Daunte Wright, killing by Kimberly Potter

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Philosophical obsessive that I am, my puzzle is how the jury could possibly find first degree *reckless* manslaughter proved beyond reasonable doubt according to the (admittedly confusing) law in this case. As I understand it, recklessness requires a certain mental state, a type of mens rea, roughly of consciously knowing one's action creates a risk of harm but choosing to do it anyway. Jury instructions in the case said someone "acts recklessly if, under the totality of the circumstances, she commits a conscious or intentional act in connection with the handling or use of a firearm that creates a substantial or unjustifiable risk that she is aware of and disregards."

Well, though this is a confusing point, I can see her act was a conscious and intentional act under some description of what her intent was. But if she thought she was using her taser, she was not aware of and disregarding a risk, so not acting recklessly. So prosecution should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this taser belief did not exist to get to the mental state required for recklessness.

So what did the jury think was proved to be the risk she was aware of and disregarded? Did the jury just think the whole I-thought-it-was-a-taser story was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be a lie?

One of the points made by prosecution expert witness was that no use of weapon, whether gun or taser, was justified under the circumstances. So it didn't matter if she thought it was a taser, her action created a risk of harm independent of her choice of weapon. Others described it here just in the past few days.

[andersweinstein]

One of the points made by prosecution expert witness was that no use of weapon, whether gun or taser, was justified under the circumstances. So it didn't matter if she thought it was a taser, her action created a risk of harm independent of her choice of weapon. Others described it here just in the past few days.

OK, but was it proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was in the mental state of being consciously aware of the risk of using a weapon in that situtation and chose to disregard that risk? Remember, if you just think she *ought to have known* the risk, that would be negligence, not recklessness.

A second question -- admittedly a very fine point: the manslaughter charge requires she be guilty of the misdemeanor of reckless use of a firearm. Could she ever be guilty of reckless use of a firearm in the case where her intention was to use a taser? This is something that is not so clear, it could depend on fine points about intention which the instructions don't go into.

Again, I'm interested in recklessness as opposed to negligence, and the culpable mental state -- awareness of the risk and choice to disregard it -- required for recklessness.

[RVInit]

[roadscholar]

Don’t beat yourself up, RV. There’s no killing of a person of color Anders won’t tirelessly try to justify.

[RVInit]

Don’t beat yourself up, RV. There’s no killing of a person of color Anders won’t tirelessly try to justify.

he definitely toes the party line.

[andersweinstein]

Don’t beat yourself up, RV. There’s no killing of a person of color Anders won’t tirelessly try to justify.

That's grossly unfair. Also just odd, since I never defended any killing of a person of color on this board before. And even in this case, I just commented on a question of law, and you transmute that into "justifying the killing of a person of color". Sheesh.

[LM K]

A female juror in the trial of former Brooklyn Center police officer Kimberly Potter was seen crying following the reading of the verdict on Thursday, according to a pool reporter in court.

Juror No. 4 was "seen crying" as Judge Regina Chu thanked the members of the jury, saying she was proud of them and calling them heroes. Another juror sitting next to Juror No. 4 was seen reaching out and putting his hand on her arm, according to the pool report.

Minutes later Juror number 4 was observed still shaking and crying as the jury stood to leave the courtroom.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kim-po ... index.html

Potter didn’t look surprised.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that at least one member of the jury is having trouble with having to find her guilty. Part of me understands that, but part of me also can't get past the fact that she had too many inconsistencies in what she said to investigators and what she said on the witness stand. I can see why at least some members of the jury would have seen her as a generally good person who made a mistake. For my part I was very troubled by the fact that she changed too many of her stories and how she answered questions to investigators and how she answered the same questions on the witness stand after seeing how the evidence was playing out in the courtroom. It wasn't just one thing I mentioned above either, it was multiple things. I would have found guilty, and I also would have done it with at least somewhat of a heavy heart. But I would have known it was the right thing to do as well.

We ask a lot from jurors. I have no problem with jurors showing intense emotion.

I'm a crier. I cry when I'm stressed and tired. That juror might have been comfortable with her verdict but overwhelmed with the exhaustion and stress that comes with 27 hours of deliberation. That's a long period of deliberation.

[LM K]

I'm surprised by both verdicts. I expected the jury to be swayed by the "she didn't mean to kill him!" argument.

I do believe that Potter thought she grabbed her taser. But she had adequate time to notice that she wasn't holding her taser. She had plenty of time to pull back from Williams.

Everytime I start to fall for the "she didn't mean to kill him!" argument, I remind myself that actions have consequences. William's family and friends will grieve Williams for the rest of their lives. William's lost his life. It's very appropriate for Potter to go to prison for killing a man.

I'm not sure that I believe that Potter was lying about her fellow officer's look of terror. The minute her colleague told Potter that Williams was going to drag him away, a cue that could facilitated the development of a false memory was given. But that goes into all kinds of shrinky stuff.

If I was a juror I would agree with fellow jurors who believed Potter lied. What I know about memory isn't evidence. The discrepancy between what Potter said before vs during trial are evidence.

Interesting and tragic case.

Caveat: I haven’t been following this case at all, so my comments are really just generic.

Discrepancy between her previous statements and in court testimony is evidence, sure. But is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt? This is a problem I have with our system. I honestly believe that jurors don’t know what “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” really means, despite a constitutional requirement that the judge explain it to them.

Here’s an example that I see in my work all the time (I’m sticking with the genders that I see in my cases). She testifies that they were making out, and she told him to stop and he didn’t stop and he ultimately penetrated her without her consent. He testifies in his own defense and says that she was into it, she never told him to stop, she actively participated in the acts, and he had no reason to believe she didn’t consent, that he honestly though she did consent. It was in a hotel/dorm/apartment and there were no other people present. There might be evidence that both people have good character for truthfulness, or evidence that the victim has a motive to testify falsely.

A conscientious application of the reasonable doubt standard should yield an acquittal because his version of events - that she consented or he reasonably believed that she did - is reasonably possible. But the jury always goes with who they believe “more.” And they don’t appear to understand that even if they find her more credible than they find him, that’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s lying.

Here’s me dealing with this sort of thing: It’s so frustrating.

Well said.

The inconsistency is only evidence of inconsistency. It is a piece of the greater puzzle.

The issue of truth vs perception of truth is fascinating. But in the real world, the difference has heavy consequences.

[LM K]

One of the points made by prosecution expert witness was that no use of weapon, whether gun or taser, was justified under the circumstances. So it didn't matter if she thought it was a taser, her action created a risk of harm independent of her choice of weapon. Others described it here just in the past few days.

OK, but was it proven beyond reasonable doubt that she was in the mental state of being consciously aware of the risk of using a weapon in that situtation and chose to disregard that risk? Remember, if you just think she *ought to have known* the risk, that would be negligenceu, not recklessness.

A second question -- admittedly a very fine point: the manslaughter charge requires she be guilty of the misdemeanor of reckless use of a firearm. Could she ever be guilty of reckless use of a firearm in the case where her intention was to use a taser? This is something that is not so clear, it could depend on fine points about intention which the instructions don't go into.

Again, I'm interested in recklessness as opposed to negligence, and the culpable mental state -- awareness of the risk and choice to disregard it -- required for recklessness.

For the jury, yes, the prosecuion met it's burden of proof.

The concept of recklessness will differ for law enforcement officers vs the average person in such situations. One of the key arguments in trial is that Potter's training gave her the skills and knowledge to not make the mistake she made. She was reckless because she ignored her training.

The prosecuion did a good job helping the jury defining what recklessness is in this case.

Recklessness vs negligence:

Recklessness

Recklessness is a much more serious offense. Negligence simply means that someone should have done something and failed to do so. Recklessness is when someone deliberately engages in dangerous behavior fully knowing that it is dangerous and may injury someone or damage property. There is a willful disregard of people and property and a willingness to take on that risky behavior. In some cases, recklessness is called “gross negligence.” In all cases, the criteria for negligence must be met, however, there is an extra level of dangerous or egregious behavior by the defendant that accompanies that breach of duty. Some examples could be driving while intoxicated, speeding excessively, medical professionals performing surgical procedures without the qualifications to do so, or a complete lack of safety in a store or building without warning signs posted.

Potter's behavior was absolutely reckless. Her use of any weapon in that situation was reckless. Evidence of recklessness ... Williams is dead. Other officers believed her actions were unnecessary and excessive.

Potter was reckless multiple times before and during her shooting of Daunte Williams.

[LM K]

Reality hasn't hit yet.

[RVInit]

I never even mentioned the part about her behavior that really rankled me. The mug shot brings it home, too.

After shooting him, with all the wailing and crying and poor me carrying on that Potter did, not even once did she even pretend to be concerned about what happened to Daunte Wright. It was all about what is going to happen to ME. I was horrified by that. A truly decent person, in my opinion, after "accidentally" shooting someone would have been concerned about the person who got shot and MAYBE at some point start worrying about themselves. The police video showing pretty much all three of the cops behavior after the shooting, truth be told, was just plain wrong.

Sorry. Had to be said.

[filly]

I never even mentioned the part about her behavior that really rankled me. The mug shot brings it home, too.

After shooting him, with all the wailing and crying and poor me carrying on that Potter did, not even once did she even pretend to be concerned about what happened to Daunte Wright. It was all about what is going to happen to ME. I was horrified by that. A truly decent person, in my opinion, after "accidentally" shooting someone would have been concerned about the person who got shot and MAYBE at some point start worrying about themselves. The police video showing pretty much all three of the cops behavior after the shooting, truth be told, was just plain wrong.

Sorry. Had to be said.

I don't hear it mentioned much, but there was a passenger in that car who could've been shot as well.

[LM K]

I never even mentioned the part about her behavior that really rankled me. The mug shot brings it home, too.

After shooting him, with all the wailing and crying and poor me carrying on that Potter did, not even once did she even pretend to be concerned about what happened to Daunte Wright. It was all about what is going to happen to ME. I was horrified by that. A truly decent person, in my opinion, after "accidentally" shooting someone would have been concerned about the person who got shot and MAYBE at some point start worrying about themselves. The police video showing pretty much all three of the cops behavior after the shooting, truth be told, was just plain wrong.

Sorry. Had to be said.

I agree. I was shocked when I read about her reaction to shooting and killing a man.

I'm not shocked that Potter was so distraught. I am shocked by her complete lack of concern for Wright.

Interesting NYT article:

Ms. Potter took the witness stand in her own defense on the last day of her trial. She broke down several times as she described a “chaotic” scene during the traffic stop on April 11 and said she had significant holes in her memory.

“I’m sorry it happened,” Ms. Potter testified through tears. “I didn’t want to hurt anybody.”

Ms. Potter said she remembered little about what happened in the moments after the shooting.

Psychologists refer to memories of intense personal events as "flashbulb memories". Typically the recall of flashbulb memories is more accurate than average memories. Because adrenaline is heightened during intense personal events, the brain is much more accurate at encoding, storing, and forming retrieval cues for such events.

That said, memory is fragile. In this case, I doubt Potter had "significant gaps" in her memory. It is possible that she does. It's just not likely. I think inconsistencies between the event and memories of the event are much more likely than "gaps".

So how do we know if someone is lying as opposed to having memory glitches? We don't.

She also said that she likely would not have pulled Mr. Wright’s car over had she not been training a rookie police officer who wanted to do so. That officer, Anthony Luckey, pulled Mr. Wright over because Mr. Wright had an air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror and the car’s registration was expired.

Potter pulled over Wright because a rookie wanted to, not because it was necessary.

This reminds me of the two cops who tossed a coin to decide whether or not to arrest a woman for speeding. The coin toss was the basis for the arrest, not the crime.

The Brooklyn police are no longer pulling drivers over for minor traffic violations.

Prosecutors played the videos several times in court, likely trying to show jurors that Ms. Potter believed, at the time, that she had done something wrong, or even broken the law.

“What have I done?” she said several times. As the videos were shown in court, Ms. Potter shook and cried.

But there were also parts of the video that aided the defense. When Ms. Potter said she was going to go to prison, Sergeant Johnson, one of two other officers at the scene of the shooting, responded: “Kim, that guy was trying to take off with me in the car.”

That really bothered me. Immediately after shooting Wright, other officers had to worry about Potter rather than Wright.

[RVInit]

Yes, and it's important to remember that Daunte was NOT trying to take off with Johnson in the car, even though Johnson made that statement during the time he was trying to console Potter. Prior to Potter pulling her weapon, Daunte was completely under control, both arms were being held, one by Johnson, the other by Luckey. And, Daunte had already turned off the ignition, put the car in park, put the keys on the dashboard, as he had been instructed. The idea that he could have tried to get the car in gear, engine running, and pulled away only was made possible after Potter yelled "taser taser taser" causing the officers, who actually had Daunte Wright completely under control, to let go of him because they believed taser probes were about to be deployed.

Her gaps in memory were not there during the initial investigation interview. She answered many questions during the initial interview that she would not answer under oath, saying she did not remember. In every case where she said she did not remember, prosecutors brought out her initial statement and showed that the initial statement she made could not have been true, based on testimony and body camera footage shown in court. I actually do not believe she didn't remember. I think it far more likely that she remembers what she told investigators. Then, at trial it more than likely became clear to her that she could not answer the questions the same way in front of the jury because the jury has already seen that those answers could not have been true. Ultimately, due to cross examination, the jury learned what she had originally said in response to many questions, as well as now hearing that she has "gaps in her memory". They would have been able to evaluate for themselves whether it is more likely that she knew her original story was now proven false and she can't really stick with those answers, or she really somehow has lost her memory in between her original questioning and trial. Essentially, her memory gaps made her unable to articulate at trial any of her reasoning for any of her behavior. She "doesn't remember" why she decided to pull out her taser. She "doesn't remember" why she offered no assistance to Wright. She "doesn't remember" pretty much any of her behavior or thought process when it came to the hard questions that the jury really needed answers to. But yet, she corrected the prosecutor on very minor details of things that happened during those same events and same time periods she says she has gaps in her memory.

I don't by the "I don't remember". I fully believe she realized during trial that her original responses are things she cannot say with a straight face to her jury, given how the evidence was panning out in the courtroom. Cross examination is how we know what she told investigators in the beginning with her statements being brought out to refresh her memory of what she told investigators. And she also "doesn't know" why she had memory of that time period right after it happened enough to give these statements but now has lost that memory when she needs to explain things to the jury.

Pretty much "I don't know" and "I don't remember" is all she offered to the jury by way of explanation for her actions on that day. Direct examination was used to pretty much show the jury what a great person she was, and allow her to humanize herself to the jury. And that is the problem with her taking the witness stand. It wasn't to offer her side of what happened, as she claimed "I don't know" and "I don't remember" to all of it. It was to appeal to the jury for jury nullification purposes only.

[sugar magnolia]

Yes, and it's important to remember that Daunte was NOT trying to take off with Johnson in the car, even though Johnson made that statement during the time he was trying to console Potter. Prior to Potter pulling her weapon, Daunte was completely under control, both arms were being held, one by Johnson, the other by Luckey. And, Daunte had already turned off the ignition, put the car in park, put the keys on the dashboard, as he had been instructed. The idea that he could have tried to get the car in gear, engine running, and pulled away only was made possible after Potter yelled "taser taser taser" causing the officers, who actually had Daunte Wright completely under control, to let go of him because they believed taser probes were about to be deployed.

I thought he did drive off and hit another car after he was shot? Or did he locate the keys, crank the car and drive off after he was shot?

[RVInit]

Yes, once Potter yelled taser taser taser, the other officers let go of Daunte, he grabbed the keys turned on the engine, put the car in gear and put his foot on the gas. All of which was facilitated by Potter pulling out her gun and yelling "taser taser taser". Otherwise, the car couldn't go anywhere because Daunte had no free hands to do anything until her actions caused them to let him go.

In case you are wondering about the following - the answer is yes, there was an excruciating amount of time between her yelling "taser taser taser" and her actually pulling the trigger. That is what gave him the time he needed to grab the keys, start the car, put it in gear and put his foot on the gas. He was shot right around the same time that he put the car in gear and stepped on the gas.

[andersweinstein]

FYI: Minneapolis NBC affiliate KARE 11 got an interview with anonymous juror about deliberations:

[raison de arizona]

Thanks Anders. Jeebus RVInit, were you in the jury room???

We also really liked Dr. Laurence Miller. He seemed very knowledgeable to us. But there were some conversations about his testimony because he kept referring to an interview he had with Kim Potter that we didn't have in evidence, and there was a conflict between that interview and Potter's own testimony. We wanted to know when Potter had this conversation with Dr. Miller, not suggesting Kim Potter was lying or embellishing her story, but their stories just didn't line up – the things she told him and the things she told us.

During the trial, Potter's interview with Dr. Miller was only allowed to be used by the prosecution to impeach Potter during cross-examination. The jury was able to glean that Potter never told Dr. Miller she saw "a look of fear" on her partner's face, and at one point said she "saw a gun in her hand." The juror said they felt Potter hurt her credibility on the witness stand when she contradicted those two points.

Dead on.

[RVInit]

Maybe because I'm not a lawyer I probably see these trials kind of like a regular juror might see them. I can't say I'm surprised that her contradictions were noticed by the jury, they did seem problematic and some of it went right to the heart of the matter of the actions she took on that day. So, it's pretty relevant to the charges the jury had to consider.

I do have a little difference of opinion on whether she was a "good cop", though. As a trainer I think she sucked. It came out that in general nobody was being pulled over because of expired tags because apparently it was well known that tag processing was behind in their county because of Covid, and if they were going to pull people over for expired tags, they would have been pulling over a ridiculous amount of people, many of whom had mailed in their payments in what normally would have been enough time to get their tags renewed on time. So, the trainee wanted to pull Daunte over because he had an air freshener hanging from his rear view mirror. I kid you not, a freaking air freshener handing from his rear view mirror is why he was pulled over. That was an opportunity the 26 year veteran could have had a conversation with her trainee about the difference between a legitimate reason for pulling someone over and a frivolous reason. She said she would NOT have pulled him over, and yet she acquiesced to pulling someone over based on a ridiculously frivolous reason. That is a failure as a trainer, in my opinion. So, great, now that department has a new cop that has basically been given the impression that it's A-OK to pull someone over for something as stupid as "oh he has an air freshener in his car, he must be a pot smoker".

Also, when you compare the demeanor of the other two cops, one of them a trainee, with Potter's behavior, she seemed overwhelmed and out of control in that situation where the other two, one being a trainee, seemed much more calm, cool, and collected. So, I'm not sure I would agree with the "she was generally a good cop". She was definitely a "cop's cop", though, and it was clear that the other cops loved her. However, none of them mentioned anything about her worth or how good she was at any of the part of her job that had to do with interacting with the general public. They all raved about the extracurricular activities she engaged in, which had to do with services rendered to other cops. I couldn't help but noticed none of them said anything like "she's great interacting with people that she pulls over" or "she's calm in situations where a civilian is out of control or being difficult". It was all about how she volunteered her time with police associations and the police union, nothing about how great she was at the normal part of her job. In case you hadn't guessed, several of Potter's fellow officers took the stand in her defense. The only question any of them were asked that had anything to do with anything that was relevant was "tell us something about how peaceful Kim Potter is". Everything else was about her volunteerism with police union and police associations and how great they feel about her because of that.

[keith]

I kid you not, a freaking air freshener handing from his rear view mirror is why he was pulled over. That was an opportunity the 26 year veteran could have had a conversation with her trainee about the difference between a legitimate reason for pulling someone over and a frivolous reason.

"Frivolous" reason, my ass.

Why on FSM's green earth is an air freshener ANY kind of 'reason' for a traffic stop? Is air freshener illegal now?

WTF?

[Patagoniagirl]

I kid you not, a freaking air freshener handing from his rear view mirror is why he was pulled over. That was an opportunity the 26 year veteran could have had a conversation with her trainee about the difference between a legitimate reason for pulling someone over and a frivolous reason.

"Frivolous" reason, my ass.

Why on FSM's green earth is an air freshener ANY kind of 'reason' for a traffic stop? Is air freshener illegal now?

WTF?

Its is a pretext for a racially motivated traffic stop.

[RVInit]

Yeah, the reports as well as sworn testimony was that the trainer, Officer Luckey, wanted to pull Daunte Wright over because he noticed the air freshener that was hanging from his rear view mirror.

Minnesota's law does not specifically mention air fresheners, but says a person shall not drive or operate a motor vehicle with “any objects suspended between the driver and the windshield,” with certain exceptions, including sun visors, rearview mirrors and electronic toll collection devices.

I truly wonder if Officer Luckey intends to pull over every single driver of a car that has an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror. That is just absolutely bizarre. I can see the reason for not having something that obstructs the view of the driver, but I have an air freshener hanging from my rear view mirror and it does not obstruct my view at all. It seems ridiculously frivolous to me to pull over a driver for that reason. I mean if it's technically against the law and the driver is doing something else, then maybe also cite the driver for the freshener, but as a reason in and of itself seems beyond ridiculous to me.

[sugar magnolia]

Field training officers do all sorts of things while training a rookie that they wouldn't necessarily do on their own. That's the whole point of being an FTO. Yes, people get pulled over for bullshit reasons when someone is in training so they can be trained. It might be for the purpose of writing a ticket for the experience, or for handling a specific type of call they haven't worked yet, or for some other reason. The point of training a rookie is to expose them to as many different things as possible before they're turned loose by themselves. That often means writing more tickets, working more wrecks or taking calls another officer is assigned to. They have a limited period of time to be exposed to as much as possible.

[andersweinstein]

The trainee who wanted to stop the car, Officer Luckey, is Black himself, right? I wouldn't make a big deal of that, but it seems a pertinent detail if you're considering the decision with an eye to race.

[raison de arizona]

16 months and a $1k fine. Link incoming.

Kim Potter, the former Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, police officer convicted in the death of Daunte Wright, has been sentenced to two years in the fatal shooting.

According to Minnesota law, Potter is required to serve two-thirds of her sentence in prison. With good behavior, she will be eligible for supervised release for the other third.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kim-po ... index.html

Kim Potter's 2-year sentence for killing #DaunteWright is 5+ years below 1st-degree manslaughter state guidelines.

The judge justified it by claiming the killing was "significantly less serious" than typical manslaughter and Potter "does not present a danger of future crimes."