Crime & Safety
Attorneys Urged to Settle in Trial of Former Police Officers
Preliminary hearing took place Monday at San Francisco Federal Courthouse.
Inside the San Francisco Federal Courthouse, Judge Jeffrey White on Monday urged both sides to consider settling as he handed down preliminary instructions in the trial of two former San Carlos police officers.
“I really think this is a case that should be settled,” White said. “I would urge you to put on your thinking caps and see if you can’t settle this case.”
On Aug. 22, 2003, officers David Buelow and Armand Bonvincino broke into former San Carlos resident Bruce Hopkins’ home on 2330 San Carlos Ave. without a warrant after a woman told cops she and Hopkins had been involved in a minor traffic incident, and he appeared to have been drinking.
Find out what's happening in San Carloswith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The officers broke into Hopkins’ home with their guns drawn, found Hopkins on the floor in the fetal position, handcuffed him, and placed him under arrest.
The case – one Hopkins’ attorney Anthony Boskovich described as having shaken the world of police misconduct and civil rights – began in District Court, then went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and is now back in federal court.
Find out what's happening in San Carloswith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Hopkins, 47, who has been living in Pennsylvania with friends, originally sued the two officers in district court for $8 million in damages for medical, legal and psychiatric fees and lost wages, claiming “unlawful warrantless entry of a home, unlawful arrest without probable cause, and excessive use of force,” according to court records.
The officers explained to the courts the reason for the warrantless entry was that after hearing that Hopkins may have been intoxicated, they feared he was on the brink of a diabetic coma and broke into his house to offer medical assistance.
Hopkins won the case, which led to an appeal from the officers and in July 2009, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court.
Now the trial comes before a 10-person jury in federal court beginning April 18. Jury selection takes place April 13.
White limited the trial to one week, allowing each side six hours to make his case to the jury, not including jury selection, or opening and closing statements.
Specific evidence relating to Hopkins alcohol consumption and the details of the accident will be allowed by White, despite pleas from Hopkins attorney.
“I think the jury has a right to know,” White said. "The jury will be judging the perception of your client. They’re going to have to make some judgments. Context is very important.”
Boskovich argued that morality may play too strong a role in swaying a jury against his client should the jury view alcoholics in a negative way.
“My biggest concern is jury nullification,” Boskovich said. “I’m dealing with somebody they’ll think is a drunk in a hit-and-run. We’ve never disputed that he was intoxicated. He was drunk. The problem I have is the problem the jury might have with alcohol. The expert says Mr. Hopkins has some very severe cognitive issues. He was an IQ of approximately 64. He’s not aware that he has an alcohol problem.”
The ruling, however, was issued against Boskovich, as White said the jury was entitled to know how much Hopkins had been drinking on the night in question.
“It’s relevant,” he said. “It could have been three days before, one minute, it could have been one beer or eight boiler makers.”
Defense attorney Todd Masters said both officers will be present at the trial. Masters said one officer is currently enlisted in the military and is in Germany with his family, while the other is an officer in Roosevelt, Calif.
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.