Judge allows U.S. attorney to downgrade deputy sheriff's conviction

A federal judge granted a prosecutor's motion to lower charges against a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff who was convicted by a jury of assaulting an unarmed woman in Lancaster.

The conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor after newly appointed U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli moved to withdraw felony charges against Trevor Kirk earlier this month. This move caused the attorneys who prosecuted the case through trial to resign.

However, in an order on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson refused to strike portions of the jury's conviction that found Kirk used excessive force with a dangerous weapon when he tackled the woman to the ground and pepper-sprayed her as she filmed an arrest.

Kirk was responding to a reported robbery and the woman was broadcasting the arrest in a YouTube livestream. The footage of the assault on her was captured on Kirk's bodycam, which jurors reviewed.

"The jury still found that defendant willfully used unreasonable force, which supports a misdemeanor conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242. That verdict remains in place, even if the felony enhancements are dismissed," Wilson wrote.

The judge added the dismissal that was sought only applies to an indictment, information or complaint. "A jury verdict is none of these," Wilson wrote. "Once a charge is dismissed, the defendant cannot be guilty of that crime regardless of what the verdict says."

Wilson also declined a proposed plea deal that would have given Kirk probation. He's scheduled to be sentenced on the lone law enforcement misconduct charge on June 2. However, without the felony enhancement, a potential prison sentence will be significantly reduced from the maximum 10-year penalty the original prosecutors sought.

"Straight probation does not match the facts of this case. Defendant commited the offense - the willful use of unreasonable force - while acting under color of law as a police officer. Police officers are entrusted with protecting the public, not harming them," Wilson's wrote.

Essayli's motion, filed on May 2 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. Keenan, led the prosecutors who tried the case at February's trial - including the chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section - to resign. Keenan joined the case post-conviction.

"The government explained that, upon further review of the facts of the case, it believed that defendant's conduct fell on the lower end of the excessive force spectrum. Not only that, but that the government believed that it prosecuted the case in an improper way," Wilson's order stated.

During a hearing last week, Keenan argued that although the parties, including Kirk, agreed the force he used against the woman victim was excessive, it did not warrant the maximum felony penalty because its use was not extreme enough and her injuries were minor. He also argued the pepper spray in this instance was not used in a dangerous way and was to merely effectuate an arrest. U.S. v. Kirk, 2:24-cr-00527 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 4, 2024).

In dropping the felony enhancement in Kirk's indictment, Wilson ruled he had limited discretion to deny dismissal motions filed by government prosecutors because, for example, elements such as prosecutorial harassment were not present in this case.

"Yes, there is certainly a public interest in upholding jury verdicts. But that public interest alone is not enough to justify denying a Rule 48(a) [dismissal] motion," Wilson wrote.

"Rather, while the appellate courts have not defined the fine contours of what exactly counts as a consideration 'clearly contrary to the manifest public interest,' the available case law suggests that overturning a jury verdict is not, by itself, sufficient."

In his order, Wilson referenced a 1983 case, U.S. v. Weber, in which an appellate panel found a district court abused its discretion in denying the government's motion to dismiss the case upon learning new facts that led the prosecutor to develop substantial doubt as to the defendant's guilt.

"Here, the government makes a Rule 48(a) motion because it carries doubts as to whether a felony conviction matches the severity and circumstances of defendant's crime," Wilson wrote.

"But even if courts can deny Rule 48(a) motions joined by the defendant, this is not one of the 'exceptional circumstances' that warrants such denial ... The court must grant the government's motion."