Government’s Trial Brief — United States v. Alexander (Dkt. 50, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

The government's trial brief in United States v. Direll Alexander, No. 4:23CR000316 JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, filed September 10, 2024 as Doc. 50. The brief describes itself as a general guide for the Court and not a comprehensive statement of the government's case. It states that on June 21, 2023 Alexander was charged by Indictment with one count of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, that the defendant was arraigned on June 23, 2023 and filed no pre-trial motions, and that trial is set for September 17, 2024. It then summarises the evidence the government expects to present. The seven-page brief is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Christine H. Krug.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR           Doc. #: 50       Filed: 09/10/24      Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 85




                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                     EASTERN DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                      )
                                               )
                 Plaintiff,                    )
                                               )       No. 4:23CR000316 JAR
                 v.                            )
                                               )
DIRELL ALEXANDER,                              )
                                               )
                 Defendant.                    )


                                 GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL BRIEF

       COMES NOW the United States of America, by Sayler A. Fleming, United States

Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Christine Krug, Assistant United States Attorney

for said District, and submits the following trial brief in connection with the trial of the above-

styled matter.

                                INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

       This brief is intended as a general guide for the Court. It is not intended as a comprehensive

statement of the Government's case, nor is it intended to be in the nature of a bill of particulars that

would fix, bind, or in any way limit the Government to a set theory of proof.

                              SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS TO DATE

       On June 21, 2023, Direll Alexander (“Alexander”) was charged by Indictment with one

count of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 242. The defendant was arraigned on the Indictment on June 23, 2023. The defendant has

filed no pre-trial motions attacking the charge or seeking to suppress any evidence. The case is

scheduled for trial on Tuesday, September 17, 2024.



                                                   1

    Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR          Doc. #: 50     Filed: 09/10/24     Page: 2 of 7 PageID #: 86




                                      FACTUAL BACKGROUND

           To aid the Court in understanding this matter, in the paragraphs that follow, the

Government attempts to summarize some, but not all, of the evidence it expects to present at

trial.

           Defendant Alexander is charged with depriving victim O.R. of his right to be free

from unreasonable seizure and thus the right to be free from unreasonable force by a government

actor. The charge specifically relates to defendant Alexander in his capacity as a corrections officer

for the City of St. Louis at the City Justice Center (“CJC”) in connection with the defendant’s

encounter with victim O.R. in the CJC while O.R. was in the custody of the CJC.

           On the afternoon of March 5, 2023, victim O.R. was arrested in the City of St. Louis. After

being taken to Central Patrol, he was delivered to CJC for booking. Almost 24 hours later, victim

O.R. requested medical attention due to having a bad headache. The defendant was on-duty and

assigned to the area in which victim O.R. was being held. The defendant initially told victim O.R.

that he could not go to the medical unit, but later opened the holding cell door, handcuffed victim

O.R. behind his back, and started walking with him towards the medical unit. This, and the

subsequent actions described herein are captured on video from the CJC. 1 The walk from the

holding cell to the medical unit takes approximately three to four minutes. The defendant and

victim O.R. are seen exchanging words during the walk. Their body language indicates that some

of the exchanges are calm, while others appear more agitated. When the defendant and victim O.R.

were outside the sliding door to the hall leading to the medical unit, victim O.R.’s hand came out

of his handcuffs, and he raised his hands up in the air. At that time, a deputy sheriff who was feet

away heard what was going on, grabbed victim O.R. around the waist, and put him back in the



1
    There is no audio, only video.

                                                    2

Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR          Doc. #: 50      Filed: 09/10/24    Page: 3 of 7 PageID #: 87




handcuffs behind his back.

       The defendant grabbed victim O.R.’s arm and walked him down the short hall to the

medical unit. Once inside the medical unit, victim O.R. can be seen twisting in the defendant’s

grasp. The defendant and victim O.R. separate and the defendant sprayed a burst of Oleoresin

Capsicum (“OC”) spray from the canister he carried into victim O.R.’s face. Victim O.R. then

turned away from the defendant and the defendant reached up and sprayed victim O.R. with the

OC spray in his face a second time. Almost everyone who was in the medical unit had to leave

because of the spray.

       After the second burst of OC spray, victim O.R. bent over and the defendant grabbed him

near his collar and forced him to the ground on his stomach, all while victim O.R. remained

handcuffed behind his back. As soon as he put victim O.R. on the ground, the defendant

immediately put his knee in the middle of his back. The victim’s feet are seen kicking the ground.

About 20 seconds after putting his knee in victim O.R.’s back, the defendant removed his right

hand from the wall, grabbed the back of his neck, and forced victim O.R.’s head down to the

ground. Within 30 seconds, victim O.R.’s legs and feet stopped moving. A few seconds later, the

defendant stood up, reached down, picked victim O.R. up by the back of his clothing, carried him

over to a chair and dropped him across it on his stomach. About 30 seconds later, victim O.R. slid

off of the chair onto his knees and was then able to stand up and sit properly on the chair. The

defendant continued to get in his face, and they continued to verbally interact while victim O.R.

was dealing with pain from the assault as well as the effects of the OC spray. The defendant took

victim O.R. to an exam room to wash the OC spray from his face. The victim was interviewed by

a corrections supervisor shortly thereafter. Following review of the video, the Federal Bureau of

Investigation was contacted to investigate the incident.



                                                 3

Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR           Doc. #: 50       Filed: 09/10/24      Page: 4 of 7 PageID #: 88




                                        LEGAL MATTERS

       In the following sections, the Government summarizes certain legal matters that may

arise prior to or during the trial of this case. The Government addresses these matters now, in

order to assist the Court and to identify possible issues to defense counsel prior to trial so that

counsel may respond and the Court may rule. The Government does not, however, attempt to

address every legal matter that may arise.

I. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

       The defendant is charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 242, which subjects to criminal

punishment anyone who, “under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,

willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to

the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution

or laws of the United States . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 242. To prove a violation of section 242, the

Government must establish that the defendant (1) willfully and (2) under color of law (3)

subjected another person to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by the Constitution

or federal law and (4) bodily injury resulted. Id.; United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 264 (1997);

United States v. Fleming, 526 F.2d 191, 192 (8th Cir. 1975).

       A. Willfulness

       A “willful” act is one committed either “in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a

constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite.” Screws v. United States,

325 U.S. 91, 105 (1945); see also U.S. v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 881 (9th Cir. 1993) (intentionally

wrongful conduct that “contravenes a right definitely established in law, evidences a reckless

disregard for that right, [which], in turn, is the legal equivalent of willfulness.”); see also United

States v. Johnstone, 107 F.3d 200, 208 (3d Cir. 1997) (“[W]illfulness includes reckless



                                                   4

Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR          Doc. #: 50       Filed: 09/10/24      Page: 5 of 7 PageID #: 89




disregard.”). “In simpler terms, ‘willful[]’ in § 242 means either particular purpose or reckless

disregard. Therefore, it is enough to trigger § 242 liability if it can be proved-by circumstantial

evidence or otherwise-that a defendant exhibited reckless disregard for a constitutional or federal

right.” United States v. Thao, 76 4th 773 (8th Cir. 2023), citing Johnstone at 208-209.

       Although the Government must establish that the defendant acted with the specific

intent to deprive a person of a federal right, it need not prove that the defendant was thinking in

constitutional terms. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106 (“The fact that the defendants may not have been

thinking in constitutional terms is not material where their aim was not to enforce local law but

to deprive a citizen of a right and that right was protected by the Constitution.”). Rather, the

willfulness element of 18 U.S.C. § 242 simply requires that the defendant know that his actions

are wrong and against the law but that he chose to act anyway.

       B. Color of Law

       Under § 242, a defendant acts under color of law when he is an official or employee of a

federal, state, or local government and uses or abuses the power he possesses by virtue of law—

even if his actions violate state law or exceed his lawful authority. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

49 (1988); Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130, 135 (1964); Williams v. United States, 341 U.S.

97, 99-100 (1951); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941). Put another way, an

officer acts under color of law when he acts “under pretense of law.” Screws, 325 U.S. at 111.

       C. Deprivation of a Protected Right

       The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution’s protection against

unreasonable search and seizures requires that officers refrain from using excessive force, that is

more force than is reasonably necessary, when effectuating an arrest. United States v. Brugman,

364 F.3d 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2004). The proper application of the test of reasonableness demands



                                                  5

    Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR              Doc. #: 50         Filed: 09/10/24   Page: 6 of 7 PageID #: 90




careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Consideration of the

severity of the crime, whether the suspect is an immediate threat to anyone, and whether the suspect

is actively resisting arrest or fleeing from the arrest should determine if the use of force is

unreasonable. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).

           D. Bodily Injury

           While 18 U.S.C. §242 does not define “bodily injury,” the term is defined identically in

four other provisions of Title 182. In each of them, “bodily injury” is defined as “(A) a cut,

abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement; (B) physical pain; (C) illness; (D) impairment of [a/the]

function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or (E) any other injury to the body, no

matter how temporary.” Several other circuits have recognized this definition. United States v.

Wilson, 344 Fed.Appx. 134, 142 (6th Cir. 2009), citing United States v. Perkins, 470 F.3d 150, 161

(4th Cir.2006). See also, United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 575 (5th Cir.2006); United States

v. Bailey, 405 F.3d 102, 111 (1st Cir.2005); United States v. Myers, 972 F.2d 1566, 1572 (11th

Cir.1992).

II. SELF-AUTHENTICATING BUSINESS RECORDS

           The Government intends to introduce video surveillance evidence from the CJC which has

been authenticated by certification of the Custodian of Records at CJC. Federal Rule of Evidence

902 permits business records and records or data generated by an electronic system or copied from

an electronic system to be introduced without the testimony of a custodian of records so long as a

certificate accompanying the records certifies that it was: (1) made at or near the time of the

occurrence by a person with knowledge; (2) kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity;

and (3) made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice. The record and the



2
    18 U.S.C. § 831(f)(5) § 1365(g)(4), § 1515(a)(5), § 1864(d)(2).

                                                            6

Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR          Doc. #: 50      Filed: 09/10/24     Page: 7 of 7 PageID #: 91




declaration must be made available to the defendants for inspection. Fed.R.Evid. 902(11),(13), and

(14); Shelton v. Consumer Products Safety Comm’n, 277 F.3d 998, 1009 (8th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 537 U.S. 1000 (2002).

       The recorded surveillance videos from the CJC are certified domestic records of regularly

conducted activity, certified records generated by an electronic process or system, and/or certified

data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file by the correctional facility and are

admissible under 902(11), 902(13), and/or 902(14).




                                                     Respectfully submitted,

                                                     SAYLER A. FLEMING
                                                     UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                                     /s/ Christine H. Krug
                                                     CHRISTINE H. KRUG #42586MO
                                                     Assistant United States Attorney
                                                     111 S. 10th Street, 20th Floor
                                                     St. Louis, MO 63102
                                                     Christine.Krug@usdoj.gov




                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that on September 10, 2024, the foregoing was filed electronically with
the Clerk of the Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon
Terence Niehoff, Attorney for Defendant.

                                                 /s/ Christine H. Krug
                                                 CHRISTINE H. KRUG #42586MO




                                                 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.moed.203949.50.0.pdf

Size

126,448 bytes

SHA-256

4c1965b411e784fc1745c8943f5be98f3aaaf52ea30987561adb5b60c161695b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.moed.203949.50.0.pdf

Original

archive.org