A former Denver police officer was never held accountable for shooting into a crowd, injuring six bystanders. That is, not until a civil rights suit brought by Siddhartha Rathod, name partner at Rathod Mohamedbhai, the largest civil rights firm in the state, and John Lee, name partner at Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers. In its $20 million verdict, the jurors sent a message that “you need to take responsibility,” Siddhartha explains. In Part I of this case breakdown, host Keith Fuicelli (John’s partner) moderates the discussion to explore how the trial team delivered their message. Come back in January for Part 2, when the three young attorneys who handled much of this case will join Keith to reveal how they prepared and won the “monster” verdict.
Learn More and Connect with Colorado Trial Lawyers
☑️ Siddhartha Rathod | LinkedIn
☑️ Rathod Mohamedbhai on LinkedIn | Instagram | X | YouTube
☑️ Keith Fuicelli | LinkedIn
☑️ Fuicelli & Lee Injury Lawyers on X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn
☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube
Episode Snapshot
- Siddhartha and John outline the procedural landmines in civil rights cases: Bringing a federal 1983 claim can result in removal to federal court, while bringing a tort claim can expose clients to a Trinity hearing and potential fee/cost liability at the beginning of the case.
- The July 2022 incident occurred in downtown Denver when police pursued a man who was wearing a hoodie with a bulge in the pocket. As that man kept reaching into his pocket, the officers became concerned that he wielded a weapon.
- The officers’ suspect darted behind a car and, when cornered, tossed away his weapon. Down the block, Officer Ramos fired at the suspect and injured six bystanders, who became the team’s clients.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the ColoradoTrial Lawyer Connection,
where Colorado trial lawyers shareinsights from their latest cases. Join me,
Keith Fuicelli, as we uncoverthe stories, strategies,
and lessons from recent Colorado trialsto help you and your clients achieve
justice in the courtroom. Thepursuit of justice starts now.
(00:21):
Welcome back everyone to another episodeof the Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection
podcast. This episode is truly specialfor a couple of reasons. The first,
I'm not in my usual location,so I've got different things.
I think I sound a little bit different,
but it's fun to be in front of thisship that has great meaning to me.
Happy to be here.
And this episode is special becauseit's got my law partner John Lee and our
(00:45):
good friend, an amazing triallawyer, Siddhartha Rathod,
to talk about a trulyamazing and righteous
$20 million civil rightsverdict involving a police
shooting involving the DenverPolice Department. So with that,
welcome John and Siddhartha.
Thanks Keith.
(01:05):
So John's been on before. We've hearda little bit about John's story,
but one of the things that Ido like to do is Siddhartha,
tell us a little bit about yourjourney to becoming a trial lawyer.
Do you always know youwanted to be a trial lawyer?
No. After undergraduate schoolI went into the Marine Corps.
After the Marine Corps I went to lawschool and I'd never met a lawyer
(01:27):
besides military lawyers,
so I really didn't know thatmuch when I attended law school
and it was kind of a journey of tryingto figure out what I was passionate
about. When I graduated lawschool, I became a public defender.
I loved it. It was an amazingopportunity. From there,
(01:47):
I went to a small boutique civilrights firm and about 15 years ago,
my business partner ER andI formed Rathod Mohamedbhai
and we're now the largest civilrights law firm in the state.
Your law firm is well recognized,
and I'm sure any of our listenersunderstand the amazing work that y'all
(02:08):
do. But before we kind of jump into that,
I'm a little bit curious aboutyour experience in the Marines.
My father was in the Navy for25 years and I know Nick Row's,
a big military guy,
came out and did military out ofschool before going to law school.
How do you think thatimpacted you and your outlook?
Is that something you would highlyrecommend to those people that always have
(02:29):
kids ship 'em off to marines?
I was stubborn. I wentinto the Marine Corps.
It was great in that itpaid for law school for me,
and I think we can all havedifferent agreements or
disagreements about the military,what the military was being used for.
I was very fortunate inmy time in the service.
I was on active duty from 99 through 2004,
(02:53):
but I think there's a lot of avenues tobeing a great attorney if you want to go
to the military and serve,great. If you told great,
that's the politically put answer.
Well, I like it. In thischarged climate, you have to,
we all have to be so carefulabout what we say at all times,
and so that's a very politically correctresponse about the military and the
(03:14):
Marines. So tell us a littlebit, Siddhartha about,
for those of us that know alittle bit to be dangerous when
it comes to civil rights cases involving
excessive force,
could you give us a two minute summary of
when a claim of excessiveforce becomes actionable and
(03:39):
viable and what listeners should belooking for if someone calls their office
and says, Hey, a police officer justbeat up my grandma or something.
So I think whatever you'resuing the government, it's hard.
The government only lets itself besued when it wants to. In Colorado,
a few years back, we passed thePolice Accountability Act SB two 17,
(03:59):
and that allows us tonowadays bring cases in state
court,
which is a significantadvantage because a jury of that
police department gets to decide whathappens to that police department.
I think that's important and that'show all civil and criminal cases work.
So why shouldn't policeaccountability be done the same?
(04:21):
It also eliminates a doctrinecalled qualified immunity,
which is just a silly doctrinethat in essence insulates
police officers fromliability. With that in mind,
it's important to remember that ifyou're going to do one of these cases,
talk to somebody, talk to John,
(04:41):
call me and better understandthese cases because if
you bring a federal claimas well in 1983 claim,
you can get removed to federal court.There may be reasons why you want to bring
that though. If you bring a tortclaim like a tort of assault,
you can get trinity here against youand have a hearing all the way at the
(05:03):
beginning of your case, which if you lose,
you can expose yourclient to fees and costs.
There are a lot of weird proceduralissues that can happen in these
cases.
And so you want to be kind of carefulto go to directly to your question of
what's a case? I think attorneysshould be looking at it and saying,
this is kind of outrageous. What happenedhere? Hey, this doesn't seem right,
(05:26):
this seems wrong.
And that's the first step is so ifyou're watching it and you're like,
this doesn't seem right, this seemswrong, then call somebody and say, Hey,
can you take a look at this?
Is this something that makes sense?You've never done one of these cases?
Partner with somebody, call John, call me,
partner with somebody on the caseand work with them and learn the
(05:48):
procedure and the law on thisarea because I will tell you,
in every case, you will almost certainlyget a 12 B six motion to dismiss.
You'll always get motions forsummary judgment. Every slip up,
every procedural issue is going to comeup because they will litigate these
cases to the ends of the earth.And so you've got to be prepared,
(06:09):
and they're expensive experts, whichexperts you want and things like that.
So at a minimum,
getting someone who is willing tojust talk to you and advise you,
we're always happy to talk to afellow attorney is a great idea.
If you're looking at these cases.
And I can sort of share ourfirsthand experience because gosh,
more than a decade or so agowhen our firm had been around,
(06:32):
not a huge amount of time, we had oneof those cases, like you just mentioned,
walk in the door, which waslike, holy cow, this is awful.
What we are being told, this isoutrageous. And so what did we do?
We called your partner Q and workedwith you guys and achieved a very just
result in something that maybewe could have figured it out,
but at what cost? So I just wantto echo what Siddhartha said,
(06:56):
that on any of these cases,
it feels like there are somany procedural landmines.
Every single corner is a trap wherethere's a wrong mistake to be made,
can cost your client the case could notagree more to reaching out to qualified
lawyers in these cases that do it all day.
So with that in the context of, holy cow,
(07:17):
this is sort of shocking,what happened, John,
why don't you tell us the factsof this case and what happened?
Yeah, sure. So summerof 2022 in July in lower
downtown in Denver,
there had been an increase inviolent crime and persons crimes,
that kind of thing.
So the Denver police decidedthey needed an increased police
(07:39):
presence at 2:00 AM basically from oneto 2:00 AM when the bars were letting out
what they call Outc crowd.And so on this night,
our six clients had beenout enjoying themselves in
lower downtown,
and the bars were closing as theywere all getting out of the bars.
And at the same time,
there was a man named JordanWadi who was downtown as well.
(08:03):
And the police claimed thatthey saw him assault someone,
so the police wanted to talk to him. Sothere were -- Siddhartha what was it?
Five different officers, maybesix that converged on the scene,
tried to apprehend Mr. Wattieor at least contact him.
He got evasive. There were times wherehe'd stop and he put his hands up,
but then he'd dart behind a car.
(08:24):
Lemme stop you real quick. Isall of this on body cam? Yes.
So what's happening isn't really indispute and you could almost play a
video of all the events leading up to.
It. That's funny that you put it that way.
That was sort of one of our running jokesin the trial is that there were half a
dozen different body cams,there was a halo cam,
and yet there was still a lot of disputeabout what happened because the body
(08:46):
cams do a certain somany frames per second,
and the halo is a differentframe per second. Yeah.
So regardless of the fact that therewere half a dozen different angles and
cameras,
there were still plenty of stuff forthe lawyers to argue about factually.
But in any event,
what I'm telling you are factsthat I don't think are in dispute.
But what was interesting is it's Julyand Mr. Wattie is wearing a hoodie and
(09:10):
he's got a bulge in the pocket of hishoodie, and that's concerning the police.
And he keeps reaching into that pocket.And so at some point the
police get him corneredand he reaches into
his hoodie pocket has the brilliantidea to throw the firearm that he's
got on his person away so thatit's not on him. The problem was,
(09:34):
so he had ducked behind a car and nowhe's on the sidewalk in front of the
Denver beer hall,
and he's got an Officer Rolandwho is right in front of him,
and then he's got OfficerRamos who is down the sidewalk.
And Officer Ramos at the time isbehind a car watching what's going down
with Jordan Watty. So JordanWatty reaches into his pocket,
(09:56):
and of course this gets all the policeofficers concerned. Weapons get drawn,
they're of course giving himcommands, show us your hands,
all this kind of stuff. He's notlistening, so he throws the weapon. Well,
when he does that, officer Roland,
who is facing Mr.Wadi with the beer hall behind Wadi,
opens fire and hits Wadi.Our defendant, officer Ramos,
(10:19):
who is down the block behind a car, hasnow left the car and is in the sidewalk,
but he's got the profileview of Jordan Wattie,
but then down the sidewalk fromJordan Wattie is the Outc crowd.
Everyone coming out of the bars,there's a food truck down there,
there's a lot of peoplestanding at a food truck.
Officer Ramos makes the decision toopen fire on Jordan Wattie as well.
(10:40):
And he fires two bullets that Ms.Jordan Wattie and go into the crowd and
injured six people, our six clients.
Okay, got it. So Siddhartha,
what are police officers supposedto do in that circumstance?
In other words, what didOfficer Ramos do wrong?
So both John and I have experiencein weapons handling and every
(11:02):
single officer,
every expert testified regardlessof whether it was their witness or
ours, that they are trained.
And it is ingrained in them thatthe final rule of weapon safety
is to know your target and what'sbeyond, beyond your target.
We were able then to show theDPD Denver Police Department
(11:26):
operation manual, and again, therewas still a lot of debate about it,
but it talks about how you can't shootwhen you're going to endanger other
people. The only exception to that,
if it's the person'sactually shooting at you,
and here we were also able toshow that when Officer Ramos fired
Mr. Wadi was already either fallingon the ground or on the ground for the
(11:50):
second shot,
and that Officer Ramos of justfear fired here towards a crowd.
So we were able to distinguishOfficer Ramos' conduct from the other
officer's conduct because noreasonable officer would have fired in
that position.It was just exceedingly dangerous.
What happened was six people thatgot shot and we were able to show
(12:14):
that those six people wereshot by Officer Ramos,
he obviously denied even though he hadpled guilty criminally to shooting them,
denied that he shot them.
And what should a reasonable officerdo in that situation? Not shoot,
provide, cover, wait, these are thethings these officers are trained to do.
And even his fellow officers talkedabout how those are the things
(12:38):
they were trained to do. That'swhat a reasonable officer should do.
We were also able to break down thevideo and show a lot of really great
kind of things that showed thatOfficer Ramos was not acting reasonably
how a reasonable officer should not.
He had his flashlightpointed the wrong direction,
and we were able to point that out in thetrial and have his other officers look
(12:59):
at that and question them about whetherwhat would happen when you point a
flashlight towards you, how insane thatwould be. They're like, that's insane.
And then show 'em the video.And they're like, oh yeah,
that's insane. So somecomical moments in the trial,
which is always fun when you have thoselittle tidbits that you don't bring out
until the trial you don't talk aboutuntil you're right in front of the jury
(13:24):
and it's just so comicallyinsane. Fortunately,
the harm that was caused was sosevere that when you juxtapose
those two,
that's how we get to a nearly$20 million jury verdict.
Yeah. Obviously the jury of the peers,being people in the Denver community,
(13:45):
do you take it from that verdict?
Maybe this is a dumb obvious questionthat Denver jurors are sort of fed up with
some of what they're seeingfrom the Denver police.
I think all jurors are kind of fed up.Obviously, you got to pick your jury.
There is some skill and there's some luckinvolved in that pool is I think these
were normal jurors. They weren't outoutliners, they weren't radicals.
(14:07):
I think they looked at what happenedand they looked at this situation,
they were just enraged by it, andthey were enraged by the conduct.
They were enraged that Denvernever held the officer accountable.
They were enraged by all these differenttypes of facts that we were able to
bring out. And rightfully so,
the conduct of Officer Ramerowas shocking and it was offensive
(14:30):
and it caused serious, serious harmto the public. And I think the public,
both in the actual ward ofinjury damages as well as the
punitive damages whichwere designed to punish,
sent that message to this officer andto the city that we won't tolerate
this type of behavior.
So one question that comes to mindinvolves the training piece that you
(14:53):
mentioned, because I'm sortof envisioning I've never,
I should say I very rarely shot a firearm,Siddhartha, you were in the military,
so I'm sure you have alot of training in that.
But I would think that itwould be instinctual if someone starts firing and I've
got a gun in my hand, I'm probablygoing to start firing too,
almost as a reactionary response.
So is that something that the policespecifically train in military?
(15:17):
So you're ingrained that just becausesomebody else is firing that you don't
fire? Maybe it's a dumb question.
It's not a dumb questionand I'll field it,
but they have specificrules of engagement and
parameters as far as when theyare able to use deadly force.
And so we were able to argue that thisdidn't even meet those criteria for
(15:39):
him to use deadly force. But thenalso, like Siddhartha was saying,
I mean we were able to bring out throughalmost every single law enforcement
witness that they are ingrainedwith the safety rules of handling
firearms. And the most important of whichis know your target and what's beyond.
And anecdotally,
anytime I've talked to afriend of mine that hunts
(16:03):
or knows anything about firearms, theminute I say the safety rules, they go,
oh yeah, know your target and beyond.
And these are people thatthese police officers,
they use firearm or they handlefirearms on a daily basis.
And so it's even more importantthat they follow those safety rules.
And they think that going back to whatSiddhartha was saying about the jury
(16:24):
being outraged,
it wasn't just that heflagrantly violated that rule,
but then the response toit of basically like, well,
I was still justified in shooting at him,
even though there were people behind him.
What was Officer Ram's testimony thatmaybe if there had been important people
in that crowd, he would've heldup and not fired. So presidents,
(16:49):
senators, people like that,
maybe that would've been a worsebackdrop than what he actually had.
I think when the defendant doesn'ttake responsibility for what we can all
say is just, come on, youpled criminally guilty,
take some responsibility,
and when you don't and you don'thave your client take responsibility
(17:10):
for what happened, you're goingto get these type of verdicts.
You're going to get these big punitivesthat are designed to punish because
Officer Ramos never saw a singleday in jail. If this was one of us,
we would be incarceratedfor the rest of our lives.
Officer Ramos wasn't firing. He wasallowed to resign Officer Ramos,
(17:31):
even though it didn'tcome out to the jury,
received back pay almost a yearof vacation and then allowed to
resign.
So I think when a jury keeps seeingand then keeps hearing the defendant
himself say, I didn't do anything wrong.
I think that's where jurors kindof get set and want to use the
putative damages as a wayto send a message that, no,
(17:55):
this isn't okay. You needto take responsibility.
No one's ever taken responsibilityfor Officer Ram's conduct,
and Officer Ramos certainly did it.
And so I think those are the trialskills that John was able to bring to the
case and really kind ofemphasize to the jury like, look,
this man isn't taking responsibility and.
Yeah, I understand that the guiltyplea was admitted to the jury.
(18:19):
How did that come in?
So it was a form of impeachment whenhe said he didn't shoot these people.
Then you get to bring in that.
I also think those maybe a small error,
not that it impacted it significantly.
So when a person pleadsguilty to an offense
and the elements of what they pled guiltyto are the same as what they're being
(18:42):
civilly brought to you couldbe stopped from arguing that
you didn't do this.
So we believe he actually should havebeen stopped from being able to argue that
he didn't shoot them. Youwould still have defenses.
But the judge kind of split the baby alittle bit here and went with a lot us to
bring in his impeachment.
(19:02):
Is that this is bringing backflashbacks to my criminal days,
which thankfully are 20 yearsin the rear view mirror.
Is that like an Alfred plea?
You could go in and plead tosomething to try to avoid having any
ramifications in a civil case?
Yeah. He didn't take an Alfred plea.
Okay.
Yeah.
So he didn't take a plea that wouldnot admit to the actual liability here.
(19:23):
He pled guilty.
So we were actually able to go in andgo through what he actually said to the
judge, what his rights werethat he gave up to a judge.
And I think that was a small factor.
I don't think it would've made thatmuch of a difference in the end.
I think the jury, theyweren't out that long.
They didn't need even that criminal piece.
(19:44):
Obviously it should have come in, butwhen he's saying, Nope, I didn't do this,
but I pled guilty, I think the judgelet it in for the impeachment purposes.
And John, were you telling me a story?
Was it Siddhartha's cross with theflashlight that you were saying,
or was it one ofSiddhartha's team members?
That was the whole issuewith the flashlight when the officer had it backwards.
(20:05):
Tell our listeners about thatstory. I thought it was comical.
Yeah, it was great becauseSiddhartha, who is, and by the way,
Keith, I have to say that theother lawyers on this case,
it was a pleasure trying it with them.
Siddhartha has got anextremely talented team,
and they were great to try a case with.And I would echo what you said earlier,
(20:25):
that if you've ever got a civilrights issue or a 1983 claim,
reach out to those guys.
They are the experts and theyare a pleasure to work with.
And we really had a fun timeat trial. But that being said,
watching Siddhartha direct oneof the officers and have him
basically criticize our defendant,
(20:46):
officer Ramos for the way that he handledthe flashlight without knowing he was
criticizing Officer Ramos for theway he was handling a flashlight was
masterful. Siddhartha walked himthrough the proper procedures and said,
how would you hold the flashlight?Oh, so if they held it like this,
that would not be okay, or youwouldn't authorize that you,
the officer was scoffing at it rollinghis eyes. It was like, oh, no way.
(21:10):
No way. And then Siddhartha, of course,
then showed him the video of OfficerRamos with the flashlight backwards,
and he is like, yep, that'swhat he's doing. So yeah,
it was masterful just the way that hewalked him right into it turned what
should have been afavorable witness for Ramos.
It was one of his colleagues intoa very favorable witness for us,
(21:30):
unbeknownst to the officer, whichis what made it so brilliant.
Siddhartha, how do you balance injectinga little bit of humor and having
fun in trial in a case that's thisserious with the injuries you're dealing
with?
I mean, I think in any case, youhave to have some fun with it.
You have to have a connection withthe jury. You're watching the jurors.
(21:51):
This was day seven or fiveor whatever it was of trial.
It wasn't the first thing wedid. We set the right tone.
We had got 'em to the point wherejurors had seen the seriousness of what
was going on, seen the trauma orclients had been up there crying.
They knew how serious it is. Itdoesn't mean you can't interject,
(22:12):
do something in a not comical way,
but in a way that's kind of likereally, there's only one conclusion.
And this is just, it's just crazybecause at the end, the officer,
you don't ask that greedy question.
The officer just sat there and kind ofjust had his mouth open because you don't
want to get him the opportunity toexplain that. You don't want to ask the
(22:33):
greedy question at thetrough kind of thing.
And so it can be a littlefunny in that way where,
because all the jurors knowwhat you're talking about,
the jurors have seen it and theofficer just isn't as aware of all the
details in the video.
They haven't spent hundreds and hundredsof hours examining the facts of the
case, dozens of hours watching the video.
(22:55):
Everyone on the team did.
So they're not as aware of everylittle minutia that we are.
So you can kind of walk 'em into that.
So it's fun when you got to doit and it works. It's great.
It doesn't always work, dad. Yougot to pivot and try something else.
So one of the things that I was mostimpressed with the verdict in this
case is I'm assuming that that'ssomething that you all talked about in
(23:18):
advance,
because I'm correct that he was on theverdict form as a non-party at fault.
Is that right?
Yeah.
So how did you frame theclosing to get a result of
zero comparative fault with that guy?
Well, me did the closing oneof the attorneys in the office,
and I think that's somethingreally important to talk about.
I think John and I werethere to do more advising and
(23:42):
to be kind of, I'm at my 50something jury trial, and John,
I couldn't imagine what number you're at.
And we were there more tosupport the real trial team.
And Omeed,
Sierra and Chris for my officedid just a phenomenal job from
day one of litigating this case,starting this case, investigating it,
(24:05):
experts depositions everything all theway through trial and now post-trial
motions and appellateissues and things like that.
So they did the work, theydid all the hard work.
I think John and I were really there.
We handled smaller witnesses andwe were there kind of to guide
and be a sounding board andsuggest avenues that the
(24:28):
real trial attorneys gotto actually then say, Nope,
I don't want to do that. I want to dothis. Or, okay, that's a good idea.
Let's adopt that. And so we took acouple witnesses off their plates,
but all the big hard workwas done by the team.
So they came up with a strategy.
They came up with how to argue that andhow to ask for the damages and break
(24:49):
down those damages.
They were the ones staying afterJohn and I would go home at a
reasonable hour afterdinner, seven, eight o'clock,
they would still behere until one o'clock,
two o'clock in the morning getting readyfor those openings and closings and
things like that. We would sit andpractice jury selection with them,
(25:10):
and then they would stay and work on itand enhance it and take the feedback.
So I think those are the people we shouldreally get the credit for this win and
not John and I.
Yeah, for sure. For sure. Andthey're an extremely talented bunch.
But as far as how we argued it, I thinkOmeed put most of the blame on Ramos,
and I think he did concedemaybe a small number for
(25:33):
Jordan Wadi because he is anidiot. But that was basically it.
But Jordan Wattie didn't pleadguilty to shooting these people.
Officer Ramos did. And I think thatwas really the tack that Omeed took.
Yeah, I think that was exactly it. Andalso talking about like, look, yes,
they were there because, butWadi was throwing the gun away.
And then he showed these stills of whenthe officers fired and the gun is all
(25:57):
the way over here in the air.
And then talked about how yourcomparative fault was between Ramos and
Wadi, not between Wadiand the other officers.
So let's talk about where Ramoswas when he shot the evidence
really made it clear that where Ramossaid he was shooting just wasn't true,
(26:17):
just couldn't have been true.
And the expert evidence that we were ableto bring in and that the team brought
in showed that it just couldn't be true.
And so once you identified that this iswhere Ramos shot, it's kind like, well,
how could Ramos be at fault?He's lied on the ground,
the old gun in his hand havingalready been shot multiple times,
and then this is when Ramo shut. SoI think juxtapositioning, the photos,
(26:42):
the closing and up allthe evidence is how me,
Sierra and Chris were ableto kind of freak that out.
One thing I sort of sense from you,Siddhartha, is this sure seems like,
and I know from speaking withJohn, this seemed like a fun trial.
I don't know if that's insensitivegiven what your clients went through,
but that sure seems like a fun trial.
Did you guys have funwhen you were in there?
(27:03):
I think the attorneys alwayshave fun when we're in trial.
I enjoy being in trial.
You can tell John is just naturalin the courtroom and he's just
exceedingly comfortable in thecourtroom. So I think all trials are fun.
It's hard work, but it's fun.
But I think this trial was maybe alittle bit even more fun for John and I
because we got to kind of sit back andbe the old people in the courtroom and
(27:27):
just the team did the hard work,everything in preparation for this trial,
coordinating paralegals,coordinating the witness,
and it's the attorneys dialing it all in.
John and I really just got tobe sounding boards and push back
on different ideas and helpdevelop this next generation
of amazing trial attorneys.
(27:48):
And I think it's something that allof us who are maybe in past our prime
or in our prime or whateveryou want to call it,
we should be taking a heart that thereis a next generation of attorneys who can
do an amazing job. You just got togive them the opportunity and the right
training to do it. If they're trained,
they're working hard given theopportunity. I did a trial,
(28:10):
this was my third trial in 12months. And one of the big mistakes,
we got a seven figureverdict in the first one,
and we got a seven figure verdictin the second one as well.
But I think we would'vegot more if I didn't close,
I should have let one ofmy other attorneys close.
I had a larger role in thattrial, and I took on closing.
(28:33):
And I think if the jury would've hearda different voice and a different
sound, hearing the case from a differentperspective, we would've gotten war.
Yes, I am running, I quarterbacking this.
It's something I learned there that Ithink I'm going to carry through from
every trial that we don't need to bethe ones who do it. We may have more
(28:54):
experience,
but you've got to let these otherattorneys have this opportunity.
And I don't think John or I would'vedone as good of a job as they
did, just flat out say wewouldn't have done as good trips.
They were way more preparedthan we could ever have been.
This was the first trial for someof 'em. So they were so prepared.
(29:15):
Every question, every impeachment,every idea was thought out.
And so I think you just got to let thesenewer attorneys take the leading role
and we got to sit with the advisors.
That's a great point. Ifyou remember Siddhartha,
there was a point where you andI were talking about me doing the
liability part of the closingand the Omeed arguing damages.
(29:40):
And then we decided that, I think itwas Omeed that stepped up and said,
I think the jury needs to hearone voice, not two. He said,
and I want that voice to be mine. Isaid, okay, all right. I'll tell you,
I'm glad that we did it that waybecause he's a brilliant worder.
He's great at arguing. And like you said,
he spent way more time runningthrough his arguments and crafting his
(30:04):
arguments than I wouldhave. And it really showed,
and I think that's a big reasonwhy we got the verdict that we did.
75% Of this trial was done by attorneyswho've been practicing less than five
years. So Chris did jury selection,
Sierra did opening Sierra,
Chris and Omeed did the key witnesses.
A lot of our clients, John did hisclient of course, stuff like that.
(30:28):
And then Omeed did Officer Ramos.
He had taken that deposition aswell. And then Omeed did closing.
So this was their victory,
and we just got to sit here and talkto you about a hard work they did. So.
They should be the ones on this podcastnext time, next time we'll get 'em on.
Yeah, do.
Another episode with just them.
(30:48):
I think it would be interesting to havethe three of them have three attorneys
who have been in their five, sixyears or under and talking to, well,
what did you do to prepare?Some of 'em have been Anita,
some of 'em did trial in school. Whatdid you do to prepare for this trial?
What support was goodand what support was bad,
(31:08):
or what support was missing thatSidart could have given you?
Where could he have given youmore support and things like that?
That might take a whole podcast though.
Yes, any series.
And I think that would bereally interesting to hear from him and hear how they
prepared for this trial.
And I think a lot of younger attorneyscould learn a lot from those three.
(31:29):
I learned a lot from them.I'll tell you that flat out,
I learned a lot from those three.
So that's it. This is a done deal.This is part one. Ladies and gentlemen.
We are going to come back with part twowhere we're going to have these younger
lawyers on.
They're going to talk about what theydid to prepare for this monster case with
the monster verdict.
(31:49):
And it cannot wait for the secondpart of this podcast. But Siddhartha,
John, congratulationson just a phenomenal,
righteous,
fun result on a trial thatmight effectuate some change.
We didn't get a chanceto touch on some change,
but hope springs eternal thatperhaps somebody is going to learn
(32:12):
something to prevent these types ofthings from happening in the future.
Hopefully, clients one dayget to see their hard results,
the results of all the hard workthat went into this. So Siddhartha,
thank you so much for taking timeout of your day to join us. John,
good to see you again. Weabsolutely not see you tomorrow,
but congratulations to you bothon an amazing, amazing result.
(32:35):
And tune in next time forpart two of this trial end
result where we get to talk to allthe worker bees that did all the heavy
lifting here and really gained somewisdom from that group of people.
So thank you both again.
Thank you for audience. Thanks Keith.
Thank you for joining us.
We hope you've gained valuable insightsand inspiration from today's courtroom
(32:55):
warriors. And thank youfor being in the arena.
Make sure to subscribe and join us nexttime as we continue to dissect real
cases and learn fromColorado's top trial lawyers.
Our mission is to empowerour legal community,
helping us to become better trial lawyersto effectively represent our clients.
Keep your connection toColorado's best trial lawyers
(33:16):
alive at www.thectlc.com.
Welcome to the ColoradoTrial Lawyer Connection,
where Colorado trial lawyers shareinsights from their latest cases. Join me,
Keith Fuicelli, as we uncoverthe stories, strategies,
and lessons from recent Colorado trialsto help you and your clients achieve
justice in the courtroom. Thepursuit of justice starts now.
(00:21):
Welcome back everyone to another episodeof the Colorado Trial Lawyer Connection
podcast. This episode is truly specialfor a couple of reasons. The first,
I'm not in my usual location,so I've got different things.
I think I sound a little bit different,
but it's fun to be in front of thisship that has great meaning to me.
Happy to be here.
And this episode is special becauseit's got my law partner John Lee and our
(00:45):
good friend, an amazing triallawyer, Siddhartha Rathod,
to talk about a trulyamazing and righteous
$20 million civil rightsverdict involving a police
shooting involving the DenverPolice Department. So with that,
welcome John and Siddhartha.
Thanks Keith.
(01:05):
So John's been on before. We've hearda little bit about John's story,
but one of the things that Ido like to do is Siddhartha,
tell us a little bit about yourjourney to becoming a trial lawyer.
Do you always know youwanted to be a trial lawyer?
No. After undergraduate schoolI went into the Marine Corps.
After the Marine Corps I went to lawschool and I'd never met a lawyer
(01:27):
besides military lawyers,
so I really didn't know thatmuch when I attended law school
and it was kind of a journey of tryingto figure out what I was passionate
about. When I graduated lawschool, I became a public defender.
I loved it. It was an amazingopportunity. From there,
(01:47):
I went to a small boutique civilrights firm and about 15 years ago,
my business partner ER andI formed Rathod Mohamedbhai
and we're now the largest civilrights law firm in the state.
Your law firm is well recognized,
and I'm sure any of our listenersunderstand the amazing work that y'all
(02:08):
do. But before we kind of jump into that,
I'm a little bit curious aboutyour experience in the Marines.
My father was in the Navy for25 years and I know Nick Row's,
a big military guy,
came out and did military out ofschool before going to law school.
How do you think thatimpacted you and your outlook?
Is that something you would highlyrecommend to those people that always have
(02:29):
kids ship 'em off to marines?
I was stubborn. I wentinto the Marine Corps.
It was great in that itpaid for law school for me,
and I think we can all havedifferent agreements or
disagreements about the military,what the military was being used for.
I was very fortunate inmy time in the service.
I was on active duty from 99 through 2004,
(02:53):
but I think there's a lot of avenues tobeing a great attorney if you want to go
to the military and serve,great. If you told great,
that's the politically put answer.
Well, I like it. In thischarged climate, you have to,
we all have to be so carefulabout what we say at all times,
and so that's a very politically correctresponse about the military and the
(03:14):
Marines. So tell us a littlebit, Siddhartha about,
for those of us that know alittle bit to be dangerous when
it comes to civil rights cases involving
excessive force,
could you give us a two minute summary of
when a claim of excessiveforce becomes actionable and
(03:39):
viable and what listeners should belooking for if someone calls their office
and says, Hey, a police officer justbeat up my grandma or something.
So I think whatever you'resuing the government, it's hard.
The government only lets itself besued when it wants to. In Colorado,
a few years back, we passed thePolice Accountability Act SB two 17,
(03:59):
and that allows us tonowadays bring cases in state
court,
which is a significantadvantage because a jury of that
police department gets to decide whathappens to that police department.
I think that's important and that'show all civil and criminal cases work.
So why shouldn't policeaccountability be done the same?
(04:21):
It also eliminates a doctrinecalled qualified immunity,
which is just a silly doctrinethat in essence insulates
police officers fromliability. With that in mind,
it's important to remember that ifyou're going to do one of these cases,
talk to somebody, talk to John,
(04:41):
call me and better understandthese cases because if
you bring a federal claimas well in 1983 claim,
you can get removed to federal court.There may be reasons why you want to bring
that though. If you bring a tortclaim like a tort of assault,
you can get trinity here against youand have a hearing all the way at the
(05:03):
beginning of your case, which if you lose,
you can expose yourclient to fees and costs.
There are a lot of weird proceduralissues that can happen in these
cases.
And so you want to be kind of carefulto go to directly to your question of
what's a case? I think attorneysshould be looking at it and saying,
this is kind of outrageous. What happenedhere? Hey, this doesn't seem right,
(05:26):
this seems wrong.
And that's the first step is so ifyou're watching it and you're like,
this doesn't seem right, this seemswrong, then call somebody and say, Hey,
can you take a look at this?
Is this something that makes sense?You've never done one of these cases?
Partner with somebody, call John, call me,
partner with somebody on the caseand work with them and learn the
(05:48):
procedure and the law on thisarea because I will tell you,
in every case, you will almost certainlyget a 12 B six motion to dismiss.
You'll always get motions forsummary judgment. Every slip up,
every procedural issue is going to comeup because they will litigate these
cases to the ends of the earth.And so you've got to be prepared,
(06:09):
and they're expensive experts, whichexperts you want and things like that.
So at a minimum,
getting someone who is willing tojust talk to you and advise you,
we're always happy to talk to afellow attorney is a great idea.
If you're looking at these cases.
And I can sort of share ourfirsthand experience because gosh,
more than a decade or so agowhen our firm had been around,
(06:32):
not a huge amount of time, we had oneof those cases, like you just mentioned,
walk in the door, which waslike, holy cow, this is awful.
What we are being told, this isoutrageous. And so what did we do?
We called your partner Q and workedwith you guys and achieved a very just
result in something that maybewe could have figured it out,
but at what cost? So I just wantto echo what Siddhartha said,
(06:56):
that on any of these cases,
it feels like there are somany procedural landmines.
Every single corner is a trap wherethere's a wrong mistake to be made,
can cost your client the case could notagree more to reaching out to qualified
lawyers in these cases that do it all day.
So with that in the context of, holy cow,
(07:17):
this is sort of shocking,what happened, John,
why don't you tell us the factsof this case and what happened?
Yeah, sure. So summerof 2022 in July in lower
downtown in Denver,
there had been an increase inviolent crime and persons crimes,
that kind of thing.
So the Denver police decidedthey needed an increased police
(07:39):
presence at 2:00 AM basically from oneto 2:00 AM when the bars were letting out
what they call Outc crowd.And so on this night,
our six clients had beenout enjoying themselves in
lower downtown,
and the bars were closing as theywere all getting out of the bars.
And at the same time,
there was a man named JordanWadi who was downtown as well.
(08:03):
And the police claimed thatthey saw him assault someone,
so the police wanted to talk to him. Sothere were -- Siddhartha what was it?
Five different officers, maybesix that converged on the scene,
tried to apprehend Mr. Wattieor at least contact him.
He got evasive. There were times wherehe'd stop and he put his hands up,
but then he'd dart behind a car.
(08:24):
Lemme stop you real quick. Isall of this on body cam? Yes.
So what's happening isn't really indispute and you could almost play a
video of all the events leading up to.
It. That's funny that you put it that way.
That was sort of one of our running jokesin the trial is that there were half a
dozen different body cams,there was a halo cam,
and yet there was still a lot of disputeabout what happened because the body
(08:46):
cams do a certain somany frames per second,
and the halo is a differentframe per second. Yeah.
So regardless of the fact that therewere half a dozen different angles and
cameras,
there were still plenty of stuff forthe lawyers to argue about factually.
But in any event,
what I'm telling you are factsthat I don't think are in dispute.
But what was interesting is it's Julyand Mr. Wattie is wearing a hoodie and
(09:10):
he's got a bulge in the pocket of hishoodie, and that's concerning the police.
And he keeps reaching into that pocket.And so at some point the
police get him corneredand he reaches into
his hoodie pocket has the brilliantidea to throw the firearm that he's
got on his person away so thatit's not on him. The problem was,
(09:34):
so he had ducked behind a car and nowhe's on the sidewalk in front of the
Denver beer hall,
and he's got an Officer Rolandwho is right in front of him,
and then he's got OfficerRamos who is down the sidewalk.
And Officer Ramos at the time isbehind a car watching what's going down
with Jordan Watty. So JordanWatty reaches into his pocket,
(09:56):
and of course this gets all the policeofficers concerned. Weapons get drawn,
they're of course giving himcommands, show us your hands,
all this kind of stuff. He's notlistening, so he throws the weapon. Well,
when he does that, officer Roland,
who is facing Mr.Wadi with the beer hall behind Wadi,
opens fire and hits Wadi.Our defendant, officer Ramos,
(10:19):
who is down the block behind a car, hasnow left the car and is in the sidewalk,
but he's got the profileview of Jordan Wattie,
but then down the sidewalk fromJordan Wattie is the Outc crowd.
Everyone coming out of the bars,there's a food truck down there,
there's a lot of peoplestanding at a food truck.
Officer Ramos makes the decision toopen fire on Jordan Wattie as well.
(10:40):
And he fires two bullets that Ms.Jordan Wattie and go into the crowd and
injured six people, our six clients.
Okay, got it. So Siddhartha,
what are police officers supposedto do in that circumstance?
In other words, what didOfficer Ramos do wrong?
So both John and I have experiencein weapons handling and every
(11:02):
single officer,
every expert testified regardlessof whether it was their witness or
ours, that they are trained.
And it is ingrained in them thatthe final rule of weapon safety
is to know your target and what'sbeyond, beyond your target.
We were able then to show theDPD Denver Police Department
(11:26):
operation manual, and again, therewas still a lot of debate about it,
but it talks about how you can't shootwhen you're going to endanger other
people. The only exception to that,
if it's the person'sactually shooting at you,
and here we were also able toshow that when Officer Ramos fired
Mr. Wadi was already either fallingon the ground or on the ground for the
(11:50):
second shot,
and that Officer Ramos of justfear fired here towards a crowd.
So we were able to distinguishOfficer Ramos' conduct from the other
officer's conduct because noreasonable officer would have fired in
that position.It was just exceedingly dangerous.
What happened was six people thatgot shot and we were able to show
(12:14):
that those six people wereshot by Officer Ramos,
he obviously denied even though he hadpled guilty criminally to shooting them,
denied that he shot them.
And what should a reasonable officerdo in that situation? Not shoot,
provide, cover, wait, these are thethings these officers are trained to do.
And even his fellow officers talkedabout how those are the things
(12:38):
they were trained to do. That'swhat a reasonable officer should do.
We were also able to break down thevideo and show a lot of really great
kind of things that showed thatOfficer Ramos was not acting reasonably
how a reasonable officer should not.
He had his flashlightpointed the wrong direction,
and we were able to point that out in thetrial and have his other officers look
(12:59):
at that and question them about whetherwhat would happen when you point a
flashlight towards you, how insane thatwould be. They're like, that's insane.
And then show 'em the video.And they're like, oh yeah,
that's insane. So somecomical moments in the trial,
which is always fun when you have thoselittle tidbits that you don't bring out
until the trial you don't talk aboutuntil you're right in front of the jury
(13:24):
and it's just so comicallyinsane. Fortunately,
the harm that was caused was sosevere that when you juxtapose
those two,
that's how we get to a nearly$20 million jury verdict.
Yeah. Obviously the jury of the peers,being people in the Denver community,
(13:45):
do you take it from that verdict?
Maybe this is a dumb obvious questionthat Denver jurors are sort of fed up with
some of what they're seeingfrom the Denver police.
I think all jurors are kind of fed up.Obviously, you got to pick your jury.
There is some skill and there's some luckinvolved in that pool is I think these
were normal jurors. They weren't outoutliners, they weren't radicals.
(14:07):
I think they looked at what happenedand they looked at this situation,
they were just enraged by it, andthey were enraged by the conduct.
They were enraged that Denvernever held the officer accountable.
They were enraged by all these differenttypes of facts that we were able to
bring out. And rightfully so,
the conduct of Officer Ramerowas shocking and it was offensive
(14:30):
and it caused serious, serious harmto the public. And I think the public,
both in the actual ward ofinjury damages as well as the
punitive damages whichwere designed to punish,
sent that message to this officer andto the city that we won't tolerate
this type of behavior.
So one question that comes to mindinvolves the training piece that you
(14:53):
mentioned, because I'm sortof envisioning I've never,
I should say I very rarely shot a firearm,Siddhartha, you were in the military,
so I'm sure you have alot of training in that.
But I would think that itwould be instinctual if someone starts firing and I've
got a gun in my hand, I'm probablygoing to start firing too,
almost as a reactionary response.
So is that something that the policespecifically train in military?
(15:17):
So you're ingrained that just becausesomebody else is firing that you don't
fire? Maybe it's a dumb question.
It's not a dumb questionand I'll field it,
but they have specificrules of engagement and
parameters as far as when theyare able to use deadly force.
And so we were able to argue that thisdidn't even meet those criteria for
(15:39):
him to use deadly force. But thenalso, like Siddhartha was saying,
I mean we were able to bring out throughalmost every single law enforcement
witness that they are ingrainedwith the safety rules of handling
firearms. And the most important of whichis know your target and what's beyond.
And anecdotally,
anytime I've talked to afriend of mine that hunts
(16:03):
or knows anything about firearms, theminute I say the safety rules, they go,
oh yeah, know your target and beyond.
And these are people thatthese police officers,
they use firearm or they handlefirearms on a daily basis.
And so it's even more importantthat they follow those safety rules.
And they think that going back to whatSiddhartha was saying about the jury
(16:24):
being outraged,
it wasn't just that heflagrantly violated that rule,
but then the response toit of basically like, well,
I was still justified in shooting at him,
even though there were people behind him.
What was Officer Ram's testimony thatmaybe if there had been important people
in that crowd, he would've heldup and not fired. So presidents,
(16:49):
senators, people like that,
maybe that would've been a worsebackdrop than what he actually had.
I think when the defendant doesn'ttake responsibility for what we can all
say is just, come on, youpled criminally guilty,
take some responsibility,
and when you don't and you don'thave your client take responsibility
(17:10):
for what happened, you're goingto get these type of verdicts.
You're going to get these big punitivesthat are designed to punish because
Officer Ramos never saw a singleday in jail. If this was one of us,
we would be incarceratedfor the rest of our lives.
Officer Ramos wasn't firing. He wasallowed to resign Officer Ramos,
(17:31):
even though it didn'tcome out to the jury,
received back pay almost a yearof vacation and then allowed to
resign.
So I think when a jury keeps seeingand then keeps hearing the defendant
himself say, I didn't do anything wrong.
I think that's where jurors kindof get set and want to use the
putative damages as a wayto send a message that, no,
(17:55):
this isn't okay. You needto take responsibility.
No one's ever taken responsibilityfor Officer Ram's conduct,
and Officer Ramos certainly did it.
And so I think those are the trialskills that John was able to bring to the
case and really kind ofemphasize to the jury like, look,
this man isn't taking responsibility and.
Yeah, I understand that the guiltyplea was admitted to the jury.
(18:19):
How did that come in?
So it was a form of impeachment whenhe said he didn't shoot these people.
Then you get to bring in that.
I also think those maybe a small error,
not that it impacted it significantly.
So when a person pleadsguilty to an offense
and the elements of what they pled guiltyto are the same as what they're being
(18:42):
civilly brought to you couldbe stopped from arguing that
you didn't do this.
So we believe he actually should havebeen stopped from being able to argue that
he didn't shoot them. Youwould still have defenses.
But the judge kind of split the baby alittle bit here and went with a lot us to
bring in his impeachment.
(19:02):
Is that this is bringing backflashbacks to my criminal days,
which thankfully are 20 yearsin the rear view mirror.
Is that like an Alfred plea?
You could go in and plead tosomething to try to avoid having any
ramifications in a civil case?
Yeah. He didn't take an Alfred plea.
Okay.
Yeah.
So he didn't take a plea that wouldnot admit to the actual liability here.
(19:23):
He pled guilty.
So we were actually able to go in andgo through what he actually said to the
judge, what his rights werethat he gave up to a judge.
And I think that was a small factor.
I don't think it would've made thatmuch of a difference in the end.
I think the jury, theyweren't out that long.
They didn't need even that criminal piece.
(19:44):
Obviously it should have come in, butwhen he's saying, Nope, I didn't do this,
but I pled guilty, I think the judgelet it in for the impeachment purposes.
And John, were you telling me a story?
Was it Siddhartha's cross with theflashlight that you were saying,
or was it one ofSiddhartha's team members?
That was the whole issuewith the flashlight when the officer had it backwards.
(20:05):
Tell our listeners about thatstory. I thought it was comical.
Yeah, it was great becauseSiddhartha, who is, and by the way,
Keith, I have to say that theother lawyers on this case,
it was a pleasure trying it with them.
Siddhartha has got anextremely talented team,
and they were great to try a case with.And I would echo what you said earlier,
(20:25):
that if you've ever got a civilrights issue or a 1983 claim,
reach out to those guys.
They are the experts and theyare a pleasure to work with.
And we really had a fun timeat trial. But that being said,
watching Siddhartha direct oneof the officers and have him
basically criticize our defendant,
(20:46):
officer Ramos for the way that he handledthe flashlight without knowing he was
criticizing Officer Ramos for theway he was handling a flashlight was
masterful. Siddhartha walked himthrough the proper procedures and said,
how would you hold the flashlight?Oh, so if they held it like this,
that would not be okay, or youwouldn't authorize that you,
the officer was scoffing at it rollinghis eyes. It was like, oh, no way.
(21:10):
No way. And then Siddhartha, of course,
then showed him the video of OfficerRamos with the flashlight backwards,
and he is like, yep, that'swhat he's doing. So yeah,
it was masterful just the way that hewalked him right into it turned what
should have been afavorable witness for Ramos.
It was one of his colleagues intoa very favorable witness for us,
(21:30):
unbeknownst to the officer, whichis what made it so brilliant.
Siddhartha, how do you balance injectinga little bit of humor and having
fun in trial in a case that's thisserious with the injuries you're dealing
with?
I mean, I think in any case, youhave to have some fun with it.
You have to have a connection withthe jury. You're watching the jurors.
(21:51):
This was day seven or fiveor whatever it was of trial.
It wasn't the first thing wedid. We set the right tone.
We had got 'em to the point wherejurors had seen the seriousness of what
was going on, seen the trauma orclients had been up there crying.
They knew how serious it is. Itdoesn't mean you can't interject,
(22:12):
do something in a not comical way,
but in a way that's kind of likereally, there's only one conclusion.
And this is just, it's just crazybecause at the end, the officer,
you don't ask that greedy question.
The officer just sat there and kind ofjust had his mouth open because you don't
want to get him the opportunity toexplain that. You don't want to ask the
(22:33):
greedy question at thetrough kind of thing.
And so it can be a littlefunny in that way where,
because all the jurors knowwhat you're talking about,
the jurors have seen it and theofficer just isn't as aware of all the
details in the video.
They haven't spent hundreds and hundredsof hours examining the facts of the
case, dozens of hours watching the video.
(22:55):
Everyone on the team did.
So they're not as aware of everylittle minutia that we are.
So you can kind of walk 'em into that.
So it's fun when you got to doit and it works. It's great.
It doesn't always work, dad. Yougot to pivot and try something else.
So one of the things that I was mostimpressed with the verdict in this
case is I'm assuming that that'ssomething that you all talked about in
(23:18):
advance,
because I'm correct that he was on theverdict form as a non-party at fault.
Is that right?
Yeah.
So how did you frame theclosing to get a result of
zero comparative fault with that guy?
Well, me did the closing oneof the attorneys in the office,
and I think that's somethingreally important to talk about.
I think John and I werethere to do more advising and
(23:42):
to be kind of, I'm at my 50something jury trial, and John,
I couldn't imagine what number you're at.
And we were there more tosupport the real trial team.
And Omeed,
Sierra and Chris for my officedid just a phenomenal job from
day one of litigating this case,starting this case, investigating it,
(24:05):
experts depositions everything all theway through trial and now post-trial
motions and appellateissues and things like that.
So they did the work, theydid all the hard work.
I think John and I were really there.
We handled smaller witnesses andwe were there kind of to guide
and be a sounding board andsuggest avenues that the
(24:28):
real trial attorneys gotto actually then say, Nope,
I don't want to do that. I want to dothis. Or, okay, that's a good idea.
Let's adopt that. And so we took acouple witnesses off their plates,
but all the big hard workwas done by the team.
So they came up with a strategy.
They came up with how to argue that andhow to ask for the damages and break
(24:49):
down those damages.
They were the ones staying afterJohn and I would go home at a
reasonable hour afterdinner, seven, eight o'clock,
they would still behere until one o'clock,
two o'clock in the morning getting readyfor those openings and closings and
things like that. We would sit andpractice jury selection with them,
(25:10):
and then they would stay and work on itand enhance it and take the feedback.
So I think those are the people we shouldreally get the credit for this win and
not John and I.
Yeah, for sure. For sure. Andthey're an extremely talented bunch.
But as far as how we argued it, I thinkOmeed put most of the blame on Ramos,
and I think he did concedemaybe a small number for
(25:33):
Jordan Wadi because he is anidiot. But that was basically it.
But Jordan Wattie didn't pleadguilty to shooting these people.
Officer Ramos did. And I think thatwas really the tack that Omeed took.
Yeah, I think that was exactly it. Andalso talking about like, look, yes,
they were there because, butWadi was throwing the gun away.
And then he showed these stills of whenthe officers fired and the gun is all
(25:57):
the way over here in the air.
And then talked about how yourcomparative fault was between Ramos and
Wadi, not between Wadiand the other officers.
So let's talk about where Ramoswas when he shot the evidence
really made it clear that where Ramossaid he was shooting just wasn't true,
(26:17):
just couldn't have been true.
And the expert evidence that we were ableto bring in and that the team brought
in showed that it just couldn't be true.
And so once you identified that this iswhere Ramos shot, it's kind like, well,
how could Ramos be at fault?He's lied on the ground,
the old gun in his hand havingalready been shot multiple times,
and then this is when Ramo shut. SoI think juxtapositioning, the photos,
(26:42):
the closing and up allthe evidence is how me,
Sierra and Chris were ableto kind of freak that out.
One thing I sort of sense from you,Siddhartha, is this sure seems like,
and I know from speaking withJohn, this seemed like a fun trial.
I don't know if that's insensitivegiven what your clients went through,
but that sure seems like a fun trial.
Did you guys have funwhen you were in there?
(27:03):
I think the attorneys alwayshave fun when we're in trial.
I enjoy being in trial.
You can tell John is just naturalin the courtroom and he's just
exceedingly comfortable in thecourtroom. So I think all trials are fun.
It's hard work, but it's fun.
But I think this trial was maybe alittle bit even more fun for John and I
because we got to kind of sit back andbe the old people in the courtroom and
(27:27):
just the team did the hard work,everything in preparation for this trial,
coordinating paralegals,coordinating the witness,
and it's the attorneys dialing it all in.
John and I really just got tobe sounding boards and push back
on different ideas and helpdevelop this next generation
of amazing trial attorneys.
(27:48):
And I think it's something that allof us who are maybe in past our prime
or in our prime or whateveryou want to call it,
we should be taking a heart that thereis a next generation of attorneys who can
do an amazing job. You just got togive them the opportunity and the right
training to do it. If they're trained,
they're working hard given theopportunity. I did a trial,
(28:10):
this was my third trial in 12months. And one of the big mistakes,
we got a seven figureverdict in the first one,
and we got a seven figure verdictin the second one as well.
But I think we would'vegot more if I didn't close,
I should have let one ofmy other attorneys close.
I had a larger role in thattrial, and I took on closing.
(28:33):
And I think if the jury would've hearda different voice and a different
sound, hearing the case from a differentperspective, we would've gotten war.
Yes, I am running, I quarterbacking this.
It's something I learned there that Ithink I'm going to carry through from
every trial that we don't need to bethe ones who do it. We may have more
(28:54):
experience,
but you've got to let these otherattorneys have this opportunity.
And I don't think John or I would'vedone as good of a job as they
did, just flat out say wewouldn't have done as good trips.
They were way more preparedthan we could ever have been.
This was the first trial for someof 'em. So they were so prepared.
(29:15):
Every question, every impeachment,every idea was thought out.
And so I think you just got to let thesenewer attorneys take the leading role
and we got to sit with the advisors.
That's a great point. Ifyou remember Siddhartha,
there was a point where you andI were talking about me doing the
liability part of the closingand the Omeed arguing damages.
(29:40):
And then we decided that, I think itwas Omeed that stepped up and said,
I think the jury needs to hearone voice, not two. He said,
and I want that voice to be mine. Isaid, okay, all right. I'll tell you,
I'm glad that we did it that waybecause he's a brilliant worder.
He's great at arguing. And like you said,
he spent way more time runningthrough his arguments and crafting his
(30:04):
arguments than I wouldhave. And it really showed,
and I think that's a big reasonwhy we got the verdict that we did.
75% Of this trial was done by attorneyswho've been practicing less than five
years. So Chris did jury selection,
Sierra did opening Sierra,
Chris and Omeed did the key witnesses.
A lot of our clients, John did hisclient of course, stuff like that.
(30:28):
And then Omeed did Officer Ramos.
He had taken that deposition aswell. And then Omeed did closing.
So this was their victory,
and we just got to sit here and talkto you about a hard work they did. So.
They should be the ones on this podcastnext time, next time we'll get 'em on.
Yeah, do.
Another episode with just them.
(30:48):
I think it would be interesting to havethe three of them have three attorneys
who have been in their five, sixyears or under and talking to, well,
what did you do to prepare?Some of 'em have been Anita,
some of 'em did trial in school. Whatdid you do to prepare for this trial?
What support was goodand what support was bad,
(31:08):
or what support was missing thatSidart could have given you?
Where could he have given youmore support and things like that?
That might take a whole podcast though.
Yes, any series.
And I think that would bereally interesting to hear from him and hear how they
prepared for this trial.
And I think a lot of younger attorneyscould learn a lot from those three.
(31:29):
I learned a lot from them.I'll tell you that flat out,
I learned a lot from those three.
So that's it. This is a done deal.This is part one. Ladies and gentlemen.
We are going to come back with part twowhere we're going to have these younger
lawyers on.
They're going to talk about what theydid to prepare for this monster case with
the monster verdict.
(31:49):
And it cannot wait for the secondpart of this podcast. But Siddhartha,
John, congratulationson just a phenomenal,
righteous,
fun result on a trial thatmight effectuate some change.
We didn't get a chanceto touch on some change,
but hope springs eternal thatperhaps somebody is going to learn
(32:12):
something to prevent these types ofthings from happening in the future.
Hopefully, clients one dayget to see their hard results,
the results of all the hard workthat went into this. So Siddhartha,
thank you so much for taking timeout of your day to join us. John,
good to see you again. Weabsolutely not see you tomorrow,
but congratulations to you bothon an amazing, amazing result.
(32:35):
And tune in next time forpart two of this trial end
result where we get to talk to allthe worker bees that did all the heavy
lifting here and really gained somewisdom from that group of people.
So thank you both again.
Thank you for audience. Thanks Keith.
Thank you for joining us.
We hope you've gained valuable insightsand inspiration from today's courtroom
(32:55):
warriors. And thank youfor being in the arena.
Make sure to subscribe and join us nexttime as we continue to dissect real
cases and learn fromColorado's top trial lawyers.
Our mission is to empowerour legal community,
helping us to become better trial lawyersto effectively represent our clients.
Keep your connection toColorado's best trial lawyers
(33:16):
alive at www.thectlc.com.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com