The Votes Are In!
2023 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → 
McDade Shooting Report Will Finally be Released
Arcadia Weekly Apr 17, 2015
by
share with
The Court of Appeal Friday vacated its order sealing the disclosure of
portions of the Kendrec McDade Shooting Report – disclosure paradoxically
made by the Officers who shot McDade in the course of their trying to keep the
Report secret.
Pasadena Police Officers Matthew Griffin and Jeffrey Newlen and their
union have been fighting since last September to prevent public disclosure of the
Report, but they then contradictorily quoted verbatim 10 excerpts from the
Report in a brief filed in the Court of Appeal on March 16 which was also mailed
to their lawsuit opponents. 9 days later, the Officers and their union sought and
obtained an order from the Court of Appeal belatedly sealing their brief and
ordering its return from the Officer’s lawsuit opponents. The LA Times’ and
McDade’s mother, three Pasadena organizations, and a Pasadena police-oversight
activist filed objections citing numerous cases that precluded such a sealingclawback
order. On the eve of next Tuesday’s oral argument on the Officer’s
appeal of the trial court order requiring release of 80% of the Report, the Court of
Appeal issued an order that the Officers’ Brief “is unsealed in its entirety and
reinstated.’”
Officers Griffin and Newlen shot and killed the unarmed McDade in 2012
after a false report that two youths with guns had robbed a victim; the officers
chased McDade for several blocks, before shooting him, claiming they believed
that he had a gun. However, McDade was unarmed. The police officers appear to
have violated a number of policies in gunning down McDade, including shooting
at him from within the police car, failing to turn on any recording equipment,
sirens, or lights, shooting into a dark background that could have contained
unseen people, and failing to identify themselves as police officers. Nonetheless,
Pasadena Police Chief Phillip Sanchez determined that the shooting was within
policy. The 10 verbatim excerpts from the Report add fuel to the criticism of
Chief Sanchez’ exoneration of the Officers because they criticize the tactical
mistakes made by the Officers in the chase – criticisms that by and large had not
previously appeared in the public record.
The Court of Appeal sealing-clawback Order was never effective because
prior to the Order the attorneys for the Officers’ opponents lawfully distributed
the Officers’ brief disclosing the 10 excerpts from the Report – not only to their 5
clients but also to about 15 other non-client Pasadena activists on police
oversight. Because those non-client recipients were not parties to the court
proceedings, they could and did lawfully distribute the Officers’ brief to the
media. Various media put all of the excerpts into the public record; Pasadena
activists also read the excerpts to the Pasadena City Council in a public meeting.
Civil rights attorney Skip Hickambottom, counsel for the Pasadena
opponents of the Officers – i.e., McDade’s mother Anya Slaughter, the Pasadena
Branch of the NAACP, ACT, the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, and
police oversight activist Kris Ockershauser – stated today: “I said at the time the
Order was entered that the genie could not be put back in the bottle, and it never
was back in the bottle. The Court of Appeal’s Order now makes the genie lawfully
out of the bottle.”
Hickambottom’s partner Dale Gronemeier said today that “the other shoe
that now should drop is that 100% of the McDade Shooting Report should
become public rather than just the 80% ordered by the trial court. California law
is clear that the disclosure of a significant part of an otherwise privileged
document waives any privileges for the whole document – a rule that arises in
order to prevent cherry-picking parts of a document to disclose while trying to
keep other parts secret. I intend to argue to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that
the appeal of the Officers and their union is now moot and that the Court should
send the matter back to Superior Court Judge James Chalfant to consider the
waiver issue.”
