On the filing of the lawsuit:
Prior to the filing of the lawsuit:
Well, I said I didn’t think I would be returning to Parkersburg. But wouldn’t you know it, I’m headed back over there. Here is yet another federal lawsuit filed by myself, and my co-counsel Paul Morrison, for yet another videotaped use of force out of Parkersburg, West Virginia. This is my fourth time there. This one was already in the news a few times. With the closure of the federal courthouse in Parkersburg, this case will be litigated out of the federal courthouse in Charleston. Maybe had we filed it a couple of days earlier . . . .
This is my 300th post, and unfortunately a sad one.
I was disappointed to see in the Charleston Gazette this morning that the federal courthouse in Parkersburg, West Virginia is closing up shop. I think I tried the last jury trial ever in that courthouse, which was the first trial there in around three years, if I recall correctly. The article says something to the effect that it couldn’t keep up with modern technology. Actually, we used all the modern technology which you would expect in a modern-day jury trial, including “ELMO” machines and video footage. They did have to bring the devices from Charleston for the trial – which was not a big deal.
One piece of modern technology which didn’t work there however, was the mute button on Judge Goodwin’s microphone. So he told the jurors to loudly talk amongst themselves whenever he said “beep” so that we could have side bar conferences. It worked amazingly well – in fact probably much better than a mute button. And everyone got a kick out of it.
The last day is this Friday. R.I.P. Parkersburg Federal Courthouse.
We settled the Seabolt v. Vensel, et al. case late last week. The settlement amount was $135,000.00.
Charleston Gazette on Saturday:
“I first became involved with civil rights issues in Parkersburg in June of 2010,” Bryan said after the settlement was reached. “With this settlement, I sincerely believe that these issues will not be coming up again. We’ve been through three years of federal court litigation, three six-figure settlements, two jury trials and two trips to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“I’ve interacted with local leaders, police officers, citizens, local lawyers and Charleston defense lawyers, and I believe everyone is on the same page regarding Parkersburg’s future — which means that my time in Parkersburg has probably come to an end.
“Joshua Vensel is a good person who made one mistake. I uncovered no evidence of any prior acts of excessive force by him. In the end, he did right by Mr. Seabolt, and I have no doubt he will go on to lead a successful life. Lastly, I want to thank my co-counsel Michele Rusen and my opposing counsel Jim Muldoon for being great lawyers who are not afraid to do the right thing,” he said.
Parkersburg News and Sentinel:
Seabolt Settles in Lawsuit Against Parkersburg (also includes video of the incident)
There was a nice article on the front page of the Charleston Gazette this morning about the Sawyer Case.
“Today the citizens of West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia North Carolina and South Carolina have more constitutional protections than they did yesterday,” John Bryan, Sawyer’s attorney, wrote in a statement.
“As a result of today’s ruling, which affirmed the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, law enforcement officers will be taught to treat people differently, and that if they fail to do so, there will be consequences. Because of Brian Sawyer, and the federal court system, millions of people have more freedom. And that is something I am very proud of.”
There was also an article in the Parkersburg newspaper:
Well, off to another trial this morning.
ETA: We won the property dispute trial. We have been very blessed to have streak of wins in WV state-law easement disputes. Although they might seem boring, they are quickly becoming one of my favorite types of cases, second only to civil rights cases. I do enjoy interesting criminal cases. However, I do not enjoy the stress of gambling with someone’s liberty. I much rather prefer property rights or money. The worse case scenario is never the end-of-the-world.
Also an article in the WV Record:
We won the Sawyer case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The audio from the oral arguments is one post down. Here is the opinion. I have been unable to discuss the case for about a year. Obviously, this is what has been happening. I believe this is, and will be, a very important decision. Although there was no new law created, this has greatly clarified, explained, and set the course, for future excessive force litigation and instruction.
Getting ready to leave today to argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
This was the headline, and accompanying photograph, seen after our recent hearing in the Mineral County, WV felony prosecution of John and Tonya Cozatt. They are being prosecuted for several felonies for selling potpourri in their nutrition stores which allegedly contained “synthetic marijuana”. The newspaper just couldn’t resist labeling the products as “Bath Salts”, which of course have been all over the national news due to incidents such as the face-eating incident in Florida.
The actual article makes it clear that the case has nothing to do with “bath salts”. But if you look at the link I provided above under the photograph, you can see how they mentioned “Bath Salts” or “Salts” in three different areas surrounding the article. It’s like the media labeling every gun, regardless of what it actually is, an “AK-47″ or an “assault rifle.” In the end, it poisons the jury pool. In all of these pre-trial articles, people are seeing “bath salts, bath salts, bath salts.” And in the national media they are seeing endless stories on people on bath salts doing crazy things. Is it really necessary to sensationalize something that is innocuous as a nutrition store selling potpourri? As the article notes, law enforcement had no idea the potpourri may have contained illegal compounds prior to having it analyzed by a laboratory:
Attorney John H. Bryan, representing the Cozatts, questioned Paterline about the packaging of the substance, noting that none of the packages said it was synthetic marijuana or meant to be smoked.
Bryan also asked Paterline if he could tell when he purchased the substances if they were illegal or not, and he said he could not.
- Civil Liability
- Computer Crimes
- Concealed Weapons
- Criminal Records
- Domestic Violence
- Excessive Force
- Forensic Labs
- Governmental Liability
- Grand Juries
- History Series
- John H. Bryan
- Judicial Misconduct
- Law Office Tech
- Law School
- Media Coverage
- Medical Examiners
- Money Laundering
- motions for change of venue
- Negligent Homicide
- Plea Agreements
- Police Misconduct
- Preliminary Hearings
- Pretrial Hearings
- Right to Speedy Trial
- Searches and Seizures
- Self Defense
- Sex Crimes
- Sex Offender Registration
- State Agencies
- United Bank Lawsuit
- Vehicular Crimes
- West Virginia Concealed Carry Laws
- West Virginia Gun Laws
- White Collar Crime
- Wildlife Violations