This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - The judge who acquitted Eric Parker of a federal civil rights charge is initiating a contempt of court investigation against Madison Police Chief Larry Muncey and police Captain Terrell Cook.

In a newly unsealed court order U.S. District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala said during Parker’s first trial she was informed that Muncey and Cook may have violated the court’s instructions regarding contact with witnesses.

“The evidence in the sealed record pertains to three topics: Chief Muncey and Captain Cook’s alleged violation of the Court’s Rule 615 sequestration order, Chief Muncey’s alleged efforts to intimidate trial witnesses and to retaliate against those witnesses, and possible efforts by Chief Muncey and other senior personnel in the MPD to influence the testimony of officers who might be called to testify during any of the legal proceedings—civil or criminal—relating to the February 6, 2015 encounter between Mr. Patel and Officers Parker and Slaughter …” the court wrote.

Muncey declined to comment Monday afternoon, saying he was under a court gag order. His attorney, Jerry Barclay, also declined to comment. The City of Madison, through Mayor Troy Trulock, has also informed WHNT News 19 there will be no comment, with deference to Parker's pending State case.

A number of the Madison Police Department officers testified during Parker's two trials that his actions with Patel were appropriate and not contrary to department policy.

The judge said she's delaying a decision on whether a criminal investigation into possible witness tampering is appropriate.

“To enable Mr. Patel’s civil action to proceed without the complications that a broader criminal investigation might create, the Court will delay a decision about a request for a criminal investigation of alleged witness tampering," the court wrote.

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

Parker was charged with using excessive force in the takedown of Patel. The encounter left Patel partially paralyzed. Two trials were held on the excessive force charge and juries deadlocked both times. Earlier this month Haikala granted a defense motion acquitting Parker of the charge, ending the federal criminal case against him.

Following the incident Parker was suspended by the police department and they initiated a misdemeanor assault charge against him. That case is still pending in Limestone County.

The judge’s order relates in part to the testimony of 10 Madison Police Department officers who testified during the first Parker trial on Sept. 3 and 4.

The following day, the judge’s order says, Parker’s attorney Robert Tuten notified the court that he believed senior Madison Police Department officials had “engaged in conduct that intimidated trial witnesses for the defense.”

Tuten told the court that a police sergeant told him he was confronted by Muncey at the police station after he’d testified. Tuten said the sergeant described the conversation with Muncey as harsh and intimidating and he feared he’d lose his job as a sergeant.

The court held a telephone conference and then a hearing on the matter, where several police witnesses testified.

The court also noted that Muncey and Cook were subject to the court’s orders regarding not hearing trial testimony of other witnesses.

“The evidence discloses that after the Court ordered Chief Muncey to leave the courtroom, he returned to the police department and began reading media blogs that contained nearly verbatim accounts of the testimony of subordinate officers,” the judge wrote.

The judge said Muncey also sent another officer to court to monitor testimony.

Muncey also sent an email to six officers who testified during the trial.

The email reads:

“Officers:

According to WHNT 19 and the Huntsville Times, each of you testified under oath that Madison City Police Policy supported Parker’s use of force on Mr. Patel, and in the same situation, you would have done the same. Please provide me with a written statement explaining if theses [sic] reports are correct; if they are not correct, explain what you did say.

Send the reports directly to me (email) within 24 Hours of Parker’s case being decided, not before.”

The court also noted that Muncey’s attorney addressed the conduct during a closed hearing.

“During a closed proceeding that took place between the first and second trials, counsel for Chief Muncey stated, 'It was [Chief Muncey’s] intention from the outset in sending emails to address training matters and liability issues. It’s no secret there’s a big lawsuit filed in this case. And part of his job as chief is to minimize the city and the department’s liability,''' the court wrote.

The court said several officers testified in the Sept. 8 hearing that Muncey’s conduct made them nervous and fearful of reprisal.