Posted: 01.24.2008
CMDA Managing Partner Featured in Oakland County (MI) Newsweekly
|
|
|
|
| Andrew Sawmiller |
|
 |
January 23, 2008 - Joe Seward has been successfully defending police officers in excessive force cases in Oakland County for over 25 years. He is a graduate of the Detroit College of Law and Wayne State University. Seward has worked for the Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho firm since 1985. His skills and reputation netted him the position of managing partner in 2005. The firm has offices in five Michigan locations, as well as in California, and Arizona. Seward's love and use of technology, electronic exhibits, and digitally tapping all depositions, has many police officials heralding him as the best in the business. He hasn't lost an excessive force case in 24 years. Some of his tactics include rebuilding half a car in a courtroom to demonstrate the location of bullet holes, and walking out of the courtroom in the middle of closing arguments to demonstrate how "walking away" isn't always an option. He credits his success to a desire to win and said he feels that this is what he was put on Earth to do. He currently lives with his family in White Lake Township.
SCN: You've been labeled as a "go-to guy" for the local police when they are confronted with allegations of excessive force and other violations of the law or police protocol. How did that happen? Where did the expertise to continue successful defenses of those cases come from or develop? What's the most common complaint brought against police by the public?
Seward: The long story of it is this: We had eight lawyers in trial back in '86, '87, and the judge called up and said she was going to start a trial. It was my turn to get in there. There weren't any other lawyers available to try cases. So that got me involved in law enforcement trials, and we were successful. And ever since then I have had some great success representing some fine police officers. I love being in court and I love being in trial. The police provide some unique types of cases and they are challenging and I've always loved doing that for them.
(The success has come from) my desire to never loose. I hate loosing. Police officers put their lives on the line every single day, and a lot of people don't understand the dangers of that. So I found it a challenge, and I also realize that police have some hesitancy dealing with lawyers because they see them day in and day out on the criminal side. I love challenges and it has worked out well for all of us.
In cases (of alleged) excess force during an arrest ... emotions are running high or there are intoxicants involved, so (suspects) aren't acting like they normally do. So, they get arrested and they usually fight with the police, and then they can't believe later on that they could have acted that way; therefore they claim the police are the ones who have started it by using excessive force.
SCN: You haven't lost an excessive force case in more than 24 years. What are some of the most notable cases you've defended? Have you had any notable cases here in the lakes area? Have there been more cases lately, with the recent influx of Tasers?
Seward: There has been a number of them. One involved a shooting at a mall where there was a number of shots fired and the plaintiff was a young kid who was involved in crimes all of his life. He was shot and lived for about 9 months before he ultimately died from the gunshot wound, and the community that I represented, the police department, wouldn't settle the case because they thought the police acted absolutely correctly. And the judge couldn't understand how the community would not offer anything to settle the case, and he tried everything he could to get us to settle the case — even threatening to go to the Oakland Press, because the Oakland Press (covers) all of Oakland County. We ended up trying that case the first of March 1991, and the jury agreed with the officers that they basically had very little choice than to shot to protect themselves and the patrons of the shopping mall.
An interesting one involved a gentleman who had stopped driving on the through lane of the expressway on New Year's Eve. He claimed that he had one beer and one wine cooler, and decided to take on the police. He was 65-years-old, but he was a very large man. When they finally got him arrested and took his blood sample he was at 0.20 (percent blood-alcohol level). He clearly had much more than one beer and one wine cooler. Most of the incident was caught on the police video. Police are taught certain moves that if you don't know about them look very violent, but they're not. They are designed to inflict pain for a moment so the person forgets that they are fighting and the officer can handcuff them. Most of that was caught on tape. The first time most people saw that video they thought it looked very violent, but when it was explained to them, and the subtleties that the police noticed with this man were explained, the jury unanimously came back and said the police officers acted quite appropriately. They could completely understand why they did what they did. They realized that even though there were two officers and they were younger, they could see the fight this gentleman was putting up. And they could hear the officers huffing and puffing once it was over.
I do represent Waterford Township. They participate in a program were we do their work, and they asked me to represent them when they get sued — although Waterford hasn't been sued in a long time. They just do a damn good job.
We have a few Taser cases in the office, but not too many. I think that Tasers are a good defensive weapon for the officers, and they probably eliminate suits because they don't have to get physical. Right now I don't think that Waterford has any excessive force cases pending. Who knows, maybe that was a jinx and now they'll get a couple of them.
SCN: Those bringing cases against your clients haven't won in 24 years. Are people really that giddy and also that wrong when they believe the police have acted improperly, or is it just a matter of constant misunderstandings?
Seward: Well, I think that most people don't understand the police world and what the police are faced with. Because most of the time the people who sue are generally real nice people and they are just having a bad day. Maybe they got into a fight with their spouse, or maybe they were drinking and they acted out of character. So, they don't see what the police see on a day-to-day basis. They aren't trained like the police are, so they can't comprehend why an officer may strike them in the knee. Police will tell you that that is a defensive tactic — a strike to the common peroneal. They may see the officer implement what appears to be a punch and they think it's to the face or the head but it's actually to the shoulder. That's again to inflict temporary pain to the person. So when they see it or experience it they think the officer is acting out of line. From the officer's perspective that's exactly what they are taught to do — to understand what the person is doing, and recognize that. An intoxicated person loses a lot of judgment and may act irrationally, but once they are sober they will get over whatever was bothering them, and they say "Jeeze, that wasn't me." So I think that what happens is most people can't believe they acted that way, and so it must be the police's fault and therefore they must bring a suit.
SCN: We've read you have a "profound knowledge of the law, combined with an abundance of creativity in the courtroom, which can often draw odd looks from court officials. Can you give us an example of those instances? Where does that energy and creativity come from?
Seward: I'm not really your conventional lawyer that stands behind the podium and will give an argument there. I walk around a lot. One of my cases involved the argument that the police should have just walked away. So, I argued that we should walk away and I walked out of the courtroom to highlight the point that that wasn't really an option for the officers. I've taken weapons and pulled the trigger to highlight how ludicrous an expert's position was. I like the use of computers, animation, pulling things up on screen and highlighting those things, and using videos to highlight how a person isn't being quite truthful.
I don't know (where the creativity comes from). I just love being in court. I just have a blast. I enjoy it. I'm always trying to think of ways to make the point because, like I say, most people don't understand the danger and the situations the officers are faced with. So, I think it's my obligation to them to make sure the jury completely understands what it's like to be a police officer. Because most of us, we are driving around and maybe will get a speeding ticket, and we say that's no big deal. However, officers will tell that that is one of those dangerous situations because nothing ever happens, and then there's that one time an officer gets shot, or dragged or injured severely; so they always have to be on their toes. People don't see that. So it's my obligation to them.
SCN: With the stories of taking off your shoes during closing arguments to rebuilding a bullet-hole ridden car in a parking lot, have you been approached to do a reality show? Would you seriously consider such a proposal? Why or why not?
Seward: No I haven't but I did those things. In one of the cases, we built a (Ford) Excursion in the courtroom. We built a real Excursion. We thought at first we would use a model, but we decided no, that we would actually buy the parts for the Excursion. Basically it was from the firewall to the back of the driver's seat. That was an interesting case because there were seven eye-witnesses, and not one of them got the incident correct. The police shot one time and shot the driver as he was trying to run over the police officer. Some said there was more than one shot, and some said (the officer) shot through a window, when in fact what happened was the officer had a hold of the driver trying to get him to turn the key off. The driver put it in reverse and was trying to run the officer over. The passenger door was open as he slammed it into gear, and it caught the officer, causing him to fall down, and his feet were just inches from the front tires. Had he not done that (fired a shot) he would have been run over and killed. So yes, we did build an Excursion in there to show the path of the bullet, the position of the driver, the position of the officer, and the jury came back and agreed with us that it was a justified shooting.
I wouldn't call them antics, but I would listen (to a reality show proposal). I would have to listen to what would be involved in that. It would be kind of interesting, wouldn't it?
SCN: Anything else you would like to add?
Seward: I've got some more trials coming up, one on Feb. 12. That will be an interesting one. I just think that it is my pleasure to represent the police officers. It's great to gain their confidence and their trust. We are lucky to represent them and I think that it's kind of neat that none of my clients have ever lost an excessive force case.
Andrew Sawmiller is a staff writer for the Spinal Column Newsweekly
|
|
 
|
|
Posted: 10.08.2008
Daley Recognized as “Rising Star”
Posted: 10.08.2008
Traverse City Attorneys Host Seminar
Posted: 09.15.2008
McLaughlin and Galica Presented to Law Enforcement Executives
Posted: 09.12.2008
Acho Quoted on Several Sports Outlets
Click here for our news archives.
|
