Does Anyone Remember This Case ?

[Mike H]

Guys,

Without wishing to push my luck on the status of the American legal system, this case has sat in my memory for a long time now and I was wondering if anyone knows any more details or even remembers it. Whenever I hear about a questionable police shooting incident, my first thought is always, "would I have been deemed justified to shoot in similar circumstances" read on and see what you think, this is an actual case.

I'll recount the story as best I can.

Officer A was an undercover Narco, over a period of months his behavior had become increasingly strange and many believed he was on the verge of some kind of episode. In spite of this, his malady had not caused him to be suspended or take sick leave.

His attitude towards his commanding officer whom we shall call Officer B had worsened and there was now open conflict between the two. Later in court, a witness gave testimony that Officer B had made the following statement in their presence "someone should take that f***er out and shoot him in the head".

Officer A was involved in an undercover surveillance operation and was due to be picked up by 3 other officers, including Officer B, in an unmarked car from his street lookout position. When they arrived, Officer A was smiling and drinking from a soft drinks container with a straw, Officer B later testified in court that Officer A appeared "on edge" although he made no mention of this in the vehicle at the time and none of the other officers noticed anything unusual.

On entering the rear of the vehicle, Officer A was seated diagonally behind his boss who was in the front seat, the car now being occupied by all 4 officers.

Officer B testified in court that Officer A smiled at him and mouthed the word "Motherf***er", but this was not noticed by any of the other officers. At this point, Officer B placed his hand on the butt of the S&W Model 10 snubbie that he had in his waist band holster, he did this in such a way that noone noticed the movement. Officer A placed his drinks carton between his knees and began to stretch in a "boy am I stiff" kind of way in the back seat, at which point Officer B drew his .38 and fired a single shot that hit Officer A between the eyes killing him instantly. Officer B then immediately asked all the other officers to surrender their weapons, he later claimed that this was merely in keeping with standard police practice.

The basis of the defence case was that Officer B believed that Officer A's movements indicated that he was about to draw his weapon, forensic tests confirmed that Officer A had not actually touched his weapon a fact not contested by either side, and that his prior mental state and erratic behaviour, mouthed obscenities and movements immediately prior to the shoooting were indicative of him preparing to shoot.

Various courtroom scenarios were presented by the defence team, one of which consisted of a court officer being given an unloaded weapon and then being told to fire the weapon when he believed the defence team's firearms expert (could have been Massad Ayoob - I'm not sure) could draw and shoot his own holstered weapon, the holstered weapon won every time. This then being used to justify firing against an undrawn weapon.

Officer B was duly acquitted.

Rather than make second guess judgements based on my scant recollections I just wondered if anyone has more details on this case. I often mull over the implications of this one and felt a need to share the circumstances, if not my thoughts on the incident.


Mike H

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I believe the case occurred in Wyoming or Montanna, smallish town. Ayoob had nothing to do with it. The draw and fire example was a one shot deal, not repeated several times (at least according to the TV version on Discovery or TLC. The whole case reeked on both sides. From how things were described, neither side had a convincing case and both sides sounded like the people they represented were not operating up to professional or legal standards...a sort of poor (mgmt) cop at odds repeatedly with bad (illegal activities) cop, kills bad cop under dubious circumstances type of deal.

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

Bill Jordan was the expert who testified in that case. I believe that Gerry Spence represented the defendant. Jordan testified that the cop who did the shooting was faster than Jordan was. Jordan actually worked in REAL law enforcement, as opposed to some so-called "experts" who acquire their expertise from attending seminars.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That sounds exactly right. Thank you! I could not recall any names.

From http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/rocksprings2.html

The national media has made it seem as if Rock Springs continues as a "Wild West" town where the customers are lined up outside the saloons as in the above photo. The reputation developed in the 1970's with a nationally broadcast 60 Minutes program in which it was contended that on "K" Street saloons and other establishments were wide open. As a result of the allegations and embarassement, the City brought in a new director of Public Safety, former range detective Edward Lee "Ed" Cantrell. A special grand jury was convened to look into the allegations, and Cantrell brought in from Gillette a Puerto Rican undercover agent from New York, Michael "Mike" Rosa. Rosa, looking much like a disheveled, shaggy Geraldo Rivera, was soon frequenting, in his role as an undercover agent, the various saloons of the town. How undercover Rosa was may be a matter of question. He was almost universally disliked by his fellow police officers, and had openly bragged that he was going to "bring down" Ed Cantrell in forthcoming testimony before the grand jury. There were also allegations that Rosa had been paying off informants with drugs from the evidence room.

As a result, Ed Cantrell decided on a talk with Rosa. Cantrell with two other officers pulled up outside a lounge on Elk Street near the interstate. Rosa emerged wearing a hostlered gun and carrying a glass of wine. Rosa got in the backseat of the car. Cantrell was in the passenger front seat. During the course of the conversation, Rosa called Cantrell a "m***** *****r" and arched back as if he might have been going for his gun. His hands were allegedly free, the glass of wine held between his legs. A shot rang out, and Rosa lay dead in the backseat, a bullet wound from Cantrell's gun betwen Rosa's eyes, Rosa's gun still holstered, and his hands around the wine glass.

Ed Cantrell was, of course, charged with first degree murder. In the words of a Supreme Court justice, media attention at the preliminary hearing was "massive." The judicial proceedings were to the media as chum is to sharks. KTWO in its desire to obtain all of the evidence, whether admissible or inadmissible, even sued the committing magistrate. Indeed, the media publicity has continued to this day with further exposes repeated on cable channels. The exposes would show endlessly repeated photos of the old City Hall and the motel parking lot where the deed occurred.

Cantrell's initial lawyer, Robert E. Pfister from Lusk, brought in colorful Dubois lawyer and former Fremont County prosecutor Gerry Spence for the defense. Venue for the trial was moved to Pinedale in neighboring Sublette County, a location believed by some to favor the defense. Yet there was an overwhelming problem: Cantrell was seated in the front seat. How could Ed Cantrell, seated, get his weapon out of his holster, and shoot Rosa if in fact Rosa was attempting to get his gun? What defense could there possibly be? Even Spence in his book Gunning for Justice confessed that when he was first called by Pfister, he, Spence, initially believed from the media reports that Cantrell was an "assassin."

In trial practice, lawyers frequently save the best witness for last and will ocassionly make a "show." Juries remember best that which they heard first and that which they heard last. Thus, the media frenzy continued. Spence called as his last witness, a former border patrolman, National Rifle Association shootist, and author of the book No Second Place Winner, Bill Jordan. Spence received permission for a court room demonstration. A gun was loaded with blanks and a young deputy was told to point the gun at Jordan and if Jordan made any move towards his gun to pull the trigger. All of a sudden a shot was fired in the courtroom. The deputy stood there chagrinned, the deputy's weapon still unfired. Jordan testified that the normal human reaction time is 1/2 second, but he, Jordan, had trained himself to draw and fire in 0.27 seconds, less than half the time for someone else merely to recognize that an opponent is going for his gun.

"Q. And what about Sheriff Cantrell?"

"Ed? Well, I reckon he's a mite bit faster'n me."

The jury found Ed Cantrell not guilty. A cheap trick? Perhaps. But in all fairness, it must be said that under Wyoming law (actually the law of most states) it was not necessary that Rosa was actually going for his gun, only that Cantrell reasonably believed that he was. As noted by the Wyoming Supreme Court in Hernandez v. State, 976 P. 2d 672 (Wyo. 1999):

 

[Mike H]

My goodness you guys are good.

Thanks so much for that link - awesome piece of memory/research.

The case smells just as bad now as it did then.