The only difference between the first trial of Stevie Manzanares' federal civil rights lawsuit eight months ago and the retrial this week was the jury.
The evidence was the same; the witnesses were the same; the testimony was the same; the lawyers were the same; the arguments were the same; the judge was the same.But unlike the first jury, six men and six women Thursday found that Salt Lake County deputy sheriff Vaughn Allen acted reasonably when he shot Manzanares in the head on Aug. 7, 1992.
And while Manzanares' lawyers were at a loss to explain the different verdicts, Salt Lake County Attorney Doug Short put it down to one factor: "We didn't have a juror with a personal agenda this time. One juror can make a world of difference."
According to testimony in both trials, Manzanares and Arthur "Chico" Chavez waited in a Camaro in the parking lot of Smith's Food and Drug, 4100 S. Redwood Road, while a friend, Steve Early, stole a case of beer.
When deputies arrived, Allen's patrol car and the fleeing Camaro driven by Manzanares collided head-on at low speed.
Allen testified that as he approached the car, he spotted a shiny object in Manzanares' hand and, believing it might be a gun, ordered him to "freeze." If Manzanares had complied, the deputy said, "I wouldn't have shot him."
But Manzanares, who was 18 at the time, testified he was scared and was simply trying to stash a can of beer under his seat when he accidently bumped into the patrol car. He said he had both hands on the steering wheel and was watching deputy Kent Mattingly approach on one side of the car when Allen, whom he never saw, fired from the other side.
After deliberating for just three hours, the 12 jurors in the first trial found Allen had acted too hastily and awarded Manzanares $555,770 in damages.
However, one juror, Tulaire Foreman, later revealed in a news interview that her own son had died in a gang shootout in a different Smith's parking lot two years earlier.
The disclosure prompted U.S. District Judge Dee Benson to declare a mistrial in the case, saying Foreman's love for her late son could have spilled over as sympathy for Manzanares and influenced other jurors.
The second jury deliberated for 12 hours Wednesday and Thursday before announcing its unanimous decision in Allen's favor. Manzanares, his family and attorneys were clearly upset by the outcome, with several friends and relatives bursting into tears.
Afterward, Manzanares' attorneys, Edward B. Havas and Colin P. King, declared, "This case isn't over yet."
They vowed to appeal Benson's decision to order a new trial in the first place. If they succeed, the first verdict would be reinstated. A decision on whether to appeal the second verdict will be made later, they added.
"We feel we have a good shot at getting a reversal of Judge Ben-son's order," King said.
Havas agreed, arguing Tulaire Foreman and the other jurors in the first trial were "fair and impartial."
"Well, then, what was the difference between the first and second trials?" a reporter asked.
"Besides the verdict?" Havas responded.
If anything, the evidence was a bit stronger in Manzanares' favor the second time around, King said.
Short said it was the first verdict that was a surprise, not the second.
"We felt deputy Allen's actions were justified," Short said. "Being a police officer is an extremely tough job. In that kind of situation, they have to make split-second decisions."
He also said retrying the case was a "tough call" for his office, but lawyers felt "we should have won it the first time."