U.S. v. Proano

In prosecution on two counts of willful deprivation of constitutional rights arising out of defendant-police officer’s firing 16 shots at moving car filled with teenagers, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss indictment based on claim that instant prosecution was tainted when FBI agents met with internal police investigator who discussed incident with defendant, even though defendant claimed that statements he gave to internal investigator could not be used against him in any criminal prosecution under Garrity, 385 U.S. 493, because he was forced under pain of losing his job to participate in internal investigation. Defendant failed to show that any protected statements were actually revealed to prosecution, and govt. established alternative source for information contained in said statements in form of dashcam video and other reports that provided independent bases for instant prosecution. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly admit evidence of defendant’s training, as well as police dept.’s policies, since said evidence was relevant on defendant’s mindset at time of incident. Too, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving jury instruction that defendant acted willfully if he intended to deprive two victims of shooting of their right to be free from unreasonable force, and that defendant acted intentionally if he used force knowing that said force was more than what reasonable officer would have used under said circumstances.