Handcuffed man threatened no one before Millvale officer Tased him, witness says |

Handcuffed man threatened no one before Millvale officer Tased him, witness says

If a Millvale police officer thought a handcuffed suspect was a risk to himself or others when she shocked him with a Taser, she would have put him in shackles afterward or taken other steps to eliminate that danger, a federal prosecutor argued Tuesday.

Since Officer Nicole Murphy was simply irritated with Thomas Jason James Smith’s obnoxious behavior, she walked back to her desk and resumed doing her paperwork, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Cindy Chung.

“She just snapped,” Chung told a federal jury in closing arguments on the second day of the government’s prosecution of Murphy. The jury will start deliberations Wednesday.

The government contends Murphy used the Taser at least three times on Smith without justification, violating his civil rights.

Murphy didn’t testify during the trial. Her attorney, Robert Stewart, told jurors that she didn’t need to.

“She has no burden to say one thing,” he said. “She did not even have a burden to put one person on the stand.”

Murphy, 30, of Shaler — who also goes by Nichole Murphy — pleaded not guilty to violating the civil rights of Smith.

She faces up to 10 years in prison. Because the charge is a felony, a guilty verdict would end her law enforcement career — even if she avoids jail.

Millvale paid Smith $37,500 to settle a civil lawsuit. The borough suspended Murphy without pay pending the outcome of the criminal case.

Murphy and former Officer Casey Bonincontro arrested Smith on charges of public drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Bonincontro removed him from the police station’s holding cell when Smith started banging his head against the cement wall and put him on the floor in the center of the patrol room.

A video Bonincontro filmed of the incident shows Smith scooting across the floor to bang his head on a plastic office cubicle partition. Once an emergency medical technician pulls him away from the partition, he scoots back, and Murphy, at her desk, brandishes a Taser. When he starts banging his head again, she walks over and shocks him.

In subsequent reports about what happened, Murphy initially said she used the Taser because Smith kicked her, then she said she did it to stop him from hurting himself and finally said that Smith was becoming increasingly combative, kicking her and trying to attack Bonincontro, Chung said.

While the prosecution argued that the elaborations show that Murphy was trying to justify her actions, Stewart argued that she wasn’t under investigation when she filled out those reports and had no reason to lie.

The emergency medical technicians called to the station to evaluate Smith testified that they saw him kick Murphy, but one said he kicked her after she used the Taser the first time. The other said he couldn’t remember whether the kick was before or after Murphy used the Taser.

Keith Singleton, who works for Ross/West View Emergency Medical Services, testified that the two police officers, he and the other paramedics and Smith bantered back and forth for most of the 50 minutes he was at the police station.

He couldn’t recall Smith trying to attack anyone beyond that kick, Singleton said.

He verified that, at one point, Murphy said she wasn’t going to end up having to take Smith to the hospital because of the head banging but couldn’t say that is why she used the Taser.

“She was definitely frustrated,” he said. “I can’t say why she was frustrated.”

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.