This Cop Was Acquitted for His Role in the Breonna Taylor Raid. The Feds Are Prosecuting Him—Again.
Maybe Brett Hankison shouldn't have been found not guilty, but he was. The Constitution says it should stop there.

A federal jury deadlocked Thursday in the trial of Brett Hankison, a former officer with the Louisville Metro Police Department who was charged with violating the civil rights of Breonna Taylor and her neighbors when he fired 10 shots during a March 2020 raid gone horribly wrong.
It's a trial that never should have happened.
That's not because Hankison's behavior was beyond reproach. Government employees are, unfortunately, rarely accountable to the communities they serve—a queasy sort of irony when considering they're employed by the taxpayer. But Hankison, who was terminated from the police department, was accountable to his community in March of last year when he was prosecuted in state court on three counts of wanton endangerment.
A jury acquitted him. Several months later, in August 2022, the Department of Justice charged him with two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law.
While technically distinct, that indictment gave the DOJ the chance to have another go at Hankison, despite the fact that he'd already gone before a jury for his actions taken the night of the raid. That federal prosecutors find Hankison to be an unsympathetic defendant should not give them license to essentially reprosecute him for alleged misconduct of which he was already deemed not guilty, no matter how much the DOJ disdains that verdict.
Early in the morning on March 13, 2020, Louisville cops broke into Taylor's apartment to execute a search warrant tied to a narcotics investigation concerning Taylor's ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, as the government alleged he had been receiving packages at her address. Police claim they first knocked and announced themselves. But Kenneth Walker, Taylor's then-boyfriend, says the two were asleep in bed prior to the raid, that he never heard the officers identify themselves, and that he thought they were intruders.
After police broke down the door, Walker fired one shot, hitting Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly in the thigh. In response, officers returned a cascade of gunfire. Five of those shots struck Taylor, who died.
For his part, Hankison fired off 10 shots through a window and glass door, both of which were obscured by blinds, into Taylor's apartment. Though he didn't hit anyone, bullets traveled through Taylor's residence into the home next door, terrifying the family—made up of a pregnant woman, her boyfriend, and her 5-year-old child—who lived there. At his state trial, Hankison testified his response was prompted by the sustained gunfire he heard, leaving him with the mistaken impression that someone was shooting repeatedly at police.
However unsavory that explanation might be to onlookers and prosecutors alike, a Kentucky jury accepted it, concluding that Hankison had not acted with "extreme indifference to the value of human life," as the law requires. Had he been convicted across the board, he would have faced up to 15 years, with a minimum of three years, in prison.
Taylor's death, both tragic and unnecessary, understandably incensed people across the country. It served as a reminder of the high stakes tied to such drug raids, where the stratospheric risk sometimes does not justify the potential public safety reward. Perhaps most infuriating is that several other officers allegedly falsified information on the search warrant giving police access to Taylor's apartment. One of those former cops, Kelly Goodlett, pleaded guilty in federal court; the other two, Joshua Jaynes and Kyle Meany, are awaiting trial.
But Hankison has already had his day in court. He was the only officer charged at the state level. And he is now facing not his second but his third trial for his conduct that night, as the DOJ has reportedly indicated it will move forward with another prosecution attempt in federal court.
The results of the raid on Taylor's apartment were hideous, and people are certainly entitled to their views on who should pay a price. Police officers, after all, are often protected from consequences for their misdeeds. That's wrong. Yet that wasn't the case here: Hankison had to account for his actions, in public, and to people he worked for as a police officer, in the form of a criminal trial in state court. As a former cop, Hankison should not be above the law. But contra federal prosecutors, the law also shouldn't be above him.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is like in gaming where a player reloads a save and attempts to defeat the boss again due to a previous fail.
OJ was found not guilty of the murders by a jury and he never faced a criminal court again for that.
OJ was found not guilty of the murders by a jury and he never faced a criminal court again for that.
That was way back in the '90s. We're in remake territory and the Constitution has to be Reimagined for a Modern Audience.
OJ, like Long Dong, had money and a rubia.
I can't read that without hearing it in an echoing Scottish accent.
OT, but I have to rant somewhere.
In a special session called by Gov. McDreamy, Democratic fucktards in our state congress have just passed (in committee) the same exact tax plan that voters turned down a couple of weeks ago. In the name of property tax increase relief they will raid the treasury. And again, they will turn the constitutionally required refund of income taxes over a set limit into a welfare redistribution program.
Why do Democrats hate democracy?
Why do Democrats hate democracy?
I assume when you say "Gov McDreamy" your question is, "Why do Libertarians hate Democracy"
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Sounds like the CO state congress is staging an insurrection.
Democracy is a threat to Democracy.
We have to destroy democracy to save it!
"...destroy democracy to save it!"
Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer will SAVE the day for us all!!!
The Meeting of the Right Rightist Minds will now come to Odor!
Years ago by now, Our Dear Leader announced to us, that He may commit murder in broad daylight, and we shall still support Him! So He Has Commanded, and So Must Shit be Done!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters
And now, oh ye Faithful of the Republican Church, Shit Has Become Known Unto us, that Shit is also in His Power and Privilege Ass Well, to murder the USA Constitution in broad daylight. Thus He Has Spoken, and Thus Must Shit Be Done! Thou shalt Render Unto Trump, and simply REND the USA Constitution, and wipe thine wise asses with shit! Do NOT render unto some moldering old scrap of bathroom tissue! Lest we be called fools, or worse!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html
Proud Boys, STAND with TRUMP, and stand by! And if ye don’t agree 110%, then we don’t need you polluting our world, because all who disagree with us in ANY way are LEFTISTS!!!
There, I think that’s a wrap! I’ve covered shit ALL! You can take the rest of the day off now.
(You’re welcome!)
Translation: “fart, fuck, poop, shit, cum, fart.”
Translation: I have no rational or data-driven response to you, other than to retreat to the grade-school cesspools of shitsults that I learned from the other Trumpanzees!
"Why do Democrats hate democracy?"
For the EXACT same reason that the Republican Church hates democracy!!! BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL POWER PIGS!!! Boaf SiiiidZZZZ!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/11/ohio-republicans-move-to-exclude-judges-interpreting-abortion-rights-law
Ohio Republicans move to exclude judges from interpreting enshrined abortion rights
After stinging defeat in a statewide vote, GOP lawmakers seek to move jurisdiction to legislature for constitutional amendment
Cry some MORE, bitch!!!! NOT FAIR... When the OTHER team disrespects democracy!!!!
Mencken did suggest a way of making vacancies on the bench. If it works on Long Dong, Palito, Mutterkreus Mom and Gorby, we can look at other venues. Ohio, Canada, Ireland, Mexico and Argentina, California, NY and several other states are populated by uncoerced women and non-Klan and non-Nazi judges. What do God's Own Prohibitionists propose to do about them?
Ass Stalin told us, shit's not about the voters and their votes; Shit is ALL about those who COUNT the votes!
The Rethugglican Church is now showing us, shit is all about those who INTERPRET the new measures ass were passed by the voters!!!!
One word: move
Well, at least Hankison can now relate to Trump.
the Department of Justice charged him with two counts of deprivation of rights under color of law.
More likely under law of color.
+googlplex
There are plenty of instances of this kind of thing because of the doctrine of dual sovereignty.
See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/dual-sovereignty-doctrine
Setting aside the issue of charging different offences on the same set of facts, It’s bullshit, but it shows no signs of going away soon.
Clarence Darrow had some cogent remarks about that too, in Industrial Conspiracies.
And since it's a dirty cop in an industry where dirty cops rarely get what's coming to them, my giveashit meter isn't moving off the low peg.
Now do Ashley babbit you two faced faggot scum
Have any miracles yet occurred after people prayed for her intercession? "I prayed to Ashli and my diabetes went away! It's a miracle!" "I had COPD and prayed to Ashli, and now I can walk up steps to the second floor!" etc.
Mark Twain had some choice words in Huckleberry Finn about how the Klan got local juries to acquit night riders who commit murder.
Do you actually think the rules apply to the DOJ?
Well, "the rules" allow for this. That's kinda the problem.
For his part, Hankison fired off 10 shots through a window and glass door, both of which were obscured by blinds, into Taylor's apartment. Though he didn't hit anyone, bullets traveled through Taylor's residence into the home next door, terrifying the family—made up of a pregnant woman, her boyfriend, and her 5-year-old child—who lived there. At his state trial, Hankison testified his response was prompted by the sustained gunfire he heard, leaving him with the mistaken impression that someone was shooting repeatedly at police.
What ? This wasn't enough to get him convicted of gross negligence ?
We can all take comfort that he followed three of the four universal gun safety rules.
1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded. – Check.
2. Never point the muzzle at anything that you are not willing to destroy. – Check, absolutely willing to destroy anyone or anything.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you’re ready to shoot. – Check, assuming his target was the blinds.
4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it. – Whoopsie!
The issue is they went for wanton endangerment in the first degree which is a felony. Had they gone for second degree which is a misdemeanor, it would have been a slam dunk. I’d be ok with the max sentence which is one year in prison, a $500 fine, plus restitution for damages caused.
BTW, do we know if the neighbors sued this guy, civilly & did he get QI if they did?
It's called "blue privilege."
Those are two separate and distinct charges I don't see the problem.
There are two problems, much as I dislike that he walked free. First, in English common law, double jeopardy meant you couldn't be tried on the same set of facts more than once. So even if you could find charges not directly related, you can't retry on different charges when the facts alleged are the same. I don't know the history of US double jeopardy but it seems that you can try on the same set of facts provided the charges are different and not one contained in the other. (This provision means you can't charge felony assault and on acquittal charge misdemeanour assault.)
Second, the dual sovereignty idea runs contrary to the rationale for double-jeopardy rules, namely that you shouldn't allow a person to be subject to repeated attempts to get him for the same conduct - and though the repeated attempts are from different sovereigns, the person himself is being hit twice, contrary to the rationale.
This, btw, would seem to indicate that I would not have favoured Federal prosecution for constitutional violations after state acquittals for lynching and other murders, in the old South ("Mississippi Burning", etc.). But in this case I would - because, per Aleman, there was no true jeopardy. Defendants in such cases were guaranteed acquittal so were never really in jeopardy. (Aleman bribed a judge in a bench trial, was acquitted and then successfully retried.)
It may have been English common law, but English law today does allow for double jeopardy prosecutions (in "special" circumstances). I think we can thank Blair and the blind guy for that.