CAPE GIRARDEAU – A federal judge has denied a woman’s request for a new trial in relation to a 2012 fatal shooting by a federal agent.
Hope Angelic White sued the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as well as agent Bernard Hansen, who shot Myron Pollard on Aug. 29, 2012. After a jury trial in July 2018, Hansen was cleared of White’s allegations he used excessive force. Concurrently, the court found in Hansen’s favor on White’s wrongful death claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
White requested a new trial on the excessive force allegation. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri denied that request in an opinion issued April 8.
According to Limbaugh’s opinion, White said the jury lacked sufficient evidence to rule in Hansen’s favor and argued the verdict was against the weight of evidence presented at trial.
White said “the jury could not have properly concluded that Hansen’s use of deadly force against Pollard was reasonable,” according to Limbaugh, who added her “primary argument seems to be that Hansen fired three shots at the suspect’s car after the crash, when it was no longer a threat to Hansen or to anyone else.”
However, Limbaugh pointed to the court's order that disposed of White’s FTCA claim that the evidence supports Hansen was reasonable in using deadly force.
White also said the government committed misconduct by destroying master servers on which videos of the shooting were recorded, causing prejudice against White’s position in court.
“It appears plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions on this point,” Limbaugh wrote. “This matter was briefed three times before trial, and the court declines to reconsider the matter.”
Limbaugh further disagreed with White’s argument that she should get a new trial because the jury, during deliberations, opted to watch the video without audio.
“The jury viewed all of the videos several times during the trial, and the court cannot speculate as to the jury’s reasons for requesting the video it chose,” Limbaugh wrote. “The jury was free to watch any of the videos and may have requested additional videos if the jury saw fit to do so. (White) has failed to identify any reason for granting a new trial with respect to these issues.”
Limbaugh also wrote the court was not wrong to allow testimony about Pollard acquiescing to a home invasion and the threats of other people near him that day. White said Hansen should only have perceived a threat from the vehicle he shot and that the court shouldn’t have allowed testimony implying people at the scene planned to kill an undercover agent.
“Knowing that the car’s driver intended to murder people later that day was certainly relevant to Hansen’s split-second judgment,” Limbaugh wrote. “There is also no evidence to support, as (White) suggests, that it was untrue that the vehicle’s occupants agreed to go through with the home invasion. Further, the court instructed the jury to disregard the undercover agent’s statement that each person in the vehicle was prepared to go forward with the home invasion.”
Limbaugh also said the court was right to allow testimony about another man’s felony conviction on gun charges, saying the government’s defense lawyers didn’t make any statements about weapons in the vehicle at the time of the incident and that White’s lawyers had proper cross-examination opportunities.
Ultimately, Limbaugh denied White’s request for a new trial or altered or amended judgment.