop’s boot striking the head of this woman was “objectively reasonable.”
But you still won’t be able to get a false confession expert before the jury.
H/T Marc Randazza
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At least the judge didn’t buy it. He was convicted of felony assault and received a suspended ten year sentence.
Officer Krawetz is still on the force and may get to keep his job if a panel of three police officers, one picked by him and another picked by his boss, rule in his favor.
Let me take a stab at the judge’s message. Krawetz shouldn’t be a cop, but gets a pass on this kick in the head. You try this and see whether you get a suspended sentence as opposed to state prison for assault with a weapon (the boot). So did the judge buy it? It’s not entirely clear what the judge bought.
Krawetz’ behavior must have been justified. He surely knew that otherwise he would be punished, as in his 2001 conviction for assaulting a jogger.
Of course, prior violent and abusive conduct by a police officer toward a citizen is not admissible to show propensity. That would be wrong.
I read the attached article and couldn’t figure out what sort of expert was allowed to testify. This raises three questions:
what qualifies someone to assess the “objective nature” of delivering a kick to the head of an unarmed, handcuffed suspect?
how does this testimony assist the jury to understand an element of the offense, rather than simply to try and bolster the officer’s claim?
can such experts now be called by civilian defendants charged with assault, since there is a precedent for it?
Maybe a future civilian client Crazy Eddie will have behaved in an “objectively reasonable” manner when he kicked Lyin’ Lou in the head – if only he could have an expert to advise the jury of this fact.
Would it assist in your thinking to learn that this was a bench trial with no jury involved?
Which shows this poor excuse for law enforcment was smart enough to realize that twelve angry men would bring their own rope.
Sir, thanks for the video above. From my view point the snap kick to her temple not only knocked her ass clean out, it probably gave her a concussion. In addition to aggravated attempted murder of the detained (steel toe boot), they also denied her medical attention prior to moving her which warrants the spanking of the taxpayers so hard that ‘everyone’ at the crime scene is fired for; condoning, conspiracy & cover up.
You are absolutely correct, if a regular Joe was to kick a cop in the head there’d be a jury trial for attempted murder plus whatever else stuck. Speaking of kicking a cop in the head – at the end there are additional clips, one being a creepy montage of evil being unleashed on Americans. I forwarded the SJ Post to President Obama, Mr. Romney & Dr. Paul asking them to grow a pair and address an epidemic of (belligerent) cops being allowed and encouraged to go wild with little or no consequences. And outline their strategies to combat it in the debates to come. Thanks.