muncey.JPG

Madison Police Chief Larry Muncey (al.com)

(Sarah Cole)

Fourteen months later, the violent sidewalk takedown of an Indian citizen continues to roil the small Madison Police Department, as a dozen officers once again made their way to the federal courthouse in Huntsville.

This time they came to testify against the chief.

Most were called by the special prosecutor appointed to pursue criminal charges for contempt of court against Chief Larry Muncey and his senior officer Captain Terrell Cook. The two stood accused of communicating with trial witnesses last fall in violation of a federal court order.

Nearly 10 hours later, after a day of testimony from junior officers who felt threatened by the chief and lengthy legal wrangling over who knew which court order when, U.S. District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala dropped the case against Capt. Cook.

But she is going to take her time to consider the many mistakes of Chief Muncey.

The trouble began during the first mistrial of Officer Eric Parker in September of 2015.

Parker, a young Madison patrol officer, on Feb. 6, 2015, had responded to a call about a suspicious man walking on a sidewalk in Madison. Sureshbhai Patel did not speak English and during the confused encounter Parker slammed Patel to the ground, leaving the Patel in need of spinal surgery and sparking an international incident.

Judge Madeline Haikala

The Department of Justice launched a civil rights case in March. During the first federal trial, the judge ordered potential witnesses not discuss the case with other witnesses. Chief Muncey came under that rule.

But Chief Muncey, when asked to leave the courtroom, sent another officer, Sgt. Lamar Anderson, to observe testimony on his behalf.

Then Muncey emailed officers who testified that the takedown did not violate departmental policy and demanded they explain their testimony. He also read media accounts of the case and grilled one officer about his testimony.

The officers recounted the violations in a sealed hearing on Sept. 8 and again in open court today.

"I think everyone agrees that the order was violated," said special prosecutor Anthony Joseph in his closing statements after 6 p.m. "He did not come into this court with clean hands in regard to his operations as a witness."

But Jerry Barclay, attorney for Muncey, argued that no one ever explained the rule to Muncey. To make matters more confusing, Muncey had been designated as an expert witness, meaning he could sit in the courtroom and listen to other testimony. Then, after a couple days, the federal prosecutors decided not to call him and he was asked to leave.

Muncey testified that no one told him why or what the rules were, that an FBI agent just used a hand gesture to indicate he should leave the courtroom immediately.

"You honor, it was a mistake, I regret it horribly," he told her of sending the emails to request reports from six officers who testified in support of Parker. "If I could change it, I would."

Barclay also repeatedly argued that while Muncey violated the court order, he did not intend to violate the order. The criminal contempt finding requires Muncey have acted willfully, meaning the case turned on the exact same issue the federal team failed to prove against Parker: That he meant to do it.

But Judge Haikala had her doubts and several times indicated as much.

Muncey told her that he did not believe that Parker should have been charged with a federal civil rights violation and did not support the case nor seek to influence the outcome.

Instead, he said his concerns were twofold. First, he was concerned about how officers comported themselves. Second, he wanted to reduce liability for Madison.

The court appointed a team of three special prosecutors to handle the criminal contempt hearing on April 12, 2016 (AL.com)

He told the judge that one officer wore loud colors, like on Miami Vice, to court, and another slouched as he testified. He said others seemed to have no problem with a sidewalk takedown he thought violated both policy and state law.

"That makes the city and the department look bad and the world is watching," he said, explaining why he sent Sgt. Lamar Anderson to observe the trial.

Muncey said if anyone had explained the court order he would not have communicated with witnesses nor read news accounts nor sent Anderson. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Posey, who twice tried Parker, testified that he did not inform Muncey of the rule.

Judge Haikala, who acquitted Parker in January and then brought the contempt case against Muncey, also said she did not inform Muncey.

"If they would have, I assure you, I would not have violated the order," said Muncey.

But Judge Haikala seized on his concerns about dress.

She said that Muncey ordered officers wear dark suits or dress uniforms to court. She asked what he would think if someone came to court in a dark suit, but one covered with sequins. Would that meet his dress code? "No," he answered.

She asked if he would view that as a mistake. "No, ma'am," answered Muncey.

"Why couldn't you just wait until after the Parker trial to send your emails?" she asked.

Muncey said that the notion that department policy allowed police to stop, frisk and throw pedestrians to the pavement was incorrect and created a liability issue for Madison. He said if anything happened, if anyone else was injured, the email showed he was taking corrective action.

As for Capt. Cook, the hearing revealed that he was mainly acting on order from Muncey in sending the sergeant to observe the trial. Cook had no involvement in the emails that led officers last September to report feeling threatened.

Madison Police Chief Larry Muncey outside the federal courthouse in Huntsville on April 12, 2016 (AL.com)

In closing, even the prosecutor couldn't muster much interest in Cook's conduct. "I do think he was following orders," said Joseph.

Judge Haikala said she may issue a ruling on Muncey by the end of the week.

Before wrapping, she alluded to Muncey's testimony that he was surprised that an email about testimony would seem threatening to officers.

"If you could remember what it was like to be a patrol officer and not to be chief, to get an email from your chief, then maybe you would have stopped to think twice," said Judge Haikala.