By: John Bush
After ten hours of grueling testimony, objections, and a few shenanigans from the spectators, Day two of the Antonio Buehler trial kept up the same fast paced excitement you would expect from a television courtroom drama. Antonio is being tried for Class C Misdemeanor Failure to Obey the Order of an Officer in association with his infamous New Years Day 2012 arrest where he took pictures of Officers Oborski and Snider and verbally admonished them for violently ripping a young woman from the passenger side of her friend’s automobile. Day two of the trial included the Defense’s examination of Officer Oborski, testimony from Antonio Buehler, an officer crossing the thin blue line, and the State’s calling two last minute witnesses whose testimony seemed to favor the Defense more than the Prosecution.
Oborski Ignorant of Constitution and Legal Standards
Officer Oborski took the stand at 9:08 AM and was promptly questioned about a use of force training he received shortly after the New Years Day incident. He was not able to recall the details of the incident but Buehler’s attorney, Millie Thompson, quickly reminded him that part of the training included instruction that body language is important and officers should do everything they can to redirect people, not escalate situations. Oborski was then asked which Amendment to the US Constitution deals with search and seizure to which the officer replied, “I think the 4th, I’m not sure.” The prosecutor, Matt Mccabe, then objected stating, “the officer is not a Constitutional scholar and shouldn’t have to know the details of the Constitution.” If that wasn’t enough to show the lack of knowledge Oborski has when it comes to the laws that make up the foundation of his job, when asked about Terry Stops (from Terry v. Ohio ruling that officers may only detain someone if they “reasonable suspicion” to believe they have or will commit a crime), Officer Oborski was not able to give any specifics about the standard which officers use every day they are on duty to determine whether they have the authority to stop and question someone.
Oborski Perjures Himself
On day one of the trial, both Oborski and Snider testified on multiple occasions that Buehler had told them to stop what they were doing during their interaction with Norma Pizana, the woman who was pulled from the passenger side of the pulled over vehicle. Millie asked Oborski to review a document from September of 2012 in which he had testified under oath that Buehler had told them to stop what they were doing. It should be noted that in all the video that was shown in court, at no point is Buehler heard telling the officers to stop what they are doing. Throughout the trial, Oborski also stuck to his claim that Buehler spat on him during their altercation, something that video and witness testimony appears to contradict.
No Spit No Swipe
From early on, it was claimed by Oborski that the reason he arrested Antonio was because he spat on him. One of the original charges levied against Antonio was felony harassment of a public official, also known as spitting on an officer. While a grand jury no-billed Antonio on that charge, Oborski is sticking by his initial claim. Upon Millie asking Oborski about the spit, the State objected to relevancy. The Defense rebutted citing case law that says the Defense has the right to call the witness‘ credibility in to question and she was planning to do just that. On day 1, Oborski testified, “Buehler and I were close, at one point, I don’t know when, a glob of spit got on my face.” On day 2, he told a different story and was able to pinpoint when the spit took place, however when asked when the wipe happened, he was unable to firmly state when that action occurred. All four of the videos shown in court do not show anything resembling the wiping of his face. It was also revealed during Oborski’s testimony that his uniform was taken in as evidence and had a DNA test performed on it to see if DNA was present from Buehler’s spit. The test came back showing no DNA was on his uniform.
Thin Blue Line Crossed
The thin blue line, the unwritten police compact which holds that officers should get each others back no matter the circumstance, was crossed on day two of the Antonio Buehler trial as the Defense called current Austin Police Officer Jermaine Hopkins to the stand. Hopkins told the court that he was testifying in his personal capacity and he was doing so out of concern for Buehler’s rights. His testimony was critical to the defense’s case. If the state is able to convince the jury that Buehler did in fact disobey the order of a police officer, the defense must show the jury that the order given was in fact unlawful. To do this, Millie is making the case that Buehler was well within his rights to film the police and even express his verbal disapproval of their actions. Hopkin’s testimony showed that verbal expression alone is not enough to be considered interference nor would it in any way constitute reasonable suspicion which is necessary in order to detain someone. His testimony was especially crucial as Oborski and Snider, at the direction of the Prosecutor, had previously told the court that reasonable suspicion was when someone merely seemed out of place.
Hopkins has a history of going against the grain at APD. During his testimony Friday, it was revealed that he is currently on administrative leave for taking a complaint of discrimination outside of the chain of command. For bringing forward the complaint, Hopkins stated APD retaliated against him witholding his overtime pay. He later got the Department of Labor involved and they decided against APD.
This time around, Hopkins’ crossing of the thin blue line will cost him more than overtime pay. During the trial, Millie Thompson asked Officer Hopkins if he has faced retaliation for his role in testifying on behalf of Buehler’s defense. Hopkin’s replied stating that upon his supervisor hearing he was subpoenaed and would be testifying in the case, he told him he would no longer have a job after October 30th.
Buehler Takes the Stand
Antonio took the stand at 2:52 PM on day 2 of the trial. His testimony was cool, calm, and calculated. Buehler began his testimony by recounting minute by minute exactly what happened in some of the videos from the morning of New Years Day. He did so in a manner that was far more vivid and articulate than Oborski or Snider. At one point, as Buehler described how Norma cried out for help, Buehler became emotional and struggled to hold back his tears. The prosecutor, Matt Mccabe, was able to bully some of the previous defense witnesses, but Beuhler was not having any of it. Early in Buehler’s testimony, as he explained that the manner in which the officers handled Norma was a torture move known as “strappado”, the prosecutor chuckled. Buehler, without skipping a beat, rebuked the prosecutor saying, “Strappado is not funny Mr. McCabe.” This was one of many examples of the prosecutor, Matt McCabe, being visibly disrespectful during the trial.
Buehler’s testimony also included much of the back story that he had not previously revealed publicly. For example, Buehler testified about a rather alarming statement made by Officer Oborski out of the earshot of any microphones that may have picked up the statement. Buehler said that after being forcefully pulled out of the Breath Alcohol Testing Center where officers claimed he broke the breathalyzer by blowing too hard in to the machine, Oborski told Buehler, “you didn’t know what fuck was going on.You fucked with the wrong cop and now you’re gonna fucking pay.” At this point, there was a definite intensity in the air. It was evident this wasn’t a typical Class C Misdemeanor case we were dealing with.
State Witnesses Testify in Favor of Defense’s Case
After Buehler’s testimony, it was assumed we would be going straight to closing arguments. This was not the case however as the State decided to call two last minute witnesses. The state called Officer Snider back the to stand in an apparent attempt to share what the Defense’s witness, Jermaine Hopkins, had previously told Snider about the case. Upon the State asking Snider to recount what Hopkins had told him, the Defense quickly objected on the ground of hearsay. Judge Solomon sustained the objection, and the witness was dismissed.
The second witness was APD cadet instructor, Officer Carillo. The state was attempting to counter the testimony given by Jermaine Hopkins which favored Buehler’s defense that the order given by Oborski was in fact an unlawful order. When asked by the defense about the 4th Amendment, Officer Carillo was just as clueless as Officer Oborski. Like Oborski, Carillo was also unable to state specifics about Terry Stops. The defense then managed to use the State’s witness to further their line of reasoning. In describing a hypothetical which just so happened to mirror the incident from New Years Day, Carillo confirmed to the court that the actions of the hypothetical person described did not in fact constitute reasonable suspicion. He even went so far as to state that without reasonable suspicion, for an officer to put their hands on a person in a manner the same as what Oborski did to Buehler, could be considered assault. It was clear that the State’s last minute attempt was out of desperation and it ended up backfiring and furthering the Defense’s position.
The Trial Continues……..
After over 18 hours of proceedings, there is still more to go. The judge consulted with the jury as to whether or not they wanted to continue in to the evening or come back on Monday. By now it was 5:21 PM. The jury decided they had enough for one day and with that, the judge called the days proceedings to a close.
The Liberty Beat will be continuing our coverage of the trial from start to finish. Visit our Twitter Feed to see the play by play of Day 1 and 2 at http://twitter.com/thelibertybeat.
We will soon have a full report on the proceedings of Day 3.
To read our Day One Report, follow this link: http://thelibertybeat.com/liberty-beat-special-report-day-one-in-the-antonio-buehler-trial/