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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT