Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Mehserle’s attorney seeks new trial as new evidence emerges

October 4, 2010 by David Shirley

From: Oakland Tribune

Paul T. Rosynsky, 10/4/10

The attorney representing former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle asked a Los Angeles judge for a new trial, arguing, in part, that new evidence discovered after Mehserle was convicted of involuntary manslaughter proves that another officer, under similar circumstances, made the same “tragic mistake” as Mehserle.

In a 134-page filing submitted Friday to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry, defense attorney Michael Rains said a jury’s decision to find Mehserle guilty should be overturned — and a new trial granted — because the jury did not hear evidence about a similar case which occurred in Kentucky less than a year before his client killed Oscar Grant III.

In that case, Rains wrote, an officer mistook his gun for his Taser even though his Taser was located on the opposite side of his body and was bright yellow. That officer was not found criminally negligent for critically wounding a man he shot in the back, Rains said.

A Los Angeles jury found Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter in July, saying, in essence, that they believed the officer, who had been on the force for 2½ years, made a mistake when he pulled out his gun instead of his Taser and shot Grant in the back.

The killing occurred Jan. 1, 2009, on the Fruitvale BART station platform. Dozens of passengers watched and recorded Mehserle and other BART officers attempting to detain Grant and three friends who were being held after a fight broke out on a train.

Mehserle testified during the trial that he had intended to use his Taser on Grant because Grant was resisting arrest but mistakenly pulled out his gun and shot the 22-year-old Hayward man.

Former Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff charged Mehserle with murder, saying the officer intended to shoot Grant and came up with a story about confusing his weapons to avoid a conviction.

After a trial of more than three weeks in Los Angeles, a jury rejected that theory and found Mehserle guilty of the lesser crime of involuntary manslaughter, leading many law experts to conclude that the jury believed Mehserle’s testimony that he had made a mistake.

However, those experts said, it appeared the jury also believed that Mehserle was criminally negligent in making the mistake and therefore deserved the guilty verdict, which could lead to a prison term of between two and 14 years.

One main contention in the trial was the location of Mehserle’s Taser and gun and the difference in weight and color between the two weapons.

Deputy district attorney David Stein argued throughout the case that Mehserle could not have made a mistake because his gun was black, heavier and carried on the opposite side of his body than his Taser, held in a holster that required at least three separate movements to remove the weapon.

Although Rains provided evidence during the trial that six other officers had mistaken their guns for Tasers in past cases, Stein pointed out that in all six cases, the officers had their Tasers located on the same side of their body as their gun.

In addition, Stein pointed out that never had an officer mistaken a gun for a Taser when the Taser was located where Mehserle had his: on the opposite side of his body than his gun.

While the jury rejected Stein’s argument that Mehserle intended to use his gun, Rains argued in his filings that the jury found Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter because Stein effectively proved, based on the evidence available, that Mehserle’s actions were “so extraordinarily unlikely because of the color, weight and holster configuration of Mehserle’s Taser.”

But had the jury been presented with evidence that another officer with the same equipment as Mehserle made the same mistake, Rains argued, the jury might have found that Mehserle’s actions were not criminally negligent.

“Most importantly, of course, having heard (the new evidence), the DA would be precluded from making the enormously effective point during rebuttal argument that ‘In almost a million or more instances of Tasers being fired, this has never happened. Never happened.'” Rains wrote in his filing. “Can this Court say with any confidence that at such a trial, not one juror would probably vote to acquit?”

A spokesperson for Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley declined to comment Monday. Prosecutors are expected to file a response in the coming weeks.

“We are asking the judge to exercise a great deal of fortitude,” Rains said Monday. “Judges typically do not like to disrupt jury verdicts and in this case it is more so because of the history “… but what happens to the legal system if judges are more concerned about the reaction? It means the mob has won.”

While the introduction of new evidence is not the only reason Rains argues his client deserves a new trial, it is the one argument that has not been made in the past.

Rains also argues in his filing that the court should grant a new trial because it erred in its instructions to the jury about various aspects of the case and refused to allow Rains to present evidence about Grant’s past criminal behavior, including the fact that he once was arrested with an illegal gun.

Rains also argues that the jury’s finding that Mehserle was guilty of a gun enhancement should be overturned because it is not consistent with the involuntary manslaughter conviction. In that decision, the jury found to be true an allegation that in shooting Grant, Mehserle “intentionally used a gun.” A decision on the gun enhancement is crucial to the case because should Perry overturn the allegation, Mehserle’s punishment could be drastically reduced.

Rains said in his filings that the jury’s decision on the gun enhancement shows that it was confused about what the enhancement was intended for. That confusion, he said, was caused by the court mistakenly allowing the jury to consider the enhancement even if it came to an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

“There is no logical way to square the jury’s rejection of murder and voluntary manslaughter charges with its finding of true on the enhancement,” Rains wrote. “Most likely, the illogical ‘true’ finding on the gun enhancement “… is the result of an instructional error that amounted to a deprivation of Mehserle’s due process rights.”

Perry will hear arguments on Rains’ motion Nov. 5 in Los Angeles, when Mehserle is scheduled to be sentenced.

Filed Under: RLS In The News Tagged With: michael-l-rains

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.