Skip to main content

Rosas v. Luna


Exhibit A to Eliasberg Declaration 255-4: MCJ-00856

Video shows two deputies punching a handcuffed person in the head after that person kicks backward into one of their legs. They continue to punch him in the head and body multiple times even after he has been taken to the ground. Head punches found within policy. Discipline imposed for taking him out of his cell instead of calling for a supervisor, but no discipline for head strikes. Sinclair declaration paragraphs 32 – 34 cover this incident.

Exhibit B to Eliasberg Declaration 255-4: MCJ-04485

The video starts after the use of force with the person no longer fighting but bleeding on the ground. Later medical exams reveal he has an orbital bone fracture. At issue in this video is the brutal use of WRAP, including placing a spit mask on him when he is profusely bleeding from the face. No discipline because there was no finding that the WRAP or spit mask use was problematic, and no finding that anyone put him in medical danger. Thomas declaration discusses the video at length in paragraphs 12 – 15.

Exhibit D to Eliasberg Declaration 255-4: MCJ-00590

The video is an example of improper force and dishonesty. A deputy clearly and intentionally puts his knee on the man’s neck at 1:15 and keeps it there until 1:39 (there is a problem with the time stamp on the video – the accompanying report admits that it was 46 seconds). In the deputy’s report, he states he “inadvertently” put his knee across the man’s neck and shoulders. There was no finding of dishonesty on review by supervisors.

Exhibit E to Eliasberg Declaration 255-4: MCJ-03103

This incident is an example of failure to use force prevention and dishonesty. A deputy talks with a person who needs soap. That person asks to speak to a supervisor. Instead, the deputy grabs him by both arms, turns him into a wall, and when the person tries to turn back around, the deputy starts punching him in the head. The witnesses to the incident, the detainee’s statement, and the video contradict the deputy’s report that the detainee was assaulting him. But the reviewing watch commander claims to be unable to evaluate the veracity of the deputy’s statement because the video is pixelated. No out of policy findings for head strikes or failure to use force prevention, and no discipline imposed.

Exhibit 3 to Thomas Declaration 262-1: IRC-01692

The video shows a rapid escalation of force to handle a person who is upset about people not being taken to the bathroom in the Inmate Reception Center front bench. (They are lying in urine.) The person is put into a WRAP with very significant force to the back of his head and neck, creating danger of asphyxiation. There is no finding that the WRAP was used in any way out of policy and therefore no discipline imposed.

Exhibit A to Sinclair Declaration 255-1: MCJ 922-02080

Two deputies slam a man’s head into a concrete wall after he exits his cell. Photos of the injuries to the head are also in Sinclair’s declaration at paragraph 23.

What you can do:
Congress: End Forced Labor in Prisons
Send your message
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...
Post a Comment
Read more

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...
Post a Comment
Read more