New Orleans Cops Finally Held Accountable For The Danziger Bridge Killings

[Formaldehyde]

5 NOPD officers guilty in post-Katrina Danziger Bridge shootings, cover-up

A jury this morning convicted all five New Orleans police officers accused in the Danziger Bridge shootings, which took place amid the chaos after Hurricane Katrina and claimed the lives of two civilians, and a cover-up of startling scope that lasted almost five years.

Sentencing for the five officers, all of them likely facing lengthy prison terms, has been set for Dec. 14 before U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt.

Four of the five officers -- Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon and Anthony Villavaso -- have been in custody since their arraignment.
The fifth, retired Sgt. Arthur "Archie" Kaufman, who was not involved in the shootings but headed the police investigation into them, remains free on bail.

In remarks on the courthouse steps shortly after the verdicts were rendered, lead prosecutor Barbara "Bobbi" Bernstein said she was "in awe" of the relatives of the bridge shooting victims. Without their persistence, she said, the truth about the incident would never come to light.

Lance Madison, whose brother, Ronald, was shot and killed on the bridge, and who was jailed for allegedly shooting at police, thanked the jury and the federal authorities who brought the case, while noting he will never get his brother back.

"We're thankful for closure after six long years of waiting for justice," Madison said.

The landmark civil-rights case -- one of four major federal cases involving use of force by New Orleans police to result in indictments so far -- has been closely watched around the nation.

Because of its sheer magnitude, the Danziger case was the most high-stakes of the nine civil-rights probes into the NOPD the Justice Department has confirmed. Before today's verdicts, five other former officers, all of whom testified during the six-week trial, had already pleaded guilty to various roles in the shootings and the subsequent cover-up.

The two other cases to go to trial so far -- involving the deaths of Henry Glover and Raymond Robair at the hands of police -- both resulted in convictions, although two officers accused of different roles in the Glover case were acquitted, and a third officer who was convicted recently had that verdict vacated.

The shootings took place on Sept. 4, 2005, a week after Hurricane Katrina. After hearing a distress call over the radio from another officer who said men were shooting at police on the nearby Interstate 10 bridge, a group of cops piled into a Budget rental truck and headed to the Danziger Bridge, the portion of Chef Menteur Highway that spans the Industrial Canal.

Officer Michael Hunter, who drove the truck, fired warning shots out the window as the truck neared the bridge. He stopped the truck behind the Bartholomew family, near the bridge's eastern terminus. Police piled out and began shooting, eventually killing one member of the party -- James Brissette, 17 -- and wounding four others: Jose Holmes, 19; his aunt, Susan Bartholomew, his uncle, Leonard Bartholomew III, and a teenage cousin, Lesha Bartholomew.

Police then chased down Ronald and Lance Madison, who had been walking toward the Gentilly side of the bridge, a ways ahead of the Bartholomew family. Hearing the gunfire, the Madisons began to run. Ronald Madison, 40, was injured. Eventually, Faulcon killed him with a shotgun blast to the back as he ran away.

Lance Madison, who was unhurt, was arrested and accused of firing a weapon at police.

When the "Danziger Seven" turned themselves in at Central Lockup in January 2007, fellow officers joined them in a show of solidarity, patting them on the back and calling them heroes. The state case fell apart for procedural reasons in 2008, when the charges were dismissed by a judge.

At that point, federal authorities, who had been monitoring the case, took over, and the pressure intensified. Last year, five officers wound up taking plea deals, agreeing to testify at trial in hopes of receiving leniency when their own prison sentences are handed down.

Their pleas contained shocking details of a seemingly coordinated cover-up: a planted gun retrieved by Kaufman from his garage; officers successively revising their accounts of the shooting; phony witnesses; a secret meeting to coordinate stories.

At trial, the three officers told jurors that after the shooting ended, they saw no evidence that the civilians, many of them grievously wounded, had been armed.

Brissette was shot numerous times, from the heel of his foot to his head. He was killed by shotgun pellets that struck the back of his head, experts testified. Susan Bartholomew's arm was nearly blown off by a large-caliber round, and it was later amputated. Her daughter's legs were torn apart by bullets. Holmes was struck multiple times, from his face to his abdomen, and had to wear a colostomy bag for years after the incident.

Lohman testified at trial that he assigned the case to Kaufman on the bridge knowing that what would follow would be a whitewash. Indeed, Kaufman and other cops neglected to pick up physical evidence at the bridge, including dozens of shell casings.

But Lohman characterized the cover-up that followed as inept, with the cover stories created by Kaufman and the shooters implausible. Prosecutors contended what followed was successive revisions of the report and officers' statements, a secret meeting to coordinate stories and a planted gun retrieved from Kaufman's garage.

Throughout the trial, Kaufman's attorney tried to suggest to jurors that Kaufman wasn't part of a cover-up, shifting the blame for any investigative failings to Lohman and Dugue, who was assigned the case in October 2005.

"They thought because of Katrina no one was watching," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Theodore Carter. "They thought they could do what they wanted to do and there wouldn't be any consequences."

Defense attorneys portrayed Hunter as a malcontent, a cop who chafed at following orders. But his testimony was powerful, particularly as he spoke of his anger after the storm destroyed the city and sent it spiraling into chaos.
"I wanted to send a message," Hunter said of emptying his handgun of bullets. "Don't mess with us."

During closing arguments, defense attorney Frank DeSalvo attempted to use those sentiments against Hunter, suggesting he was the one responsible for the shooting of Holmes, an act prosecutors contended was committed by DeSalvo's client, Bowen.

Hunter's testimony was particularly damaging for Bowen. He said the sergeant began shooting an AK-47 from the passenger seat of the truck almost immediately upon arriving at the bridge. Later, Hunter testified, after the shooting had paused, Bowen interrupted the silence by leaning over the concrete barrier and firing several rounds. These ricocheted off the barrier and struck Brissette, who was lying defenseless on the ground, prosecutors alleged.

When officers went over to the Gentilly side of the bridge, Hunter testified Bowen stomped on a dying Ronald Madison, who had already been felled by Faulcon's shotgun blast.

DeSalvo characterized Hunter's testimony as fiction. Prosecutors believed it, "swallowed it like a trout because that's what they wanted to hear," DeSalvo said during his closing arguments.

The video became a constant fixture during the trial, played by both sides. Bernstein emphasized the most powerful element of the video: the sound of near-constant gunfire for nearly a minute.

Holmes and several of his relatives testified that they weren't armed. When they heard the sound of gunfire, his uncle ordered him to get over the concrete barrier, he said.

Holmes described taking cover by lying down on the ground. "I was kinda thinking if they saw us on the ground they wouldn't shoot us," he said.

Excellent graphic showing how the incident progressed and the location on the body where each victim was shot.

Part of the Danziger bridge video mentioned in the story.

PBS video of the incident

I think this case clearly shows exactly why we need federal statutes which protect the civil rights of all citizens. That in the cases where justice is deliberately short-circuited at the local level, we need federal statutes which will hopefully assure that justice is finally done.

Some people in this forum in the past have expressed the opinion that these federal laws are not necessary, even though there have been similar cases in the past.

Does this case help change that perception?

 

[MobBoss]

Why do we need additional laws if there were indeed convictions found in this case in a US District court?

 

[useless]

I'm going to guess that the victims are mainly, if not all black, and the cops are mainly, is not mostly, white.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why do we need additional laws if there were indeed convictions found in this case in a US District court?

As the article clearly states, all the charges against the cops were dismissed locally in 2008 on procedural grounds. They were subsequently investigated by the FBI on civil rights grounds. Without those additional laws, they would still likely be considered to be "heroes", instead of facing lengthy prison sentences.

 

[useless]

Bah doesn't matter

 

[Communisto]

now if only we could get accountability for the officers that murdered this guy

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I'm going to guess that the victims are mainly, if not all black, and the cops are mainly, is not mostly, white.

ETA: Faulcon was the one who murdered Ronald Madison.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

As the article clearly states, all the charges against the cops were dismissed locally in 2008 on procedural grounds. They were subsequently investigated by the FBI on civil rights grounds. Without those additional laws, they would still likely be considered to be "heroes", instead of facing lengthy prison sentences.

Disagree on the heroes part. It's beyond question they shot unarmed people. That alone makes it a bad shoot. The coverup makes them look even more guilty--they had something to hide and they knew it. I live in this media market so I've seen the case in the local news for the past 3-4 years. The Madisons have been the face of the incident since the beginning, and they are all educated, productive, law-abiding citizens. Lance is a dentist. (That doesn't make them more worthy of basic citizenship, but it does put their character and credibility on a higher level than if they were gang members.)

As far as the dismissing charges on procedural grounds, that's the fault of the worthless local DA at the time. Defendants have due process rights in this country. Even if they're cops. The only difference between them and any other defendant is being commissioned officers makes them agents of the state, and therefore explicitly subject to prosecution under the 14th Amendment.

 

[Formaldehyde]

From the article which is even bolded above:

When the "Danziger Seven" turned themselves in at Central Lockup in January 2007, fellow officers joined them in a show of solidarity, patting them on the back and calling them heroes. The state case fell apart for procedural reasons in 2008, when the charges were dismissed by a judge.

And watch the PBS video. They were clearly considered to be heroes by the local authorities, at least until the details finally started coming out once the FBI conducted an actual investigation, instead of deliberately covering it up.

Of course, that was not the case as we now know.

As with most such cases where the local judicial system completely fails, it is usually due to a cover-up by the police themselves, and the near-complete unwillingness for the locals to think the people who committed the crimes might actually be criminals.

And anybody can be prosecuted on civil rights grounds. Take the recent case in Pennsylvania where locals killed an undocumented immigrant and the police looked the other way. It has nothing to do with whether or not the individual is a commissioned officer or agent of the state.

Regarding the OP, do you see a reason for having civil rights laws to assure such travesties of justice occur less frequently? Or are you opposed to them as many conservatives still are?

 

[JollyRoger]

Why do we need additional laws if there were indeed convictions found in this case in a US District court?

It was only in US District Court because of the additional laws. These should have been slam dunk convictions in state court.

Wouldn't be suprised if the convictions get overturned by the 5th Circus Court of Appeals though.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

As with most such cases where the local judicial system completely fails, it is usually due to a cover-up by the police themselves, and the near-complete unwillingness for the locals to think they might actually be criminals.

In this case, the local charges fell through because of prosecutorial misconduct by a notoriously incompetent DA. This is a rare case of an old article still being available on the Times Pic's website.

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/08/charges_rejected_against_danzi.html

One highlight:

During the brief hearing before a packed courtroom, the judge also dealt a blow to the prosecution on two other pending defense challenges, providing further reasons why he quashed certain charges against specific defendants.

He concluded that the state grand jury improperly indicted three of the officers, who had been compelled to testify before the jury in fall 2006 by Davis in exchange for immunity.

Clear Fifth Amendment violation. Do you believe the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone, or should it be thrown out if you dislike the defendants?

And anybody can be prosecuted on civil rights grounds. Take the recent case in Pennsylvania where locals killed an undocumented immigrant and the police looked the other way. It has nothing to do with whether or not the individual is a commissioned officer or agent of the state.

Regarding the OP, do you see a reason for having civil rights laws to assure such travesties of justice occur less frequently? Or are you opposed to them as many conservatives still are?

I don't like the federal government to have police powers in most cases. Look at all the high-profile cases where they railroaded someone. Martha Stewart couldn't have been convicted without the feds putting a known perjurer on the stand. James Traficant was convicted after the feds tampered with evidence, and at least one juror has publicly stated that he would have voted not guilty had he been allowed to see the truth. And they were rich, high profile, powerful people. Imagine the railroad job they could do on a nobody.

The original Constitution limited federal police power to treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. The Fourteenth Amendment contains a clause allowing Congress to enforce the amendment via appropriate legislation, so civil rights laws are constitutional and appropriate. The officers are agents of the state, which is barred from interfering with the fundamental rights of citizens. The first case you mentioned should also fall under 'appropriate', although I'm slightly less comfortable with the feds going after a private citizen than an agent of the state. I think the local DA should be federally prosecuted because he refused to do his duty based on his dislike for the ethnicity of the victim.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

It was only in US District Court because of the additional laws. These should have been slam dunk convictions in state court.

Wouldn't be suprised if the convictions get overturned by the 5th Circus Court of Appeals though.

I think MobBoss misunderstood Formy's question and took it to mean "do we need to pass additional laws, on top of what we have now", instead of "do we need the current federal laws".

 

[Formaldehyde]

In this case, the local charges fell through because of prosecutorial misconduct by a notoriously incompetent DA. This is a rare case of an old article still being available on the Times Pic's website.

I think you are overlooking the fact that the primary investigating officer engaged in a complete cover-up, and is now facing prison time himself for doing so. But the case was indeed thrown out of court on procedural grounds, which is clearly stated in the article above. However, I doubt they would have been convicted due to deliberate police interference in the investigation, and how badly it was conducted even if he had proceeded.

I don't like the federal government to have police powers in most cases. Look at all the high-profile cases where they railroaded someone. Martha Stewart couldn't have been convicted without the feds putting a known perjurer on the stand. James Traficant was convicted after the feds tampered with evidence, and at least one juror has publicly stated that he would have voted not guilty had he been allowed to see the truth. And they were rich, high profile, powerful people. Imagine the railroad job they could do on a nobody.

Both cases have nothing to do with civil rights, and the FBI coming in after the local authorities deliberately bungled a layup like this. I think it is absurd to suggest that the feds are more liable to railroad people than locals are, given how frequently it occurs at the local and state level. That this case actually shows the opposite. That the locals can frequently be far more corrupt than those who don't have any vested interest.

But the standards of reasonable doubt are apparently different for federal cases. I think that should be changed. But I don't have any sympathy towards either one of them. I don't think it is a coincidence that the company which Stewart dumped a sizable amount of stock fell 18% the very next day, and Traficant seems to be a complete nutjob who is even supported by David Duke.

The original Constitution limited federal police power to treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. The Fourteenth Amendment contains a clause allowing Congress to enforce the amendment via appropriate legislation, so civil rights laws are constitutional and appropriate.

Ah. That's why you mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment in this particular case. Fortunately, those provincial days are long over. Now the feds are much more like real cops.

Once again, I think this case highlights why we need two levels of authority when the local one completely fails.

I think the local DA should be federally prosecuted because he refused to do his duty based on his dislike for the ethnicity of the victim.

That sounds like a bit of a stretch. But given how racist the area still is, I guess it is conceivable.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm going to guess that the victims are mainly, if not all black, and the cops are mainly, is not mostly, white.

Here is a photo of the 7 cops known as the Danziger 7.

Do you care to retract your statement re: the racial breakdown of the cops?

As the article clearly states, all the charges against the cops were dismissed locally in 2008 on procedural grounds. They were subsequently investigated by the FBI on civil rights grounds. Without those additional laws, they would still likely be considered to be "heroes", instead of facing lengthy prison sentences.

This doesnt explain the need for more laws. Seems to me the current federal law on this worked and got convictions.

So again....why do we need more fed laws on this issue?

EDIT: nvm, I see that Form edited the OP.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think MobBoss misunderstood Formy's question and took it to mean "do we need to pass additional laws, on top of what we have now", instead of "do we need the current federal laws".

What do I do now that he appears to still be operating under that misunderstanding?

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I think it is absurd to suggest that the feds are more liable to railroad people than locals are, given how frequently it occurs at the local and state level. That this case actually shows the opposite. That the locals can frequently be far more corrupt than those who don't have any vested interest.

You're right, it makes a lot more sense to think that they only lie and cheat when people are watching

You should tell all these people how honest and ethical federal prosecutors are:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/04/14/guilty-before-proven-innocent

http://www.theind.com/cover-story/8688-convicted

Can't find a link, but a few years ago there was a garden supply store owner who got ten years in prison because one of his customers used the goods to grow pot. His wife, who never worked at the store, got ten years because she's taken a few deposits to the bank. (It appeared in Time).

I'm sure I could find plenty of additional examples. What makes all this even worse is that you lose a few levels of review if the case originates in federal court, when defendants already have fewer rights.

For someone who claims to hate the prison-industrial complex, you sure seem to be in love with the federal government.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Here is a photo of the 7 cops known as the Danziger 7.

Do you care to retract your statement and admit you're wrong at least on the racial breakdown of the cops?

Five were convicted, one is definitely black and the second one might be black based on his name and photo in the OP article. That means either 20% or 40% are black, and all the victims were indeed black.

This doesnt explain the need for more laws. Seems to me the current federal law on this worked and got convictions.

So again....why do we need more fed laws on this issue?

I suggest you reread what I stated. I didn't even insinuate we needed "additional" laws. The issue is whether or not we need civil rights laws to assure the local authorities don't either deliberately, or through incompetence, allow people who are actually guilty to go completely free.

For someone who claims to hate the prison-industrial complex, you sure seem to be in love with the federal government.

Once again, the issue here is a matter of civil rights laws, which I though was clearly stated in the OP. Do you have any actual opinions about those you wish to discuss, instead of your apparent misunderstandings of my opinions?

 

[MobBoss]

Five were convicted, one is definitely black and the second one might be black. Do you care to retract your statement given that either 20% or 40% are black, and that all the victims were indeed black?

4 of those 7 look black to me. Do you see it differently?

And Form...I never made any statement in regards to anything here. So what is there for me to 'retract'?

I suggest you reread what I stated.

I did. Then you made an edit.

I didn't even insinuate we needed "additional" laws.

Initially you did.

 

[downtown]

I've been following this case too, since I used to live in Nola. I'm glad justice is finally served...NOLA wont have a real recovery if people can't trust their public institutions, and nobody, especially the poor and black community, respects and trusts the police to do their job. New Orleans absolutely needed/needs federal help to shake up the police. I wonder what the mayor is doing about it now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

4 of those 7 look black to me. Do you see it differently?

Bestbank Tiger posted their photos from the OP above.

5 defendants. One or possibly two are black. It is difficult to tell with Anthony Villavaso from that photo.

Does it really even matter, especially since he stated "mainly if not mostly white"?

I did. Then you made an edit.

I didn't change anything with the statements or questions at the bottom. I edited in the references to the video and the PBS article.