The Votes Are In!
2023 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → 
Pasadena Officers’ Appeal Could ‘Backfire’ Attorney Says
News Apr 24, 2015
by
share with
Kendrec McDade’s grandfather weeps at his grandson’s funeral-photo by Terry Miller
Pasadena police Officers Matthew Griffin’s and Jeffry Newlen’s appealing
the order requiring release of a redacted version of the outside Report on their
shooting of Kendrec McDade may be backfiring. A Court of Appeal Order issued
yesterday, suggests that the Officers’ appeal will not only be unsuccessful in
blocking the Report’s release but rather is likely to result in greater disclosure of
the McDade Shooting Report.
Yesterday’s California appellate court order required the parties to the
lawsuit to brief whether it could grant relief to the Pasadena police oversight
activists and the LA Times requiring the trial court to disclose more of the Officer
of Independent Group Report on the McDade shooting rather than less of the
Report as sought by the Officers – even though the activists and the Times did not
appeal the trial court order like the Officers did. The order noted that the
Pasadena activists asserted that the trial court order “is over-inclusive, in that it
treats institutional criticisms of the Pasadena Police Department’s (PPD)
administrative investigation as statutorily privileged information.” The order
further notes that the Times asserts that the “public interest in full disclosure
outweighs any individual privacy interests at stake.”
Civil rights attorney Skip Hickambottom, who represents McDade’s mother
Anya Slaughter and other Pasadena police oversight activist, stated “the court
order only seems to only makes sense if the court has already decided against the
Officers’ appeal and is now deciding whether it has jurisdiction to order the trial
court to issue an order that would backfire on the Officers appeal by ordering
more, not less, disclosure of the Report.” Hickambottom cited the following
language in the order issued yesterday as what the court would likely finally issue
if it is satisfied that it has the power to do so: “the trial court’s ruling erroneously
shields from disclosure criticisms of the PPD’s administrative review contained in
the Report, a public document, that should be disclosed to the public.”
Hickambottom said that, normally, parties such as the Times and his
clients have to themselves appeal in order to get such affirmative relief. But, he
said, the particular kind of appeal involved in the litigation over the Report – a
writ of mandate – is what is called an equitable proceeding rather than a legal
proceeding, and judges have broader discretion on the relief they can issue in
equitable proceedings. Hickambottom added “We believe we can demonstrate to
the Court a number of bases which will allow the Court to implement its apparent
goal of requiring the trial court to issue more, not less, of the Report.”
A hearing on the Officers’ appeal was originally set for this past Tuesday
morning. On Monday, the appellate court continued the hearing until May 20.
Concurrently with its order for further briefing, it further continued the hearing
until June 24. Hickambottom responded “we don’t like the delay, but it’s worth it
to insure that the Court is fully brief on all of the issues.”
