City attorneys want a federal judge to exclude LGBT-related evidence in an upcoming police-brutality case, claiming the evidence is irrelevant and inflammatory.
Luis A. Berrios 3d is suing Officer Michael Gentile for allegedly using excessive force when arresting him during a domestic disturbance in December 2010. He’s also suing Officer Robert Taverez and Detective Joseph Newbert for allegedly standing by and facilitating the excessive force.
Berrios contends police were motivated by homophobia, noting that slurs and taunts such as “faggot” were hurled at him during the incident.
Last month, U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones 2d allowed the case to move forward to a jury trial. However, Jones dismissed several counts, including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and conspiracy.
On April 10, the city filed a six-page motion asking that LGBT-related evidence be excluded at trial.
The motion quotes from a Third Circuit ruling in a different case, which states: “If the force [defendant] used was unreasonable, it does not matter whether [defendant] had good motivations. And an officer’s improper motive will not establish excessive force if the force used was objectively reasonable.”
Due to this prior ruling, the city’s motion argues: “[T]he court should bar [Berrios] from presenting evidence regarding the bigoted statements allegedly made by police officers, as well as any other evidence regarding the officers’ motives for using force.”
The city’s motion adds: “Moreover, the court should bar the introduction of the alleged [homophobic] statements even if they were somehow relevant, because allowing the jury to hear about such inflaming statements would subject the officers to unfair prejudice.”
The city also seeks the exclusion of evidence related to excessive force used against Berrios’ former boyfriend during the incident.
“[Berrios’] outlandish statements that police officers struck [his former boyfriend] with batons when he already had handcuffs on, and needlessly jumped on [his] ankles, would subject the defendants to unfair prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court should bar [Berrios] from introducing evidence of homophobic statements allegedly made by police officers, as well as any other evidence of the officers’ motives. Moreover, the court should preclude [Berrios] from presenting evidence about the force used against [his former boyfriend].”
The motion was filed by city attorney Michael R. Miller, who declined to comment for this story.
“As a matter of policy, the city does not comment on pending litigation,” Miller said in an email.
Berrios, 31, said he’s looking forward to his day in court.
“As for the city’s attempt to exclude LGBT-related evidence, I strongly oppose their request,” Berrios told PGN. “I firmly believe police were motivated by anti-LGBT animus. It’s the key to all of this. The jury must be allowed to consider all the evidence, including the LGBT evidence. I need the defendants to be held accountable. None of this would have happened if they didn’t realize our sexual orientation.”
Berrios also expressed disappointment that some counts against police were dismissed.
“I do feel sad that some charges were dismissed, when I can say deep in my heart I wasn’t wrong. I’m still thankful that I will get the opportunity to fight for justice. This is a fight I’m willing to fight. I’ve been quiet way too long. It’s now time that these Philadelphia police officers stand before a judge and pay for the crimes they have committed.”
As of presstime, a date for the trial hadn’t been announced.
