In a chaotic finish to a high-profile trial, a judge first announced that a jury had found that a Chicago police officer unjustifiably shot and killed a bat-wielding teen, then wiped away the verdict and the $1 million award to the teen’s family after noting that jurors had also found that the officer reasonably feared for his life when he fired.
Confusion abounded at the Daley Center courthouse Wednesday evening after the Cook County jury reached its conflicting verdict after 3½ hours of deliberations, capping an eight-day trial.
Judge Rena Marie Van Tine first announced that jurors had sided in favor of Quintonio LeGrier’s parents — who sued the city and Officer Robert Rialmo — awarding them $1.05 million in damages.
Moments later, however, it was revealed that jurors had also signed a special interrogatory — a specific question to a jury — finding that Rialmo fired in the reasonable belief that LeGrier posed the danger of death or great bodily harm to himself or his partner.
Van Tine then found that the answer to the specific question overrode the rest of the verdict. Over the objections of the LeGrier family’s lawyers, the judge entered judgment in favor of Rialmo and the city.
The jury foreman, Dave Fitzsimmons, answered reporters’ questions just after the verdict was read, suggesting he had expected the $1.05 million in damages to be imposed and criticizing the officer’s decision to shoot.
“(I) don’t believe he’s a bad person — just made a bad decision,” Fitzsimmons said.
Even without the conflicting verdict, jurors had awarded an amount that far undershot what the LeGrier family’s lawyers had asked for — as much as $25 million.
The shooting on the West Side also killed 55-year-old Bettie Jones, an innocent bystander. The city avoided a trial with her family by recently reaching a proposed settlement of $16 million.
Rialmo’s lawyer, Joel Brodsky, celebrated the mixed jury decision as vindication for his client. As reporters and other onlookers sorted out the verdict, he talked by phone with Rialmo, who was not in court. Brodsky said the officer felt “wonderful.”
Attorney Basileios Foutris, who represents the LeGrier family, said the city won on a “legal technicality” and said he would be “exploring all our options going forward.”
The situation echoed at least one other case in Cook County over a shooting by Chicago police. In 2015, a jury found that an officer shot and killed a 19-year-old man without justification and awarded $3.5 million in damages. In that case, however, the jury also answered a special interrogatory and said the officer believed his life was in danger when he fired. The judge wiped away the verdict, but the Illinois Appellate Court overturned her decision and reinstated the award in February.
Another element added to the confusion around the LeGrier verdict. Rialmo had made the unusual move of suing LeGrier’s estate, blaming him for the shooting. Jurors found partly in Rialmo’s favor but awarded the officer no money.
The wild ending marked the culmination of 2½ years of legal wrangling over one of the most divisive shootings in the recent history of a Police Department still undergoing reforms aimed at preventing controversial uses of force. The shooting has been politically explosive since it transpired just a month after Mayor Rahm Emanuel was forced by a judge to release video of an officer shooting black teen Laquan McDonald 16 times.
LeGrier’s shooting unfolded as Rialmo and his partner responded about 4:30 a.m. Dec. 26, 2015, to a domestic disturbance at an apartment in the 4700 block of West Erie Street where the teen was staying with his father. LeGrier apparently was plagued by mental health problems and had encounters with police while attending Northern Illinois University, records show.
During closing arguments Wednesday, Foutris emphasized the portions of the trial that suggested Rialmo — who has given varying statements about the shooting — stood 10 feet or more from the teen when he fired.
The lawyer argued that the officer’s statements placing him a few feet from LeGrier were concocted to justify a bad shooting.
Like a mantra, Foutris repeated, “Distance matters.”
“Quintonio was not a threat to him, period,” Foutris said.
Defending the city, private attorney Brian Gainer contended that mere seconds passed as the officers reached the building’s front entry and LeGrier bounded down the stairs and rushed at Rialmo and his partner with the bat in his hand. LeGrier presented an immediate lethal threat, Gainer said, whether he was 5 feet or more than 20 feet from Rialmo when he fired.
“It happened like this,” Gainer said, snapping his fingers. “There is no ‘pause’ button.”
Gainer argued that the discrepancies within the officers’ accounts of the shooting actually show their credibility. If the officers conspired to cook up a story, Gainer said, “This is, without a doubt, the worst conspiracy in the history of conspiracies.”
Rialmo made the unconventional move of hiring his own attorney, Brodsky, to represent him alongside the lawyers for the city. Brodsky asked jurors to consider whether they expect officers to run into danger or away from it. He also contended that LeGrier “wanted to be killed by police.”
The trial that led up to Wednesday’s verdict turned largely on two key topics: whether the teen swung the bat at Rialmo, as the officer testified, and the distance that separated the two when the officer fired. The Legrier family attorneys also repeatedly returned to the fact that most of the bullets came from behind.
Experts hired by the city and the LeGrier family voiced conflicting views.
A forensics expert called by the LeGrier family testified that the teen stood at least 10 feet from Rialmo at the time of the shooting. A pathologist hired by the LeGrier family said the teen’s wounds and other evidence contradicted Rialmo’s account of the teen raising the bat before he was shot.
The city’s lawyers, however, called a pathologist who said it was possible that LeGrier had the bat raised when he was shot.
Rialmo himself demonstrated for jurors how he said LeGrier swung the bat downward at him. The officer said the teen came within 2 to 3 feet of him.
The city also called a use-of-force expert who testified that Rialmo was justified in firing — even if LeGrier did not swing the bat — because the teen presented an immediate threat.
That clash of expert opinions mirrors the rift between police Superintendent Eddie Johnson and the city’s officer disciplinary agency, the Civilian Office of Police Accountability. COPA ruled the shooting unjustified and recommended that the officer be fired, while Johnson disagreed and ruled that the shooting was warranted.
The Chicago Police Board has yet to decide whether Rialmo should be fired.
Rialmo, who is on paid desk duty, also remains under investigation for a December 2017 bar fight in which he punched two men in the face in an altercation caught on security video. Brodsky has said Rialmo was defending himself.
Only a small portion of the trial focused on Brodsky’s lawsuit against the LeGrier estate. In closing arguments, Foutris called the suit “callous” and pointed out for jurors that Rialmo was not in court. Rialmo did not attend most of the trial, while Brodsky was in court intermittently.
“Apparently, (Rialmo) has got better things to do,” Foutris said.
Brodsky argued that the shooting was “traumatic” and “life-changing” for Rialmo.
“(LeGrier) caused Officer Rialmo to have to take his life, and, unfortunately, tragically, the life of Bettie Jones,” Brodsky said.
“It was Quintonio’s fault.”
dhinkel@chicagotribune.com
