ILNews

Jury: Ex-Ball State officer not liable in shooting

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A federal jury decided in less than three hours that a former Ball State University police officer isn't liable in the fatal shooting of a drunken, unarmed student four years ago.

An eight-person jury returned Monday evening with a verdict in about 2 ½ hours, after hearing 10 days of arguments and testimony in the case of McKinney v. Robert Duplain in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. Jurors determined that Duplain wasn't liable for Michael McKinney's death.

More than 50 people - mostly McKinney's friends and family - crowded the courtroom on the final day of trial, and a handful had to clear the aisles and listen from another room because of space and seating limitations. Many wore green ribbons and buttons with McKinney's photos on them.

The trial started Jan. 22 in U.S. District Judge Richard Young's courtroom and ended with closing arguments Monday afternoon before jurors began deliberating about 3:15 p.m.

Their focus: what happened about 3:30 a.m. Nov. 8, 2003, when 21-year-old McKinney was shot four times by BSU campus officer Robert Duplain, who was responding to a report of a stranger pounding on the door of a house. Tests later showed that McKinney had a blood-alcohol content more than four times the legal limit to drive. A grand jury and internal police investigation later cleared Duplain of any wrongdoing in the shooting, but McKinney's parents filed suit in early 2004 on grounds of unreasonable excessive force and wrongful death.

Plaintiffs hired Michigan attorney Geoffrey N. Fieger, who is known for his high-dollar cases and has represented clients such as assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian in the 1990s. Defense attorneys included Indianapolis attorney John Kautzman with Ruckelshaus Rolad Kautzman Blackwell & Hasbrook, Brad Williams with Indianapolis-based Ice Miller, and Scott Shockley with DeFur Voran in Muncie.

Key issues centered on what happened, specifically whether McKinney charged Duplain, whether Duplain sufficiently alerted McKinney to his presence, and whether Duplain acted reasonably in shooting McKinney four times.

Attorneys offered dramatically different versions of what happened, with plaintiffs' counsel contending that McKinney was in a drunken haze not capable of harm while the defense asserted the then 24-year-old rookie cop had no choice but to act in self-defense when McKinney charged at him.

From day one, Fieger described the fatal shooting as an "execution-style" killing that led to a "cover-up of horrendous proportions" because of various discrepancies in police and witness accounts of what happened.

Fieger asked for $42 million in compensatory damages for the value of McKinney's life, pain and suffering, and the loss of his earning capacity, and his love and companionship for his family. He also requested $25 million more in punitive damages, cutting the $250 million figure he'd mentioned at the start of trial.

"This case is about the betrayal of the trust we have in our police officers," he said during his almost two hours of closing statements, saying that most attorneys are working for money. "I guess I'm one of those greedy lawyers. I'm greedy for justice. The only way I can get justice for everyone in the U.S. is by asking for money."

But defense attorneys countered that claim by saying this was one of the most dangerous kinds of calls an officer can go on, and that Duplain was justified in shooting McKinney because the officer was in fear of his safety. They argued Fieger brought in paid experts to analyze the case rather than rely on those people who'd been there and handled the case, and much of the plaintiff's foundation was based on faulty conclusions, misinterpreted evidence, and facts that weren't facts.

"I think you've seen enough of this ploy, and it is a ploy, to recognize it as a smokescreen," Williams said in his closing, referring to Fieger's case.

Williams countered claims about discrepancies in witness and police accounts about what happened, which Fieger examined during trial as examples of a cover-up.

"If we asked you to write down in 10 seconds an account of this trial. We'd get eight different versions - and you've had the luxury of taking notes and knowing what's important in these two weeks of trial," Williams told jurors. "Inconsistencies are a hallmark of the truth."

His co-counsel Kautzman also told jurors to see through Fieger's ploy and smokescreen, noting that "water doesn't run uphill" just because the plaintiff's attorney says so - a reference to Fieger's previous grilling of a witness when he noted the defense was trying to make things look differently than they really are.

"We sometimes forget that tragedies happen every day the world over, without anyone being legally at fault," Kautzman said. "Bad things happen to good people. Legal liability isn't always the answer."

Kautzman credited Fieger with being a brilliant trial lawyer and said it was interesting and challenging to be up against him.

"He's a unique individual, but I'm not sure if his style of lawyering was a right fit for a central Indiana jury in this case," Kautzman said, adding that he was also surprised that Fieger wasn't present to hear the verdict in court. "But this was a difficult, emotional case all around, and it really was a privilege working with such top-notched trial lawyers."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT