Syracuse, N.Y. — In a lawsuit concerning a deadly shooting by a law enforcement officer in 2016, a federal jury delivered a split decision on Friday that seems to favor the city.
The jury determined that the Syracuse officer employed excessive force; however, they granted the deceased man’s family only $10,000. At an earlier stage, the city had been prepared to agree to a settlement exceeding $800,000.
A federal judge indicated from the bench that the use of excessive force probably won't hold up legally. The judge also mentioned that the officer seems protected under qualified immunity.
"Qualified immunity" is a legal doctrine that shields government employees, notably law enforcement officers, from facing liability in court when they violate an individual’s constitutional rights.
Officer Kelsey Francemone shot repeatedly at Gary Porter, aged 41, following multiple individuals opening fire during a Father’s Day cookout on June 19, 2016; as a result, Porter passed away.
The officer stated that Porter had faced her with a firearm. Although no weapon was discovered, law enforcement insists that individuals within the audience seized the gun.
The shooting of Porter provoked A robust communal reaction resulted in demonstrations outside the police headquarters.
At the time, Onondaga County District Attorney was William Fitzpatrick. praised Francemone’s actions of running toward the gunfire as “one of the bravest things” he had ever seen. A grand jury convened by his office cleared Francemone of any criminal wrongdoing.
Francemone was named In 2017, the New York State Trooper named as Officer of the Year received this distinction and was honored by then-Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Porter’s The family initiated a civil lawsuit. in federal court.
The eight members of the jury in the civil case — comprising five white females, two white males, and one black female — required fewer than forty-eight hours to ponder the conflicting narratives surrounding that particular summer evening.
Initially, Francemone expressed disappointment with the outcome of the case, according to Mary D'Augustino, who serves as his legal counsel.
She stated that the primary reason for the jury’s conclusion of excessive use of force and their decision to grant Porter $10,000 was probably because he was shot from behind.
Fred Lichtmacher, the lawyer representing Porter’s family, stated that Porter’s daughter felt deeply disheartened even after achieving an initial success. He mentioned that she was utterly dejected knowing that the worth of a Black man's life was considered only $10,000.
The city’s legal representatives protecting Francemone requested that the jury address three extra factual queries to determine whether qualified immunity is applicable.
The jury was asked:
- Did Francemone provide evidence showing she reasonably believed Porter had a firearm "at some point" that evening? The jurors affirmed yes.
- Did Francemone provide evidence that she genuinely believed, though incorrectly, Porter was among multiple individuals shooting guns in the Stone Court parking lot that evening? Indeed, she did.
- Did Francemone provide evidence that she held a reasonable, albeit incorrect, belief that Porter was carrying a gun when she shot at him? Yes.
Once the responses were announced, Francemone and D'Augustine hugged, aware that these replies could potentially activate qualified immunity and lead to the overturning of the ruling.
According to the legislation, police officers cannot face liability in civil lawsuits unless an earlier judicial decision has determined that the exact conduct was unconstitutional.
As stated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, firing at an armed person is not considered unconstitutional if they present a danger of causing death or significant injury to law enforcement officers or other individuals.
The jury ruled there was proof Porter was armed and fired that weapon that night.
Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes stated in court that it seems likely the verdict will be overturned. However, she requested both parties to submit briefs prior to making her final decision.
Lichtmacher stated that the jurors' ruling of excessive force and their responses to the defense's inquiries seem "contradictory." He mentioned that he couldn't speculate on the thoughts of the jury members.
He stated that he thinks the jury didn't realize the importance of the extra fact-checking inquiries — that saying yes might reverse the decision.
I believe the jury left with the impression that my client was victorious," Lichtmacher stated. "The jury has provided the judge with grounds for granting qualified immunity if she chooses to do so.
Lichtmacher stated that if the judge determines qualified immunity is applicable, he might choose to file an appeal.
He stated that he thinks there wasn't any reliable proof indicating Porter possessed a weapon that evening.
The lengthy trial nearly did not take place.
City lawyers had reached a deal to pay $825,000 to resolve the lawsuit. However, this was subject to approval by the Common Council was one short Of the supermajority required to approve borrowing funds for the settlement.
The occurrences from that evening stem from an earlier period concerning law enforcement practices and officer responsibility.
The video footage showing part of what occurred was taken from blurry surveillance cams as well as the smartphones of several individuals present at the scene. It’s worth noting that Syracuse police officers had yet to start using body cameras. until the following year .
The State Attorney General’s Office swiftly concluded its probe. saying at the time That it lacked the power to keep investigating what occurred. Subsequently, the state Legislature enacted a law mandating that the office must examine every death potentially resulting from either an act or omission by police officers.
It is not in dispute how the night began.
A big Father’s Day event was taking place at the James Geddes public housing complex located in the city’s Near West Side neighborhood. The gathering attracted hundreds of attendees, with lively tunes emanating from a DJ station.
An hour into her shift, and just under two years since she joined the police force, Francemone received a call around 11:10 p.m. about a "person down." The report turned out to be unsubstantiated.
Shortly after his arrival, Francemone heard gunshots. Authorities would subsequently claim that a minimum of 37 rounds had been discharged.
Individuals at the barbecue started fleeing from the gunshots, leading to pandemonium. Francemone, being alone, moved towards the sound of the shooting.
She noticed three individuals firing guns close to a vehicle in a tiny parking area located off Tully Street on the south part of the residential complex.
Sannes, the judge, admitted to the jury members that they encountered "significantly differing accounts" of what transpired subsequently.
Francemone went before the witness stand Before a crowded courthouse filled with law enforcement personnel, she stated that she had multiple times identified herself as an officer of the law and commanded the assailants to lay down their weapons.
After shooting several rounds at the assailants, Francemone’s firearm malfunctioned. She dropped into a squat to stay close to the ground as she replaced her clip.
Francemone subsequently shot twice at a man whom she claimed was aiming a firearm at her as he fled.
Individuals at the barbecue attacked Francefone two times following her shooting of Porter, seizing articles from her uniform and hitting her with a glass bottle.
Witnesses supporting the plaintiff — including Porter’s daughter, Tanajee Maddox — contradicted significant parts of her testimony.
Two witnesses who previously backed Francemone before a grand jury have altered their statements since then.
One witness, Khalil Davis, declined to be transferred from a prison outside the area to provide testimony for Francemone during the civil trial. He is currently serving a 10-year sentence for drug and firearm offenses.
Attorneys representing Francemone chose to cite portions of Davis’s testimony before the grand jury. According to Davis, Porter possessed a firearm and believed that Francemone was acting as necessary to safeguard herself.
Lichtmacher also reviewed some testimony. Davis mentioned in a subsequent deposition that he felt "deceived" when responding to questions and offered an apology to Porter’s family for his remarks.
A different witness, Carlos Stackhouse, is likewise serving time in state prison. Stackhouse has stated that he currently thinks he never actually saw Porter with a firearm. According to him, he observed Porter toss an object that was small, though he remained unaware of what exactly it was.
Stackhouse, aged 12 when the shooting occurred, admitted that he provided false statements to law enforcement and during the grand jury proceedings. He revealed that his parents instructed him to assist the police, which shaped his account of events.
The scientific proof in the case allowed for multiple explanations.
The attorneys representing Francemone pointed out that Porter, being right-handed, had gunshot residue detected on his right hand. These small particles typically form when an individual discharges a firearm.
Lichtmacher contended that the presence of residue didn’t definitively indicate Porter had fired his weapon. He suggested that the residues might have transferred from Francemone’s hand to Porter’s during her attempt to put cuffs on him afterward.
France Monroe’s attorneys attempted to inform the jury of Porter’s prior firearm offenses, claiming these demonstrated his knowledge of accessing weapons. However, the judge denied this request, stating that bringing up the convictions would be unduly biased against the defendant.
Journalist Jon Moss handles reporting on current events and urgent developments. Crime and Public Safety. He can be contacted at jmoss@World news or @mossjon7 .
©2025Advance Local Media LLC. Check out World News. Delivered by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Comments
Post a Comment