UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL SLAGER
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wynn, January 8, 2019,
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law – A former police officer was properly convicted of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law and sentenced using murder guidelines where he shot an unarmed, fleeing suspect five times in the back.
Facts:
In 2015, dashcam video showed then-officer Michael Slager stopped Walter Scott’s vehicle for a non-functioning center-brake light. Scott fled on foot and Slager chased him, firing his taser. Scott was brought down, but fled.
Slager ended up firing 8 rounds, striking Scott in the back 5 times. Scott died on scene.
Soon after the shooting, Slager gave a statement to his lieutenant that Scott took his Taser from him, then “stood up and pointed the Taser at” him. Slager told the lieutenant that he fired his duty weapon in self-defense and “rendered emergency aid until other officers arrived.”
Three days later, Slager gave a voluntary statement to South Carolina Law-Enforcement Division (SLED) members who were investigating the shooting as “part of a criminal investigation.” Slager told the SLED investigators that Scott took his Taser and was “coming straight at him” holding the taser, with his “arm extending straight out.” Slager told investigators that he was shuffle-stepping out of the way as he drew his firearm and shot Scott.
There was a witness, however, who had taken cell-phone video of the shooting. This video starkly contradicted Slager’s account of what had occurred. The video showed that “Scott stood up and was running away — not
pointing a taser at Slager or advancing toward Slager — when Slager fired at him.”
In exchange for South Carolina dropping the murder charge against him, Slager pled guilty in federal court to Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. Slager admitted that he “willfully” shot and killed Walter Scott when Scott was unarmed and fleeing arrest. Slager further admitted that his decision to shoot Scott was “objectively unreasonable.”
After a hearing, Slager was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment. The sentencing court found that Slager’s actions were equivalent to second-degree murder and sentenced him accordingly.
Slager appealed, arguing that for sentencing his actions should be considered more like manslaughter than murder and that his sentence should not be enhanced for obstruction of justice.
Held: The Fourth Circuit held that the trial court properly considered the officer’s actions to be equivalent to murder.
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law – It is a federal crime for a police officer, acting under “color of law”, to willfully deprive someone of their constitutional rights
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law – The sentence for violation of rights depends on the harm caused. If it resulted in death or involved kidnapping or sexual assault, the maximum sentence is “any term of years or for life… or may be sentenced to death.”
Sentencing Guidelines – US Sentencing Guidelines for Deprivation of Rights depend in part on the underlying crime (if there is one)
Murder (federal) – Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with “malice aforethought.”
Murder (federal) – Malice does not require an intent to kill; it can also exist when a defendant is “aware of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm” and nevertheless acted “with a heart that was without regard for the life and safety of others.”
Murder (federal) – Provocation – A crime is not committed with malice if it occurs after “adequate provocation,” such as during a “sudden quarrel” or “heat of passion.” This level of provocation must be enough that it would provoke a reasonable, ordinary person to kill someone.
Murder (federal) – Provocation – “Mere words” to a police officer are not adequate provocation to make murder into manslaughter if the officer then uses deadly force.
From the Case: “Even though Scott yelled ‘Fuck the police’ prior to the shooting, the court rightly found that these words were insufficient to provoke a reasonable officer—or any reasonable person—to kill.”
Murder (federal) – Provocation – Mutual combat can, under some circumstances, be adequate provocation to make murder into manslaughter.
Murder (federal) – Provocation – When a victim is fleeing from combat and the defendant is neither angry nor in danger, mutual combat does not support a finding that a defendant acted in a heat of passion.
From the Case: Slager’s claim that Scott punched him, took his Taser, and drive-stunned him with it earlier “did not provide Slager with adequate provocation because Scott was running away when Slager shot him. Perhaps most importantly… Slager testified at his state proceedings that he was neither ‘provoked’ nor ‘angry’ during his altercation but was merely acting in ‘self defense.'”
Sentence Enhancement – Obstruction of Justice – Federal sentencing guidelines include an enhancement for willfully obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, justice
From the Case: It was not plain error for the sentencing court to apply the enhancement even though Slager’s statement was unsworn and the SLED investigators already knew that he was not telling the truth.