posted September 24, 2004 12:02 PM            

These images taken from a video that was shot by the Eureka, Calif., Police Department, according to Headwaters Forest Defenders, show what Headwaters Forest Defenders allege are officers swabbing the eyes of demonstrators with liquid pepper spray at the office of U.S. Rep. Frank Riggs in Eureka, Calif., Oct. 16, 1997. A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004, when a second jury deadlocked on the question of whether police went too far by swabbing pepper spray on the eyes of bound, nonviolent logging protesters in 1997. (AP Photo/Headwaters Forest Defenders, File)

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston declared a mistrial after jurors in her San Francisco courtroom told her they were hopelessly deadlocked in 6 1/2 hours of deliberations over two days. Several jurors told reporters afterward that the vote had been 6-2 in favor of the plaintiffs, who argued that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent demonstrators was excessive force.

The jury in the first trial in 1998, a year after the incidents, deadlocked 4-4. The activists and their lawyers quickly announced plans Wednesday for a third trial.

"We will win next time,'' declared attorney J. Tony Serra. "It'll be a different kind of trial. It'll still be political. It'll still be vehement.''

"It is a long haul,'' said plaintiff Spring Lundberg, 24. "Post-Sept. 11, it may be hard for people to realize that a badge, a uniform may be misused.''

The defendants -- Humboldt County, its current and former sheriff and the city of Eureka -- argued that pepper spray was a temporarily painful but safe option for dislodging demonstrators who occupy private property and resist legitimate demands to leave. They noted that a state advisory commission approved guidelines for applying liquid pepper spray alongside the eyes of demonstrators in 1998.

Defense lawyer Nancy Delaney said she would ask Illston to dismiss the suit rather than retry it. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker granted Delaney's request for a dismissal after the first trial, saying no reasonable juror could find excessive force, but he was overruled by an appeals court and later removed from the case.

The suit stems from demonstrations during a three-week period in September and October 1997 at Pacific Lumber Co. headquarters in Scotia, at a company logging site and at the Eureka office of a pro-logging congressman.

The protesters, including the eight plaintiffs, locked themselves together inside heavy metal sleeves and refused to leave. After warnings, officers applied liquid pepper spray to the corners of their eyes with Q-tips, then sprayed the chemical in the faces of those who still refused to unlock. Videotapes of demonstrators screaming in pain were shown on national television and played for the jury.

In the past, the sheriff's office had used electric grinders to cut through the metal sleeves. But Sheriff Dennis Lewis and his chief deputy, Gary Philp, who is now the sheriff, said they changed their policy in 1997 after officers voiced fears that the grinders would injure someone or start a fire, and after they reviewed studies that concluded pepper spray was safe.

The plaintiffs said they suffered lasting physical and psychological effects from the pepper spray, and accused the sheriff's office of acting at the behest of Pacific Lumber, the county's largest employer, to crack down on a growing movement protesting the logging of old-growth forests.

After the mistrial, juror Elva Ibarra of Livermore said the officers had gone too far.

"They used pepper spray on nonviolent people,'' she said. "They had other options.''

The two jurors who voted for a finding of reasonable force declined to speak to reporters. But the jury foreman -- E.M. Feigenbaum, a psychiatrist from San Rafael who sided with the plaintiffs -- said the dissident jurors "thought pepper spray was not so terrible, that it was only temporary. I tried to point out that there was post-traumatic stress disorder.''

Illston made a last-minute attempt to settle the case Wednesday, calling lawyers into her chambers after jurors first reported they were stymied. But the judge ran into the same obstacle that has thwarted settlement efforts for years: The plaintiffs want Humboldt County and Eureka to stop using pepper spray against political demonstrators, a demand the law enforcement agencies reject.

posted September 24, 2004 09:47 PM              

quote:

---

...a second jury deadlocked on the question of whether police went too far by swabbing pepper spray on the eyes of bound, nonviolent logging protesters in 1997.

---

What kind of sadists were those juries made up of???

And what kind of sadists were those police??? In those photos they remind me of eight-year-old boys with a small animal caught in a jar, torturing it.

Makes me sick to my stomach.