LOS ANGELES – Two sheriff’s deputies were acquitted Tuesday of federal civil rights charges that accused them of illegally using force against a handcuffed inmate at the Men’s Central Jail, but were found guilty of attempting to cover up the incident in reports.
Joey Aguiar and Mariano Ramirez were charged in a four-count indictment with kicking then-inmate Bret Phillips in the head and upper body, striking him with a flashlight, pepper-spraying him in the face and then hiding their actions in reports that could have been used to prosecute the inmate for assault.
Soon after the attack, the deputies wrote false reports designed to cover up what prosecutors deemed an illegal use of force. Those bogus reports formed the basis of a referral to the district attorney’s office for potential criminal prosecution of Phillips, a Lancaster resident.
The jury, which began deliberating late Friday afternoon, hung 10-2 in favor of guilt on a charge of deprivation of rights under color of law. Prosecutors must now decide whether to retry Aguiar and Ramirez on the charge.
Sentencing is set for April 25 on the false reports count, which carries a potential maximum federal prison sentence of 20 years, prosecutors said.
The Feb. 11, 2009, incident at the Men’s Central Jail was allegedly witnessed by a jail chaplain and an inmate, both of whom testified during the eight-day trial in downtown Los Angeles.
Prosecutors argued that the lawmen set upon Phillips in a gang-style beat-down as retribution for showing disrespect earlier in the day. Defense lawyers countered that Phillips was combative and threatening, and the deputies did only what was legally required to gain control of an unruly inmate.
“What they did was beat a man and they used their badge to do it,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Williams told the panel last week. “And now they’re trying to use that badge to get away with it. Do not let them.”
But according to the defense, Phillips caused the run-in as he was being escorted back to his cell after a medical appointment.
As he was brought down the row of cells, his hands cuffed to a waist chain, Phillips swore at Aguiar — then a 21-year-old rookie — refused to follow orders and attempted to head-butt the officer, defense attorney Evan Jenness told the panel.
“Restrained punches” were used only to “gain control of a recalcitrant inmate in trying to get him back to his cell,” she said.
The force, she said, was “appropriate” and “proportionate” to Phillips’ behavior.
Jenness described Phillips’ injuries as not more than “a little scratch on his forehead.” The “minor extent” of the inmate’s injuries disproves the prosecution’s allegations of excessive force, the defense attorney argued.
Prosecutors, however, alleged that Phillips was unconscious for most of the event, in which he was said to have suffered a head wound, blunt force trauma to the legs and elbow, and back and spinal cord injuries.
In his testimony, Phillips said that at the outset of the encounter, in which he was ordered to face a wall, he was choked into unconsciousness by one of the defendants and has no memory of being hit and sprayed.
The chaplain and a state prisoner who was then an inmate at the facility told the jury that they were hidden in shadows just feet away from Phillips and the deputies, watching the incident unfold.
The memory was “beat into my brain,” said John Maestaz, the inmate witness. “It was a memory I can see frame-by-frame in my mind — because it was that fierce of a beating.”
Catholic minister Paulino Juarez testified that he also witnessed Aguiar and Ramirez pummeling the handcuffed, unresisting Phillips, leaving the man in a puddle of blood.
But the jury apparently found that the officers did not conspire to deprive Phillips of his right to be free of illegal force.
“These deputies used restraint,” defense attorney Vicki Podberesky told the jury in her final argument. “If they wanted to use great force, they could have.”
Aguiar and Ramirez were the latest of 21 current and former sheriff’s officials to be tried by federal authorities in connection with the FBI’s multi- year investigation into brutality and other misconduct in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
The probe goes as high as Paul Tanaka, the former undersheriff, who faces trial in March on conspiracy charges for allegedly managing a secret plan in 2011 to “hide” an inmate-turned-informant from FBI handlers during the jails probe.
Aguiar and Ramirez are on unpaid leave from the department and are now expected to be fired.
Previous related stories:
Jury deliberations start in trial of deputies accused of assaulting inmate
Closing arguments begin in trial of deputies accused of assaulting inmate
Witness testifies to seeing jail guards beat handcuffed inmate
Ex-inmate tells jury of being left bloody and unconscious by jail guards
Chaplain tells L.A. jury of seeing jail guards punching ‘unconscious’ inmate
Ex-sheriff’s deputies go on trial for alleged inmate assault
–
Michelle Egberts says
@ Mike… Sorry to tell you but I’m not in prison, although Mayor Parris and his cronie Lee D’Errico tried to put me back in 2012 with their false allegations and lies and are lucky we didn’t pursue perjury charges against them both. Have my own company called AV-East Kern Second Chance with four partners who are retired law enforcement (CDCR) what a combination huh.
I have all the backs of the offenders that came behind me and am making a difference in their lives and the lives of the victims. As far as Tim Scott, never met him, no love relationship but he is obviously intelligent unlike you!
Mike says
Sounds like your “company” is a scam to get money from the government (taxpayers). What product does your “company” produce? Does Tim recruit dirtbags to file bogus police brutality complaints and you guys split the settlements? Hopefully this scam is being investigated and charges being brought soon.
realitycheck says
Eight comments on this story (mine the 9th)and three of them by the same whiner. It’s tearing him apart inside, causing him to punch his pillow while tossing and turning! Now jurors are evil and all cop lovers. Funny, in previous comments he says the hatred of LASD is “widespread.” A shame when facts get in the way. If these guys committed a crime they should pay the price. However, the word of a career crook and a lib chaplain apparently weren’t credible.
Tim Scott says
Two leg humpers hung the jury. Fact is someone like you got in and pimped out justice for a quick lick of the badge. Ten people thought the witnesses were more than credible enough, apparently.
It is scummy cops that give the rest a bad name, and scummy leg humpers on juries that continue to make it possible.
Michelle Egberts says
@realitycheck… I personally am offended by your post as you obviously have not been seated on a jury trial. As one who has experienced two trials in the Antelope Valley Courthouse and to be found not guilty in both in 2012, I believe I can speak on this.
It was a “hung jury” on the civil rights violations, which means they can refile the case, in which I hope they do as no person, including one with a badege has the right to violate them with violence. During my incarceration on my two trials I met good cops and bad ones and saw the violence against women in the Lynwood jail.
I can only hope and pray that this man gets justice and the two deputies see their demise in federal prison. They tarnished the badge, lied in their reports and deserve what they get. One thing they won’t get is a Certificate of Rehabilitation as federal convicts aren’t eligible for them.
However, I ask one question… why aren’t their pictures posted? Oh, that’s right, they will be in protective custody at the tax payers cost! I will always appreciate my juror in both of my cases… it’s a difficult task.
realitycheck says
@Egberts: I, and society in general, were personally offended when you bilked old man Bela out of thousands of dollars. You’re always so quick to speak of the trials in which you were found not guilty by “scummy” jurors (lol), but you fail to mention those OTHER cases. You know, those FELONY CONVICTIONS? I forgot, did you plead out on those? How were THOSE jurors? Yeah yeah, you’ve paid your debt to society, sure. OK. Now if you can just stop drunk-dialing the cops you hate so much.
realitycheck says
@Egberts:I,and society at large were “personally offended” when you bilked old man Bela out of thousands of dollars! You’re very quick to mention the two cases in which you were found not guilty, by “scummy jurors” (lol), but you never mention those other cases. You know, those FELONY convictions? Were those trials or plea bargains? If trials, did you appreciate those jurors too? Reminder: taxpayers paid for YOUR custody time too. Time to put down the bottle and stop drunk-dialing the cops you despise so much.
Mike says
Deputies innocent, justice upheld! The only civil rights that were violated were those of the victims of the criminals in jail.
Tim Scott says
Hung jury is not the same as found innocent. Hopefully the next jury won’t include any “cops can do no wrong” leg humping badge lickers who ignore the evidence, so that justice can be upheld.
Perplexed says
What about the rights of the prisoner. Regardless of what he did to ‘instigate’ the beating he still had rights. They were violated. How does that not equate to his civil rights not being violated?
Tim Scott says
It doesn’t. The jury hanging had nothing to do with whether his rights were violated. The explanation for that can be found just by looking at the comments on this site.
Look how many “cops can do no wrong” leg humpers we have here. Screening a jury to keep such fascists out is a challenge. Apparently two of them slipped in and refused to do the job of a juror, suborning the justice system to their will.
Flint says
Fascists is the wrong term to use when you seem to be suggesting doing away with the jury system, or at least keeping people that you find to be too conservative off of juries. That’s trending toward actual fascism, but I suspect that this is really just the abuse of the English language that Orwell suggests the word fascism is used for. Fascist really just means bad and democracy means good, without any real meaning. Words to confuse and engage in political deception.
Tim Scott says
Actually, I’m suggesting keeping people off juries who are SUPPOSED to be kept off juries. People who consider “supporting law enforcement” to extend to ignoring the law. Such “the state, as represented by its officers, can do no wrong” thinking IS fascism.
If someone can’t set aside their prejudice in favor of cops, they should say so and get themselves excused, not ignore the evidence and hang the jury to get in a badge lick.
Anonymous says
I know Bret, because he is my mom’s neighbor. He appears to be a mild mannered, soft spoken individual who stays to himself. I can’t imagine him going rogue enough to deserve such a beating from anyone, let alone from those that are suppose to serve and protect. I surely hope the officers responsible get what they deserve! And I hope Bret gets what he deserves..cha ching!$
Tim Scott says
Two obvious leg humpers on the jury. 10 to 2 hung jury on the assault with a guilty on the coverup. How does that work? If they are guilty of covering it up how do you stand up and hang the jury on it happening in the first place.
Disgusting.
Flint says
I can see how it’s obvious that the report is fraudulent but the exact truth of what happened is unclear. Who knows what swayed those two jurors, but I do see how lack of clarity around the actual event could lead one to not guilty on the assault while still being certain that the report was criminal.
Tim Scott says
Two eye witnesses corroborating each other. Enough evidence to show that the only other eye witnesses (the defendants) could be convicted of falsifying their reports, so their testimony is obviously of no weight. Based on the evidence there is no grounds for reasonable doubt, and ten jurors recognized that. The “exact truth” is ALWAYS unclear, but the juror is sworn to weigh the available evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion. These two walked in saying “cops are the good guys” and ignored the evidence and their oaths.
Flint says
And who knows how compelling the testimony was. If the witnesses, the priest and whoever else, we’re confident in what they saw, it seems like a strange decision on the jurors part. Still, I would imagine they retry it. This case has risen to quite a notable level of attention.
TIMSCOTT4MAYOR says
Those THUGS deserve general population. We need justice like this for unarmed shooting victims now.
Michelle Egberts says
Cops never lie… they always tell the truth in their reports….NOT… thank you jurors once again for seeing the obvious truth of the lying deputies. Hopefully they get the maximum sentence in prison. DON’T VIOLATE THE LAW TO ENFORCE IT.