A federal grand jury indicted two New Orleans police officers today for lying and obstruction of justice in connection with the shooting death of Danny Brumfield Sr., a 45-year-old man shot in the back by police in the days after Katrina.
Police said they fired a single blast from a shotgun at Brumfield after he jumped on the hood of their squad car and made a lunging motion with a “shiny object” through the passenger window. According to the police version, a pair of scissors was found near where Brumfield fell to the ground. The presence of the “shiny object” and the threatening manner with which it was wielded, gave the officers justification to shoot, an NOPD investigation into the shooting found.
But in Thursday’s indictments, the grand jury said the officers had perjured themselves when they testified about the shooting in a 2007 civil lawsuit brought by the widow of Brumfield, and that Brumfield had been waving his hands — not an object — at the officers immediately before the shooting occurred.
According to the six-count indictment, Brumfield was attempting to flag down the police and then “either jumped on the hood of the car or was hit by the car and landed on the hood.”
Officer Ronald Mitchell offered the official version when he testified in 2007 about the shooting. But the indictment said he “well knew” that Brumfield did not “jump off of the hood of a patrol car and lunge at him with a shiny object.”
The indictment said that Officer Ray Jones lied under oath in 2007 when he testified that the officers stopped the car to assess the condition of the wounded man. Jones “well knew” that this did not occur.
The grand jury heard testimony from Kevin Diel, a former New Orleans police officer who said that when he arrived upon the scene on Sept. 3, 2005, he was told by colleagues that Brumfield had been wielding a gun.
“They told us, you know, the guy jumped on the hood of the car, tried to shoot the passenger, the officer that was sitting in the passenger seat,” Diel said in an interview conducted as part of an investigation by ProPublica, the PBS program Frontline and the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
“They said that he had pointed a chromed revolver at him through the window, after jumping on the hood, and the passenger officer had fired a single shot from a shotgun and shot and killed him,” Diel said.
Then an officer in NOPD’s second district, Diel was assigned to the Convention Center on the night that Brumfield was killed. Thousands of displaced New Orleans residents swarmed outside the Convention Center on Sept. 3, 2005 — just five days after Hurricane Katrina hit.
Diel said he noticed several NOPD cars leaving as his unit arrived, just after dark. But beside that, he said, it was fairly quiet. The crowd was less angry, less chaotic than he imagined it would be, given the conditions.
“It absolutely was not some crazy mob of people,” Diel said he told the grand jury. “They were obviously irritated, but overall it was not a threatening crowd… We felt safe enough that we were taking turns taking naps on the hood of our patrol car in the crowd.”
Diel’s account of the mood of the crowd contradicts the official version in which officers Jones and Mitchell said the crowd was unruly, they were being shot at, and had to immediately retreat to a safer area.
The killing of Danny Brumfield is one of at least nine investigations that the federal Department of Justice has opened into the New Orleans Police Department, the majority of which focus on the days immediately after Katrina.
U.S. Attorney Jim Letten would not say he chose to focus on perjury and obstruction of justice rather than the officers’ actions in shooting Brumfield. “The indictment that we sought and received is driven by the evidence that we have in the case,” Letten said.
The 2007 lawsuit, brought by Brumfield’s wife, resulted in an out-of-court settlement of $400,000 settlement, which was paid out by the city in 2008. Because the case never went to trial, neither the officers’ testimony nor the details of the subsequent NOPD investigation were made public.
One aspect of the lawsuit that was made public, however, was that NOPD homicide detective DeCynda Barnes had neglected to look at Brumfield’s autopsy when she was conducting her follow-up investigation into the shooting. In her report, she wrote that Brumfield had been shot in the shoulder, when in fact he was shot in the back.
Attorney Eric Hessler, who represents Officer Jones, previously dismissed Diel’s account as rumor. He could not be reached for comment today. Officer Mitchell’s lawyer, Kerry Cuccia, said he had no comment.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment. We are presently looking for 201 new monthly donors in the next 24 hours.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy