Friday, January 03, 2014

Charges Dropped Against EPD Sgt. Adam Laird

Laird was arrested in April on charges of assault and falsifying a police report. Since then, his attorney has claimed that the charges stemmed from the sergeant’s political support for Eureka City Councilmember Larry Glass and former EPD Chief Garr Nielsen. - Hank Sims/Lost Coast Outpost

DA's Office drops case against Eureka police sergeant - Times-Standard

Based on evidence discovered after the filing of these charges, including several expert opinions obtained by both the prosecution and the defense, the People have determined that this case cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, on January 3, 2014, the case was dismissed.

The case was handled by Deputy District Attorney Roger C. Rees.

Patrik Griego responds to Laird case dismissal - John Chiv/Words Worth

"It is hard to imagine what it must be like to risk your life apprehending a known gang member only to be charged with using excessive force when the suspect stated that he did not even feel the contact at issue. It is simply bizarre that Sgt. Laird was ever charged with a crime".

Earler: From John Chiv, who was covering the case:
City Attorney and D.A's office offer no comment on Laird Case and political overtones?
Patrik Griego responds to Judge Miles ruling
Judge Miles rules on remaining 3 motions in Adam Laird case
Updated: Patrik Griego serves City Police Chief and Attorney

13 comments:

  1. Gallegos and crew at it again.

    Typical colwardly politician, do a docurment dump late Friday afternnon.

    I guess Laird wouldn't take a plea.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why would you? Demand a speedy, immediate trial. He doesn't have anyone left to try the cases.

    You wouldn't hear that in the puff-piece interview, would you?

    "...So, Paul, you ran your office into the ground, what are you going to do now?"

    Mumble, mumble, BS, budget cuts. mumble, mumble...

    "Paul, you rock, you know that?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe Sgt. Laird was innocent,and the case was dropped because it was bogus to begin with. The real question is why the DA never thought to pay an expert to review the case before they arrested him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, of the three, the third is by far the most lucid comment. Actually, the only lucid comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From Chiv, Griego submits the following:

    Adam and his family are thankful that they can now move forward. The evidence showing Sgt. Laird was innocent was overwhelming. The expert EPD hired said that the suspect was rising up when Sgt. Laird pushed him back to the ground. The two experts that the DA’s office hired said that the force was reasonable and appropriate. The defensive tactics instructor who trained Adam said he acted consistent with his training in apprehending a high risk suspect in a dangerous situation. In total, five separate police practices experts reviewed the case and unanimously said Sgt. Laird acted appropriately".

    "It is hard to imagine what it must be like to risk your life apprehending a known gang member only to be charged with using excessive force when the suspect stated that he did not even feel the contact at issue. It is simply bizarre that Sgt. Laird was ever charged with a crime".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rose refuses to look at the facts in the case, would rather blame Gallegos

      Delete
  6. Well, Gallegos deserves a fair amount of blame, as comments 3 and 5 point out. He works for people who want him going after cops, it's his default position, and his fans will never look at the facts and realize that, once again, he went off half cocked.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sgt Laird was charged after an investigation by the EPD and the DA's office. The EPD and the DA's office obviously viewed the video.

    The DA's Office filed charges after viewing the video and reading or listening to witness statements? Isn't that how the system works? DA's investigators arrested Sgt Laird, right?

    So aren't the police, DA investigators, and DA experts too? Afterall this is their profession, their business. Don't they rely on their experience and expertise?

    I have my doubts and suspicions about some (not all) of the instructors at the CR police academy. Is the CR instructor referenced still a CR instructor? Is this person still a peace officer? Who is this person?

    There are serious problems with the criminal justice system in CA with the AB 109 realignment issue. Having said that, Gallegos' DA's office has had nothing but problems long before AB 109.

    Do you really think PVG is going to give up his $150,000.00 a year job, with health insurance and governemnt retirement benefits, to spend more time with the family ? I don't believe it for a second. I don't know what the real reason is for his decision not to run for DA again, but I'm pretty sure what it isn't.

    When all is said and done I don't think Sgt Laird will go back to work at the EPD. Maybe he can get a job as an instructor at the CR police academy? Or be a PI for PVG in 2015?

    2014 will be an interesting year in Humboldt County.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Regardless of the merits, it seems that once again our D.A. and his staff have overlooked . . . . the alleged victim. Shades of the Quigley family. Marsy's Law? Constitutional rights? Does anyone in that office know what they are doing, or why? Meh.

    From the TS article:
    An attorney representing the juvenile who was arrested objected to the dismissal in court, saying her client was never notified as the alleged victim in the case. Judge Marilyn Miles repeated that the case was dismissed and directed her to speak with the District Attorney's Office.

    ”It's up to the prosecution to do that,” Miles said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Comment 8-

    You asked "So aren't the police, DA investigators, and DA experts too?"

    I would question the quality of expertise at EPD and with the former EPD Sgt who lead the investigation on the DA's side given that FIVE separate police practices experts reviewed the case and unanimously said Sgt. Laird acted appropriately. One expert hired by EPD, two experts from the District Attorney, and two experts from the defense.

    I certainly hope you're not suggesting that the FIVE experts are wrong and the potentially biased EPD "experts" were correct.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "newly discovered evidence" apparently means "we just looked at the evidence". If your case is going to depend on expert opinion, don't you nail that down with objective, independent experts BEFORE you file the case? Or does that only happen if you care about the result, know and care about the rules, and aren't simply satisfied with tarring an officer and his department in the press.

    ReplyDelete
  11. All these "anonymous" comments... doesn't anyone take a position and defend it anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Haha! Is your legal name "Highlander?"

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.