In May, attorneys for the city of Portland asked a judge to throw out a jury verdict that held the city liable for a Portland police officer’s fatal shooting of a man suffering from a mental health crisis.
The filing has prompted one juror in the case to go public. They called the city’s filing “appalling,” and said it undermines a rare opportunity for the general public to decide if an officer appropriately used deadly force.
“We didn’t take this lightly,” said Denise C., whose last name OPB is withholding because she is related to a Portland police officer. “We were very law-abiding citizens who had a lot of respect for police.”
On May 4, she and several other people serving on the Multnomah County Circuit Court jury found Officer Curtis Brown failed to de-escalate a tense situation with 40-year-old Michael Townsend.
Townsend called 911 on June 24, 2021, asking for a ride the hospital. He told dispatchers he was having suicidal thoughts and had used methamphetamine.
Brown, his partner and multiple medical technicians from the Portland Fire Bureau arrived shortly after that. Brown had been designated during the dispatch as the back up “cover” officer while his partner was the “lead” officer on the scene.
However, court records show, Townsend changed his mind about needing a ride. As Brown and the other officer went to leave, Townsend revived his request. Officers told him that they needed to pat him down before putting him in an ambulance.
Townsend became agitated, court records show. He eventually took out a sharpened hand tool and moved toward the officers. Brown took out his pistol and fired.
The jury awarded Townsend’s estate $1,030,661. Jurors ruled Townsend bore some responsibility for the shooting, too.
Denise C. lauded expert testimony during the trial, such as a Portland State University professor who said Brown erred as the designated back up. She said Brown overly inserted himself into the situation.
“Officer Brown should have stayed back,” she said. She noted the officer carried pepper spray, a Taser and a less-lethal 40-millimeter foam round available: “He could have had those things ready instead of his gun.”
The bureau also could have sent its Enhanced Crisis Intervention Team, who are better trained in such situations, she said. She argued police were aware Townsend potentially had a weapon when they arrived but didn’t attempt to find it.
“We had to watch these videos many, many times, every day,” Denise C. said. After the trial, she said, at least one juror said he wanted to go home to curl up and cry.
Denise C., a lifelong Portland-area resident, said the civil trial gave her new insights into Portland police. She was shocked when, after the trial, she learned a grand jury reviewed the case but decided there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.
Grand jury proceedings are closed and controlled by district attorneys.
Mark Lindquist, a former elected prosecutor in Pierce County, Washington, who reviewed more than 50 police shootings for criminal charges, said criminal and civil proceedings have different standards and different evidence available to jurors.
“Criminal cases rely on law enforcement investigations, while civil litigators often do independent investigations,” Lindquist said. “it’s not unusual for additional evidence to be gathered during civil litigation.”
Lindquist is now a private attorney who currently represents families of three men killed by police. He said Denise C.’s experience as a juror in a police use-of-force case is rare for most people. Cities or counties don’t usually let the proceedings get that far.
“Typically, (a municipality) will make a motion to dismiss and if they lose, they will settle,” he said.
If the Multnomah County judge upholds the jury’s verdict, the city of Portland may file an appeal. City Attorney Robert Taylor said in a statement that his office is still weighing its options.