Jury selected for Millvale police officer’s stun gun trial |

Jury selected for Millvale police officer’s stun gun trial

The Associated Press

A jury has been selected to decide whether a Millvale police officer violated a suspect’s civil rights by repeatedly zapping him with a stun gun, even after he was handcuffed — an encounter recorded on another person’s cellphone.

The attorney for Millvale Officer Nicole Murphy doesn’t dispute she used the stun gun on Thomas Jason James Smith after his arrest for public drunkenness in September 2012. Rather, he contends the 30-year-old officer was justified in using it because she was trying to stop Smith from banging his head.

“This guy was out of control. They believed he was on some other kind of substance,” defense attorney Robert Stewart said after Murphy’s arraignment in June. “She had a choice of Tasering him to subdue him or letting him split his head open.”

Stewart didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment following jury selection Wednesday.

Opening statements in the case are scheduled to begin Monday morning in federal court.

The FBI began investigating after someone leaked a 52-second cellphone video of the incident to Pittsburgh-area media outlets in early 2013.

The video shows a shirtless Smith, then 28, sitting on the floor of the police station while he banged his head on the edge of a desk. Murphy then zaps him with the stun gun. Murphy reported in a criminal complaint that she used the stun gun to subdue Smith when he became violent, but Smith isn’t seen attacking her in the video.

The video also shows some emergency responders smiling and laughing at Smith’s behavior.

The prosecution and defense haven’t specified who took the video. Court documents filed in recent weeks suggest the case will boil down to the testimony of Murphy — who remains on unpaid leave — and another officer, part-timer Casey Bonincontro.

Prosecutors have asked the court for permission to raise issues relating to Murphy’s character if she testifies.

According to pretrial motions, prosecutors want to ask Murphy about a 2011 drunken driving arrest and about a man Murphy allegedly befriended or dated “who was known to her to have a drug-related criminal record.” Stewart has argued neither is relevant.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, are concerned that Stewart plans to use Bonincontro’s personnel files with the borough and other departments to allegedly show she violated various on-the-job rules.

The judge has yet to rule whether any of that can be used at trial.

The charge Murphy faces carries up to 10 years in prison and, because it’s a felony, would end her law enforcement career even if she avoids incarceration.

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.