Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 03-26-2022

Case Style:

Elizabeth Epps, et al. v. City and County of Denver, et al.

Case Number: 1:20-cv-01878-RBJ

Judge: R. Brooke Jackson

Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Andreas E. Moffett, Anya Amalia Havriliak, Arielle Kay Herzberg, Colin Michael O'Brien. Edwin Packard Aro, Gerardo Mijares-Shafai, Leslie Claire Bailey, Mark Silverstein, Matthew J. Douglas, Michael J. Sebba, Mindy Amanda Gorin, Patrick Conor Reidy, Robert Reeves Anderson, Sara R. Neel, Timothy R. Macdonald, Diana K. Sterk

Defendant's Attorney: Andrew David Ringel, David Charles Cooperstein, Hollie Renee Birkholz, Katherine Hoffman, Lindsay Michelle Jordan, Robert Charles Huss, Robert Alan Weiner, Lindsay Jordan

Description: Denver, Colorado civil rights lawyers sued Defendants claiming that Defendants violated their Constitutional rights through the use of excessive force during racial justice rallies in 2020.

The Plaintiffs who all participated in Black Lives Matter claimed that their free speech rights and rights to assemble and protest violated by the City of Denver and members of the Denver Police Department.

They claimed that the City of Denver should be held liable because of the decision by city officials who gave officers too much leniency in using lethal devices.

Zach Packard was shot in the head.

The city argued in court that the police made mistakes, but they were overwhelmed by the destruction and size of the protests.

The Defendants claimed that there use of violence against the protesters was justified because of violent and destructive activities by some of the protesters.

Outcome: 03/25/2022 338 MOTION for Leave to Communicate with Jurors Post-Trial by Defendants Jonathan Christian, City and County of Denver. (Birkholz, Hollie) (Entered: 03/25/2022)
03/25/2022 339 ORDER granting 338 MOTION for Leave to Communicate with Jurors Post-Trial. This Court routinely permits counsel to communicate with jurors after trials, as it believes that this is one way for lawyers to improve their advocacy skills. I do not place limits on where the communication occurs or what is discussed. My requirements are twofold: first, the juror or jurors must agree to have the communication, and if they inform counsel that they prefer not to discuss the case or verdict, that preference will be honored without further discussion; second, no juror will be criticized for the verdict or for his or her views of the evidence or the law. Any interview must be civil, courteous, respectful, and designed to learn how the attorney's presentation was received and how he or she could do better in the future, not to retry the case in any way. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 3/25/2022. Text Only Entry(rbjsec.) (Entered: 03/25/2022)
03/25/2022 341 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge R. Brooke Jackson: Jury Trial Day Fifteen completed on 3/25/2022. JURY VERDICT. Court Reporter: Kevin Carlin. (jdyne, ) (Entered: 03/25/2022)
03/25/2022 342 Jury Verdict - Unredacted - Level 3 - Viewable by Court Only. (jdyne, ) (Entered: 03/25/2022)
03/25/2022 343 JURY VERDICT - redacted (jdyne, ) (Entered: 03/25/2022)

Plaintiffs' verdict for $14 million.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case