DOJ asks for 1-day sentence for ex-officer in Breonna Taylor shooting
Ex-Louisville Metro Police Department Detective Brett Hankison was convicted last year of violating Taylor's civil rights by blindly firing shots into a window and door during the haywire raid.
In an atypical sentencing memorandum, submitted Thursday by DOJ civil rights chief Harmeet Dhillon and a senior counselor in the division, the government said that, but for the jury verdict, it 'might proceed differently' in the case.
'Indeed, reasonable minds might disagree as to whether defendant Hankison's conduct constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment in the first place,' said Dhillon and senior counsel Robert Keenan, neither of whom is part of the initial prosecution team. 'And reasonable minds certainly might disagree whether, even if Defendant Hankison's conduct did constitute a seizure, a prosecution under this statute should have been brought under these circumstances at all.'
Though Hankison faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, the government suggested a sentence of time served — the day he spent being booked and making his initial appearance before a judge — and three years of supervised release would suffice. His sentencing is scheduled for next week.
It marks a stunning departure from the Biden administration's efforts to force accountability for the role of racial discrimination in police misconduct. Taylor, who was shot and killed by other officers during the raid, became a face of the Black Lives Matter movement that ignited in 2020 following her death and the police killing of George Floyd.
At trial, prosecutors said Hankison acted recklessly and 'violated one of the most fundamental rules of deadly force: If they cannot see the person they're shooting at, they cannot pull the trigger.'
The Justice Department argued in its memorandum that federal sentencing guidelines do not fairly apply to Hankison's conviction given the 'unique facts and circumstances' of the case, namely that the ex-detective was convicted on just one count following two other trials.
Hankison was acquitted on all three counts he faced during a 2022 trial in Kentucky state court. The first federal trial he faced, in 2023, resulted in a mistrial on both charges against him. And he was convicted on one of those two counts in the subsequent retrial in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sentencing hearing set for ex-Kentucky officer convicted in Breonna Taylor raid
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A federal judge prepared Monday afternoon to sentence an ex-Kentucky police officer convicted of using excessive force during the deadly Breonna Taylor raid, days after the U.S. Justice Department recommended he receive no prison time in the Black woman's fatal shooting. Brett Hankison fired his weapon the night of the March 2020 botched drug raid. His shots didn't hit or injure anyone, though they flew through Taylor's walls into a neighboring apartment. The 26-year-old's death, along with the May 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, sparked racial injustice protests nationwide that year. Though the sentence could amount to several years, if U.S. District Judge Grady Jennings heeds the Justice Department's request, it would mean none of the Louisville police officers involved in the raid would face prison time. Last week, the U.S. Justice Department recommended no prison time for Hankison, an abrupt about-face by federal prosecutors that has angered critics after the department spent years prosecuting the former detective. The Justice Department, which has changed leadership under President Donald Trump since Hankison's conviction, said in a sentencing memo last week that "there is no need for a prison sentence to protect the public' from Hankison. Federal prosecutors suggested time already served, which amounts to one day, and three years of supervised probation. Prosecutors at his previous federal trials aggressively pursued a conviction against Hankison, 49, arguing that he blindly fired 10 shots into Taylor's windows without identifying a target. Taylor was shot in her hallway by two other officers after her boyfriend fired from inside the apartment, striking an officer in the leg. Neither of the other officers was charged in state or federal court after prosecutors deemed they were justified in returning fire into the apartment. Louisville police used a drug warrant to enter the apartment, but found no drugs or cash inside. A separate jury deadlocked on federal charges against Hankison in 2023, and he was acquitted on state charges of wanton endangerment in 2022. In their recent sentencing memo, federal prosecutors wrote that though Hankison's 'response in these fraught circumstances was unreasonable given the benefit of hindsight, that unreasonable response did not kill or wound Breonna Taylor, her boyfriend, her neighbors, defendant's fellow officers, or anyone else.' Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who helped Taylor's family secure a $12 million wrongful death settlement against the city of Louisville, has called the Justice Department recommendation 'an insult to the life of Breonna Taylor and a blatant betrayal of the jury's decision' and said in a social media statement that it "sends the unmistakable message that white officers can violate the civil rights of Black Americans with near-total impunity.' A U.S. Probation Office presentencing report said Hankison should face a range of 135 to 168 months imprisonment on the excessive force conviction, according to the memo. But federal prosecutors said multiple factors — including that Hankison's two other trials ended with no convictions — should greatly reduce the potential punishment. The memorandum was submitted by Harmeet Dhillon, chief of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and a Trump political appointee who in May moved to cancel settlements with Louisville and Minneapolis that had called for overhauling their police departments. In the Taylor case, three other ex-Louisville police officers have been charged with crafting a falsified warrant, but have not gone to trial. None were at the scene when Taylor was shot.
Time Magazine
8 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
The Difference Between Gerrymandering and Redistricting
Texas Republicans are poised to consider new districts in a special session after President Donald Trump called for the state to redraw its congressional map to allow for the GOP to pick up seats in the midterm elections in 2026. Trump told reporters that there are several states in which he believes Republicans can redraw districts in order to pick up seats in Congress and keep a narrow majority. 'Texas would be the biggest one,' he said on July 16. 'Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats.' Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put redistricting on his special session agenda for Monday. The issue is firmly on the minds of Texas Republicans and Democrats, alike. Abbott said his decision was in light of a letter he received from the Department of Justice earlier this month. The letter alleges that four of the current districts were racial gerrymanders that violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment, thus opening the door for redistricting as a whole to be decided. Typically, states redraw their congressional district maps every ten years to accommodate shifts in population. But in many states, lawmakers have taken to changing the lines whenever they see it as politically advantageous to help their party gain an advantage." The fact that Trump and Texas Republicans are currently weighing their options of redistricting in the middle of a decade is non-traditional, but not completely unheard of. But the move has, unsurprisingly, raised concerns and discussions about gerrymandering. Read More: To End Gerrymandering, Change How We Elect Congress California Gov. Gavin Newsom of the Democratic Party has vowed to retaliate by redistricting his own state's 52 seats to pick up more Democratic representation. 'Trump said he's going to steal five Congressional seats in Texas and gerrymander his way into a 2026 win. Well, two can play that game,' Newsom said via X on July 15. 'Special sessions. Special elections. Ballot initiatives. New laws. It's all on the table when democracy is on the line.' Beyond any potential retaliation, Republicans risk a lot in redistricting, says Jay Dow, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri. 'If you cut [the margins] too thin, you can really put your own party in danger,' Dow notes. 'If you make those margins too thin and you have a bad year, you can end up losing four or five seats instead of gaining them.' This can be referred to as a 'dummymander.' Ismar Volić, a professor at Wellesley College who has done research on how mathematics can equalize redistricting, argues that Trump's attitude towards redistricting points to how 'okay everyone is' with partisan gerrymandering. 'The courts say this is politics as usual,' he says. 'Anyone who cares about some kind of fairness, representation, or competitiveness in our democracy would think it's terrible that the President is so open about it. But it's not illegal.' Here is what you need to know about redistricting and gerrymandering, and the difference. What is redistricting? Redistricting is a process of drawing the borders of districts for which representatives are elected. As states grow, they often do not grow evenly, and thus redistricting allows for states to represent population growth and racial diversity in their cities—according to the Constitution, all districts in a state must have equal population. 'We reapportion the House seats in response to the census, and so every 10 years we do the census, and that changes the number of House seats. Some states get more, some states get fewer because of internal shifts in population,' explains Dow. 'Now, the legislature will have to draw the boundaries of these districts to reflect that.' Often, this can reflect people moving from rural areas to urban areas, or from state to state. For example, as a result of the 2020 Census, Florida gained a seat in the House, while states including California and Illinois lost a seat. Read More: Gerrymandering Isn't New—But Now We Have a Solution What is gerrymandering? According to Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, gerrymandering is a "pejorative" for a kind of redistricting that favors a political party, or in some cases, looks to disenfranchise a group of people. There are two principle ways that a legislature can gerrymander for partisan purposes, says Briffault. Packing and cracking. 'With packing, you put as many of the voters of the other party into one district. Instead of the voters being equally spread around so they get an influence on a lot of places, they are in one district,' Briffault says. Whereas with cracking, those creating maps would split a voting bloc—be that a specific party affiliation or a certain demographic—across multiple districts to dilute voting power, making it difficult for them to elect their preferred candidates. Briffault says in a scenario where Republicans would try to use cracking in a district with a lot of Democrats, they could 'carve it up into multiple districts and make [Democrats] the minority in several other districts, so that they're dispersed and they're never going to be the dominant force in any one district.' There are several tells, Briffault says, that a district has been gerrymandered. But it tends to be a hard legal battle as it's not always clear-cut. In fact, courts will often disagree on whether a district has been gerrymandered. First, Briffault says that if the process is done entirely by one party with no input from another party, it is more likely to be gerrymandering. If it is done mid-cycle, rather than based on new population data, then that's another warning sign. Lastly, experts recommend looking to the shape of the states. Districts drawn with 'odd shapes' to capture some 'small group' is also 'evidence of gerrymandering,' according to Briffault. Recognizing the difference between partisan and racial gerrymandering Experts emphasize the difference in legality between partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court ruled in the 2019 case 'Rucho v. Common Cause' that partisan gerrymandering is not subject to a federal court review, because they present non-'justiciable' political questions that lie outside of the court's jurisdiction. 'In a handful of states, there are limits on gerrymandering, or there are special procedures for redistricting that make gerrymandering more difficult, but as a matter of federal law, the Supreme Court said it's not unconstitutional,' Briffault says. Volić calls this court case a 'watershed' moment in redistricting. As such, people trying to detect partisan gerrymandering can 'only rely on' state supreme court or state judicial systems. He argues these judicial systems are 'often faulty because they have been appointed by state legislature,' the same body that is likely working on the redistricting. In terms of racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court has said that this can be challenged. Dow points to the 2023 Supreme Court decision that claimed Alabama's redistricting was not 'simply a partisan gerrymander' by Republicans but actually a 'racial gerrymander,' and those district lines were subject to revision. Though Black Alabamians accounted for around 30% of the state at the time, they could only elect one of their preferred candidates in the state's seven districts, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. When the Republican-controlled legislature failed to create a second district in which the Black population had a fair shot, a federal court created one, which eventually led to the state's election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures. Although acknowledging the difference, Volić says the line between 'partisan' and 'racial' gerrymandering tends to be 'thin,' and in order for courts to tell states that they need to redistrict fairly, 'you have to argue that the line has been crossed.' In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Carolina Republicans, arguing that what a lower court said was a racial gerrymander that diluted the African American vote was, in fact, a partisan gerrymander. Just this past week, the Florida Supreme Court, which is dominated by appointees hand-picked by the state's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, upheld a congressional district map that eliminated a majority-Black district in north Florida, which DeSantis had chopped up following the 2020 census, dispersing the Black population into four different majority white districts. Volić says the last 20 years have been 'terrible for gerrymandering,' though he points to some progress, such as efforts to place redistricting in the hands of independent commissions and the role of mathematicians in recent years to create congressional maps that 'rationally' create districts 'detached from politics and partisanship.' The issue is convincing legislatures to give up their power, and to do so in a timely manner, even if the courts have ruled that a district has been unfairly gerrymandered. The judicial system is 'tectonically slow moving,' Volić says, and while parties argue it at the court level, the U.S. continues to "conduct elections in these terrible maps." 'Even if the final outcome is favorable to minorities or whoever is being disenfranchised, the damage has already been done in many ways,' Volić argues. 'This is a system that's very conducive to taking power away in a nefarious way.'
Associated Press
8 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Sentencing hearing set for ex-Kentucky officer convicted in Breonna Taylor raid
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A federal judge prepared Monday afternoon to sentence an ex-Kentucky police officer convicted of using excessive force during the deadly Breonna Taylor raid, days after the U.S. Justice Department recommended he receive no prison time in the Black woman's fatal shooting. Brett Hankison fired his weapon the night of the March 2020 botched drug raid. His shots didn't hit or injure anyone, though they flew through Taylor's walls into a neighboring apartment. The 26-year-old's death, along with the May 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, sparked racial injustice protests nationwide that year. Though the sentence could amount to several years, if U.S. District Judge Grady Jennings heeds the Justice Department's request, it would mean none of the Louisville police officers involved in the raid would face prison time. Last week, the U.S. Justice Department recommended no prison time for Hankison, an abrupt about-face by federal prosecutors that has angered critics after the department spent years prosecuting the former detective. The Justice Department, which has changed leadership under President Donald Trump since Hankison's conviction, said in a sentencing memo last week that 'there is no need for a prison sentence to protect the public' from Hankison. Federal prosecutors suggested time already served, which amounts to one day, and three years of supervised probation. Prosecutors at his previous federal trials aggressively pursued a conviction against Hankison, 49, arguing that he blindly fired 10 shots into Taylor's windows without identifying a target. Taylor was shot in her hallway by two other officers after her boyfriend fired from inside the apartment, striking an officer in the leg. Neither of the other officers was charged in state or federal court after prosecutors deemed they were justified in returning fire into the apartment. Louisville police used a drug warrant to enter the apartment, but found no drugs or cash inside. A separate jury deadlocked on federal charges against Hankison in 2023, and he was acquitted on state charges of wanton endangerment in 2022. In their recent sentencing memo, federal prosecutors wrote that though Hankison's 'response in these fraught circumstances was unreasonable given the benefit of hindsight, that unreasonable response did not kill or wound Breonna Taylor, her boyfriend, her neighbors, defendant's fellow officers, or anyone else.' Civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who helped Taylor's family secure a $12 million wrongful death settlement against the city of Louisville, has called the Justice Department recommendation 'an insult to the life of Breonna Taylor and a blatant betrayal of the jury's decision' and said in a social media statement that it 'sends the unmistakable message that white officers can violate the civil rights of Black Americans with near-total impunity.' A U.S. Probation Office presentencing report said Hankison should face a range of 135 to 168 months imprisonment on the excessive force conviction, according to the memo. But federal prosecutors said multiple factors — including that Hankison's two other trials ended with no convictions — should greatly reduce the potential punishment. The memorandum was submitted by Harmeet Dhillon, chief of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and a Trump political appointee who in May moved to cancel settlements with Louisville and Minneapolis that had called for overhauling their police departments. In the Taylor case, three other ex-Louisville police officers have been charged with crafting a falsified warrant, but have not gone to trial. None were at the scene when Taylor was shot.
