AURORA | A former Aurora Police Department officer was found guilty Friday of failing to intervene when her partner strangled and pistol-whipped a detained man, the first ruling of its kind following a state law making officers criminally liable for such inaction.
Lawyers for former Aurora Police Officer Francine Martinez argued during the trial that she was following APD training at the time, which stated that officers could employ chokeholds or deadly force if they feared for their lives while trying to take someone into custody.
“For me, it felt like it was a deadly situation,” Martinez said on the stand Thursday. The trial on the misdemeanor charge began on Wednesday.
On July 23 2021, Aurora police officers John Haubert and Francine Martinez responded to a trespassing call in the 3100 block of South Parker Road. At the scene, the officers detained 29-year-old Kyle Vinson and two other men on outstanding felony warrants.
The other suspects fled the scene as Martinez was attempting to place one of them in handcuffs. Haubert then tried to handcuff Vinson, telling the man to roll onto his stomach as he pressed the barrel of his pistol against the back of his head, according to an affidavit for Haubert’s arrest.
Body camera footage from the incident released by APD shows Vinson’s head becoming increasingly bruised and bloodied as Haubert strikes him. At one point Haubert can be heard yelling at Vinson, “If you move, I will shoot you.”
Vinson initially complied, then began to move his body and try to free one of his arms, at which point Haubert began to strike Vinson on top of his head with his gun more than a dozen times, the affidavit said. As the struggle continued, Haubert then put his hands around Vinson’s neck, apparently choking him for at least 39 seconds.
Through labored breathing, Vinson told Haubert, “you’re killing me” and repeatedly asked the officer not to shoot him, body camera footage shows.
Several days after the incident, then Aurora Police Department Chief Vanessa Wilson held a press conference announcing that charges had been filed against both officers. A visibly emotional Wilson condemned Haubert’s actions.
“We’re disgusted,” she said at the time. “We’re angry. This is not police work … We don’t train this. It’s not acceptable.”
Haubert resigned shortly after, turning himself in on the arrest warrant. Martinez, who had been with APD for six years, was fired that August.
Colorado’s sweeping police reform bill, passed in 2020 following nationwide protests after the death of George Floyd and renewed attention statewide to the death of Elijah McClain, requires officers to intervene when seeing use of excessive force by colleagues and to report such cases to superiors, and makes it a misdemeanor to fail to do so.
Martinez pleaded not guilty to failure to intervene charges, and is the first person to go to trial under the new law.
Her lawyers argued that she had not been aware during the incident of how many times Haubert had struck Vinson and how long he had his hands on Vinson’s throat until after she went back and reviewed body camera footage of the arrest.
“My perception in the moment was he had put his hand there no longer than five seconds,” Martinez said.
University of Colorado Denver criminal justice professor Paul Taylor, who provided expert witness testimony on Martinez’s behalf, argued that police develop a form of tunnel vision during these kinds of tense situations. He said that Martinez was not in a position to assess the situation in the moment and could have been putting herself in danger by intervening.
“Officers in these encounters don’t have a lot of attentional capacity for anything else,” he said.
He criticized Haubert for drawing a gun on Vinson, saying it was unclear why he chose to do so.
“I don’t like those tactics,” he said.
Martinez said during questioning that she was unsure at the time why Haubert had drawn his gun on Vinson but assumed that he believed himself to be in danger.
Lawyers for the 18th Judicial District questioned why Martinez’s use of force report, which was only submitted after Wilson’s press conference, did not make any mention of she or Haubert feeling afraid at the time.
“You never described yourself as being in any kind of fear, much less fear for your life,” Deputy District Attorney Brian Sugioka said.
Sugioka also questioned a claim Martinez had made in an earlier filing attempting to have the case dismissed that she had touched Haubert’s arm and quietly told him to move his hands from Vinson’s neck. During questioning, she acknowledged that this cannot be heard in body camera footage of the incident and that none of the written statements of the other officers who arrived to the scene as backup mention her intervening.
A six-person jury deliberated for most of the day Friday before returning a guilty verdict.
“While the vast majority of police officers uphold the highest standards when interacting with victims and suspects, we are committed to holding officers accountable when they break the law and betray the badge,” 18th Judicial District Attorney John Kellner said in a Friday evening news release. “I’m grateful for the jury’s service and for returning a just verdict.”
Vinson’s lawyer, Qusair Mohamedbhai, said he hopes that police take note of the verdict.
“I think people are tired of the thin blue line,” he said.
His firm, Rathod Mohamedbhai, is also representing the parents of Christian Glass, a 22-year-old Boulder who was shot and killed by Clear Creek Sherriff’s Office deputies after calling 911 in June. Mohamedbhai noted that if other officers at the scene had intervened when deputy Andrew Buen shot Glass, who had already been tased twice at the time, he would still be alive.
Martinez is scheduled to be sentenced June 2. Based upon the sentencing statute in effect on the date of the offense, she faces a sentencing range of 6 to 18 months in jail but is also eligible to be sentenced to probation, according to the 18th Judicial District Attorney’s Office.
Haubert has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in November. He is facing charges of attempted first-degree assault, second-degree assault, felony menacing, official oppression and first-degree official misconduct.
Good to see them being held accountable for their actions.
Well in this instance it looks like she has been held accountable for inaction, primarily, and for poor reporting after the incident.
A jury has spoken. It’s a warning shot to every police officer in the country. It makes no difference if your male, female, white or minority if you fail to do something to intervene you’ll go down with the abuser. The Code of Silence is broken. Every department in the United States should have this verdict read to them. To me it’s equivalent to the Miranda case.
Recruiting and retention just became exponentially more difficult. Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe society will have to revalue the profession. Maybe to attract recruits the pay will have to increase a magnitude and that may draw better officers. For now, though, I see some bumpy road before we return to a well paved super highway.
These pigs are nothing but violent thugs and they got what they deserve. Good riddance to pig trash. Every time a cop dies, the streets get safer.
I’m sorry for what happened to you.
Seems like a fair and rational statement. No need for facts or even a justice system. We should judge everyone by our emotional state at the time. No need for facts or fairness. All simplified.
Good verdict. Don’t think I agree with the DA though, that most of APD are trustworthy. Have to see much better from them, and from City of Aurora leaders in making real changes in APD recruitment and training.
This is why no one wants to be a police officer. In this case, a complete lack of integrity extends from an incredibly poor and untrue investigation to incompetence and lack of moral courage at the Arapahoe DA’s office. Next, we have a police chief who does not look at all of the evidence and uses the incident to ruin the lives of two officers and make herself look like the strong enforcer of standards for political gain. Couple this with incompetent legal representation for Martinez and you have a picture of why you cannot risk being a police officer. Then, we have a City government that does not look at the evidence and pays $850,000 to a drug addict felon who resists a lawful arrest and tries repeatedly to take an officer’s gun while resisting.
First, the detective, Ethan Snow filed charges against the officers before he even picked up an outside video tape that shows Vinson’s whole resistance. That video tape shows a completely different picture. The defense expert for Martinez was not supplied that video. There is a question of the legal competence of Martinez’s defense team. They did not use that key video. If that video was not provided to Martinez’s attorneys as part of discovery, then we have a serious legal violation. As far as I can tell, only the detective saw that video. The other detectives and the decision makers who condemned the officers did not. Two officers lives and reputations ruined by incompetence, a lack of integrity, and a rush to judgement.
So why does Officer Haubert draw his gun and why does he point it at Vinson? For officers, this is actually a silly question that is made to appear excessive by a prosecutor and a media who are part of the new progressive narrative. The officers were called because of drug use and dealing by trespassers outside of a building. The contact was cordial and not unusual until the officers found that the three suspects all had felony warrants. Vinson’s warrant was for probation violation for strangulation. Two of the warrants advised to use caution. The standard police training for arresting three felons in this case would have been at gunpoint with all of them on the ground. You should have your gun in your hand because all of the studies and experience show that if the suspect has a gun, he can shoot you faster than you can draw. The officer had called for another officer which is good procedure. However, Officer Martinez decided to try to make a casual arrest with no control while the suspect was standing. The result was that two of the suspects immediately ran. Officer Haubert drew his gun and pushed Vinson down to keep him from escaping. A warrant is an order from a court to arrest. In those few seconds, he had no idea if the two who just ran were coming back or going for cover. He also had no idea if Vinson had a weapon on his person or in the bag he was sitting upon. He gave Vinson repeated orders to turn over to his back. Vinson did not comply and Haubert pointed his gun at him. Sorry, folks, it isn’t a game out here where you can just assume everything is fine. Officers have to constantly assess the suspects body language and movement for their safety. Vinson did not roll over in compliance as the detective’s affidavit states. Both officers took him by the shoulder and rolled him over. When on his face, Vinson did not put his arms out as ordered by Officer Haubert. He kept them close to his body, which is indicative of someone who wants to get up quickly. Vinson’s body started to come up and both officers reacted. Martinez put her hand on Vinson’s back and Haubert put his gun and hand to Vinson’s head. Although most agencies don’t advocate putting a gun against the suspects’ body, it is a normal human reaction that I have seen many times in stressful situations. In order for the gun to be used as intimidation, the suspect must be able to see or feel the gun.
When Officer Martinez took Vinson’s hand to begin cuffing, she told Vinson that he had a warrant for his arrest. Vinson immediately said that he did not have a warrant and pulled his arm away and tried to get up. Officer Haubert ended up on top of Vinson with his gun in his hand. Vinson begins to yell help and struggles. His right hand can be seen in the bodycam video going twice to Haubert’s gun. Haubert, throughout the struggle, told Vinson to stop fighting. One witness said that Haubert maybe gave too many commands. Verbal compliance by Vinson is not the same as physical compliance. None of the witnesses said that Vinson was compliant like the picture the detective painted. After Vinson’s left hand comes free from Martinez leg, that hand goes to Officer Hubert’s gun twice before Haubert hits him with it. The detective’s affidavit even says that Vinson swatted twice at Haubert’s gun before he was hit. I have been involved in thousands of arrests. No one ever swatted at my gun. I don’t know how you downplay that threat. The law says that if an officer has a real fear for his safety, he can use deadly force. Deadly force in Colorado means that the person dies. Vinson did not have serious bodily injury according to the doctor. The bloody bumps are dramatic and earned a drug addict a lot of money. The officer was legally justified in shooting and killing Vinson.
Much is made of the fact that Haubert threatened to shoot Vinson. Silly again. Colorado law requires that an officer warn that he is about to use deadly force if he can do so. So a legal requirement is made to sound like some vicious police misconduct. Throughout the struggle, Haubert gave many commands for Vinson to stop fighting. All of his actions were in response to Vinson’s resistance.
Much is made of Haubert choking Vinson. Again, he could have legally killed him. Choking him to keep him from taking the officer’s gun was not only reasonable but a necessity. As a police self defense and arrest control trainer with over fifty years experience in various martial arts, I challenge anyone to show me a technique that officers have been taught that will keep a suspect away from your gun in a close struggle. I personally have taught officers to grab the suspect by the throat and to keep your gun back. That is what Officer Haubert did.
I will cut this short, but there is much more to be explained. The fact that the detective and the DA ignored exculpatory major evidence is an example of gross negligence and lack of integrity. The other, unseen video, shows Vinson fighting the whole time and Officer Haubert having to physically rip his gun out of Vinson’s hand several times.
So, we don’t look at the evidence and ruin the lives if two officers and reward a resisting felon with a lot of money. So, with no fair investigation from your own department and a rush to judgment from an emotional public and DA, why would any officer expect fair treatment. Couple all of this with a badly flawed and punitive police reform bill, and the question remains. Why would anyone want to be a cop?
Don, I created this account just to thank you for your comment. The majority of opinions I have read about this case, including this forum, have been highly prejudicial against the police. Almost nobody bothers to review the evidence and immediately condemns the cops.
I think your analysis is correct. The only thing you avoided was the fact that Francine Martinez was utterly useless and the outcome would have been handled 100% more effectively with another cop like John Haubert and not a hopeless diversity hire.
Women do have a role in law enforcement but I can’t imagine there are many cops who want to go hands-on, when their partner is so obviously unsuited to dealing with cruel and dangerous villains. Anyway, thank you for your service.