Jurors hear closing arguments, begin deliberations in police shooting civil trial

Jurors heard different versions of a 2016 police shooting as attorneys for Eugene police and a man shot by officers each gave their closing arguments Tuesday, Sept. 30.

After deliberating for about three hours Tuesday afternoon, jurors did not reach a verdict. The six-person jury will reconvene Wednesday, having been told by Senior U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken they must reach a unanimous decision.

The closing arguments capped a trial that began last week.

How do the accounts differ?

Edgar T. Rodriguez, shot multiple times, took the stand Sept. 22, as part of his excessive force lawsuit.

Rodriguez has also alleged battery and negligence by police in their response to a 911 call he made a few minutes before 1 a.m., Sept. 10, 2016, to get help in dealing with an intoxicated guest at his apartment who was behaving violently.

He told jurors he held a .50 caliber Desert Eagle handgun by its barrel when police shot him. He testified he was standing about two feet from his apartment door en route to putting the gun in his car for safekeeping. 

Rodriguez also testified he didn’t immediately know he was shot by police, and that he flung the handgun away from his body.

But his testimony clashed with an account given by the officer who fired the first shots at Rodriguez.

Mark Hubbard, who told jurors he retired from the Eugene police department in January, said on the night in 2016, he encountered a man holding a gun who raised it in his direction. Hubbard told jurors he could see the eyes of the man holding the gun, and that he thought he was going to be killed when he drew his weapon and fired at Rodriguez.

Hubbard also testified that the encounter took place in a different location than described by Rodriguez.

What’s at stake?

In a civil trial — unlike in a criminal case — the decision by jurors determines if any monetary award will go to Rodriguez.

Damages related to pain, suffering and “loss of enjoyment of life” could “easily be in the range of $10 million,” Derek Larwick, an attorney for Rodriguez, told jurors during closing arguments Tuesday. “But that is for you to discuss as a group.”

Larwick also said medical costs incurred by Rodriguez amounted to more than $3 million in economic damages.

The jurors decide based on a preponderance of evidence standard, meaning their verdict is based on what’s more probably true than not true.

For the negligence claim, jurors must use what’s known as a comparative negligence standard. This means they assign, on a percentage basis, the amount of fault that falls on Rodriguez relative to the police, with the total equal to 100%.

But the city and the police officers named in the suit also raised a defense of criminal conduct by Rodriguez against the battery and negligence claims, so jurors must consider whether it was proven more likely than not that Rodriguez tried to commit first-degree assault against Hubbard. 

What did jurors not hear about?

Rodriguez had a conviction vacated in connection with the night of the shooting, but this information never was shared with jurors.

A nonunanimous jury in Lane County Circuit Court found Rodriguez guilty of unlawfully using a weapon.

Rodriguez appealed the decision. But, while that appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 ruled a unanimous jury was required to convict someone of a serious offense, and Lane County prosecutors declined to retry Rodriguez, according to court documents.

Aiken, in an opinion issued before the start of the trial, wrote that Rodriguez and the city “are broadly in agreement that no reference should be made to the prior criminal case.”

What happened Tuesday?

Ben Miller, an assistant city attorney, told jurors Rodriguez “made some exceptionally bad decisions that night that were most likely compounded by alcohol.” Miller told jurors that Rodriguez’s blood alcohol level was 0.14% at the hospital a half-hour after the shooting.

In Oregon, a driver with an alcohol level of 0.08% or higher is considered to be driving under the influence of intoxicants.

Miller told jurors that accounts of the shooting are “largely diametrically opposed.” 

Addressing the jury, Miller told them Rodriguez never told a 911 call taker he had been holding a gun. Miller said he “cannot get into his mind,” referring to Rodriguez.

“Twenty seconds after the [911] call, he’s out there with a gun,” MIller said.

Regarding testimony that Rodriguez flung his gun more than 30 feet, Miller asked jurors, “Is that realistic?”

Larwick, the attorney for Rodriguez, told jurors that Rodriguez had no reason to hold his gun in the way Hubbard described from the witness stand.

“He’s not a cop killer. He’s not trying to go shoot police,” Larwick told jurors. He also said Rodriguez, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, is not an anti-law enforcement person.

“This is not a political case. This is a case about the facts,” Larwick said.