Kuntz eventually died from internal bleeding in his brain that was caused by these beatings and the delay in receiving medical care.On July 23, 2004, a federal grand jury returned an indictment, charging Marlowe, Hale, Conatser, Ferrell, and Locke with violating 18 U.S.C. 241 (conspiracy against rights). Additionally, Marlowe was charged with violating seven counts of 18 U.S.C. 242 (deprivation of civil rights under color of law); Hale was charged with three counts of violating 242; Conatser and Ferrell were charged with two counts of violating 242; Locke was charged with one count of violating 242. Prior to indictment, fellow officers Bradley, McKinney, McCathern, and Westmoreland pled guilty to federal felony offenses related to their role in the assaults described in the indictment.On December 28, 2005, Gary Hale entered a guilty plea to violating 18 U.S.C. 241, and on December 30, 2005, Robert Brian Ferrell pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 242.

In a prior case, in another district, this same defense had been rejected by the trial court.United States v. Farmer, 923 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1991)Initially charged with one count of conspiring to violate a person’s civil rights (18 U.S.C. §241) and one count of violating a person’s rights under color of state law (18 U.S.C. §242), the defendant was tried and acquitted of the former (conspiracy) and a hung jury resulted in a mistrial on the misdemeanor count (§242). The defendant was a private citizen who “worked over” a suspect with two law enforcement officers.

A team of federal prosecutors from both the Criminal Section as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles then undertook an exhaustive investigation, in which new evidence was developed during three months of grand jury. On August 4, 1992, the same four officers were indicted on two federal counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 242 -- three officers for the excessive beating of King and the fourth (the supervisory sergeant) for failing to stop them. The federal prosecutors had to overcome major evidentiary hurdles to develop evidence independent of the state prosecution and not derived from compelled statements made by police officers that could have compromised the federal case.Despite the potential for additional civil unrest locally and nationwide, and the difficulties of empaneling an impartial jury, the two-month federal trial of the four Los Angeles police officers ultimately ended with the conviction in April 1993 of two of the four officers, Sgt. Stacey Koon, the supervising officer at the scene, and Officer Laurence Powell, the officer who had delivered the most number of blows to King.

The proverbial wheels of justice indeed do move slow.The following year, May 2016, the Hoss announced he was running against Sheriff Fletcher for the county’s top law enforcement job. The Hoss was the only candidate in the Republican primary.Perhaps it was this display of official arrogance that fueled the Justice Department’s investigation into Cowden’s January 2015 actions.Criminal Violation for Deprivation of Civil RightsOn June 24, 2016, a federal grand jury in Wheeling indicted Cowden under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for violating Hamrick’s civil rights and knowingly making a false statement to impede a federal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1519.The federal indictment did not slow down the Hoss. He rode Donald Trump’s tail winds in West Virginia and told everyone who would listen that God would bring him victory.In an October 2, 2016 Facebook post, Cowden told Sheriff Fletcher to “keep it coming because I am solidly grounded in Christ my Lord. Your political smears that are direct attacks on me and my family roll off us like water off a duck’s rear end.

Those recordings revealed that when Davis called Hardy to order the hit, he referred to Groves as “that whore” and told Hardy to “get her.” Hardy then located Ms. Groves and shot her in the head, killing her.In August 1995, Davis, Hardy, and Causey were charged with violations of the federal civil rights conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. 241); the law prohibiting the excessive use of force (18 U.S.C. 242); and a federal obstruction of justice statute (18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1)(C)). The indictment alleged that these violations resulted in the death of Ms. Groves.In April 1996, a federal jury convicted Davis and Hardy on all charges, and Causey on all but the obstruction count, on which they could not reach a verdict.

The federal grand jury undertook a six-month grand jury investigation conducted jointly by the Criminal Section and the local U.S. Attorney. Judge Lanier was subsequently indicted on eleven counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 242 for having deprived the women of their constitutional due process right to be free from sexual assault.Overcoming substantial reluctance to testify publicly, the victims' damaging testimony about the judge's behavior resulted in his convictions in December 1992 for conduct that ranged from willful grabbing and groping of the victims' breasts and genitalia to forced oral copulation. Before trial, he was jailed when his bail was revoked for having improperly contacted the witnesses in an effort to influence their testimony at trial.

The error was not merely instructional; rather, the district court instructed the jury it could convict Defendant on a ground that was legally insufficient–it was told it could convict Defendant of deprivation of rights so long as it found him guilty of sexual abuse instead of aggravated sexual abuse. (The deprivation of rights statute, 18 USC § 242, applies not to sexual abuse, but to aggravated sexual abuse). In short, this was a legal error and harmless error review does not apply.

Qualified immunity operates to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice that their conduct is unlawful. Officers sued in a 1983 civil action have the same fair notice right as do defendants charged under 18 U.S. C. 242, which makes it a crime for a state official to act willfully and under color of state to deprive a person of constitutional rights. This Courts opinion in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, a 242 case, makes clear that officials can be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual situations.