Weekend Special: Is triple-jeopardy retrial a means to an end?
Political Heat, Final Post - Recent media spotlight a scorcher
Brett Hankison will be back in court soon. If the retrial scheduled to start on October 15 is like the previous trial, those who support Brett will be seated on the right side of the courtroom and Breonna’s supporters will be on the left. Attend the trial to show support for Brett! An archive of blog posts covering many aspects of Brett’s trials is here.
The Political Heat focused on Brett comes from various angles: from city officials, the DOJ and FBI, UofL, national and local leftist groups, mainstream media, state and federal senators and representatives, and from Breonna Taylor’s family, friends and attorneys.
Yet his bullets harmed no one.
The Kentucky Grand Jury found none of the three officers guilty of Breonna’s death since they were firing back at Kenneth Walker’s shots1. Brett was charged with wanton endangerment pertaining only to Breonna’s neighbors and was then exonerated by a Jefferson Co. Circuit Court jury in 2022.
No one was indicted for the two bullets that went through the floor and the roof of the upstairs apartment, a similar issue as was litigated on behalf of her adjacent neighbors. Those bullets were not fired from Brett's gun. As defense attorney Stew Mathews said in his closing argument during the state trial, "It's interesting that the only person charged with wanton endangerment for the same conduct is Brett Hankison.”
Brett was not found guilty of violating the civil rights of Breonna, Kenneth Walker or the neighbors at the federal trial in 2023.
The charge of ‘wanton endangerment’ is not materially different from civil rights violations —from my layperson perspective. The aspect of federal vs. state indictments plus adding Breonna and Kenneth Walker to the federal case prevented a ‘double jeopardy’2 label on the 2023 trial. But what can explain this retrial motivation?
Is it a conspiracy theory to say that Brett’s case is being used to achieve broad objectives? We can’t help but wonder— Why is so much political heat focused on Brett? How do the Louisville/LMPD Consent Decree and the 2024 reintroduction of the George Floyd Policing Act relate to this spotlight on Brett and on Jaynes and Meany? What will be the final result if ‘Police Reform’ goals are achieved?
Conspiracy or merely trends?
City and state officials called for the DOJ to investigate the LMPD following the death of Breonna. Early on, the police were accused of murdering her. Breonna’s family and friends have held firmly to this narrative. Her mom, Tamika Palmer, publicly threatened Daniel Cameron for not finding the police guilty. (screenshot from Courier-Journal)
In August, felony charges were dropped against Jaynes and Meany, officers who prepared the search warrant, by federal Judge Charles Simpson. His ruling stated that Kenneth Walker was responsible for Breonna’s death.3
Simpson’s ruling enraged the political activists who want Police Reform. Local media reported their reactions, and OpEds in the Courier-Journal condemned the ruling. The DOJ served “superseding” indictments to Jaynes and Meany.
Attorney Ben Crump with others staged a media conference in Washington, DC, last month, supported by the Congressional Black Caucus. Tamika was at the visual center of the mothers standing behind Crump who demanded that Congress take action to stop police violence against blacks. In an emotional plea for Police Reform, she blamed the lack of body cam video for the denial of justice for Breonna and called for passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Conspiracy or merely proposed legislation?
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act was initially introduced in the US House in 2021, and was drafted by Kamala Harris and Corey Booker for the Senate. It passed the House but not the Senate because of Republican pushback. Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas state representative, reintroduced it last spring before she passed away from cancer in July.
Some reasons why conservatives oppose the Act are found on the Heritage Foundation website (and other sites). An article by Zack Smith notes the danger it poses to police—
It also strips away the defense of qualified immunity, but only for law enforcement officers. That means that a law enforcement officer who had to make a split-second decision can no longer raise that defense when accused of violating someone’s rights. Meanwhile, others, such as university administrators, who are able to make much more considered decisions, can still raise it to avoid a lawsuit—for example, when they are accused of violating students’ First Amendment rights.
Some goals of the George Floyd Act were included in a Biden 2022 Executive Order. That may be why we already see much of what the Act proposes as legally binding.
Is there a conspiracy to weaken police protection? Is Brett the “straw man” for this political goal?
The concerted efforts of so many in Congress and the Biden administration, amplified by the adoring press and ‘blue’ cities, cause Police Reform to seem right and good. But will it cause the LMPD to lose even more police? Will quality officers serve when qualified immunity is denied? Will new ones sign up?
If policing become less safe and more difficult, what are your chances of finding an officer when you need one? Never mind, your chances for safety are better than the average officer who faces devastating threats today and is unsure whether using deadly force will land him in prison.
Is anarchy a potential outcome? Please share this post!
ANARCHY PUSHBACK! Yesterday, Attorney General Russell Coleman announced a new office in Jefferson Co. to fight violent crime. In his videoed announcement, a bereaved Louisville mom praises the LMPD and the AG for helping Louisville. This is a cooling breeze for Brett. Find conservative news on Fastzone.com/
Walker stated he only shot once, but based on testimonies and evidences published on the LMPD website, a case could be made for more than one bullet. He testified under oath he did not hear the police announce themselves. Perhaps a reenactment of the event could help to clarify this. If jurors are taken to the scene as they were in 2023, they could stand where he stood, and the same seven police could be stationed outside the door shouting, ‘Police! Search warrant!” He said he thought they were being robbed. Would a burglar beat on a door?
Double jeopardy refers to the constitutional protection against being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense. This concept is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “No person shall … be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” (AI answer)
Judge Simpson’s insight that the police did not shoot into Breonna’s apartment as a tactic in serving the warrant but rather in self-defense after Kenneth fired at them, is applicable to Brett’s case, too. The ‘unreasonable seizure’ he is accused of is not applicable to an ‘active shooter’ event.