Judge Rules in Favor of Officer Richard Chrisman; Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris Can't Give Him the Boot -- Yet

Categories: News
chrisman.jpg
Officer Richard Chrisman
It looks like the Phoenix police officer accused of murdering an unarmed domestic violence suspect -- and his dog -- as well as planting a crack pipe on a mentally ill homeless woman, will not be getting the boot from the department. A judge granted an injunction today that prevents the Phoenix Police Department from firing Officer Richard Chrisman -- for now.

At the time of Chrisman's indictment, Phoenix police Chief Jack Harris said he planned to side-step an internal investigation to determine whether Chrisman should be fired. He said, at the time, he planned to meet with Chrisman personally to allow him a chance to plead his case as to why he should get to keep his job.

Chrisman's attorneys, however, filed an application for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the department from canning Chrisman.


This afternoon, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge granted that injunction, which prevents the City of Phoenix from firing Chrisman -- at least before knowing the outcome of his murder case.

Judge Donald Daughton handed down the ruling.

According to court documents obtained by New Times, the judge gives a list of reasons for granting the injunction, including "a strong likelihood of success [in his murder case] on the merits," and "the balance of hardships weighs in favor of of the requesting party."

The Associated Press gives a little more detail, and is reporting that "Chrisman's attorneys argued he would be forced to waive his Fifth Amendment rights to defend himself if called before Harris and that the police department's ruling that he violated policy was based solely on a probable cause statement for his arrest."

Calls to Chrisman's attorney, Kathryn Baillie, were not immediately returned this afternoon.  

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
26 comments
O C D Sara
O C D Sara

CHARLES.. I did not say it was a joke, or that it wasn't serious, I said what the officers stated.. they thought it was a joke.

Sluggo
Sluggo

Wait for the investigation. What's with the big hurry? Are they trying to hurry the case along before anti-police-hater Romley has to vacate his office? WAIT for the investigation. The judge ruled the cop should get due process. Wow, imagine a judge doing his job and saying this man's got rights, just like everyone else in the world.

O C D Sara
O C D Sara

How do you know he wasn't armed? Why would you think he was walking away? Were you there? did you read the investigation report? oh wait that hasn't been done yet! And do you really think that if someone shot your dog, (because he was aggressive and just protecting his crackhead owner (what toxicology and autopsy report are not completed..sorry I should say suspect) would not get pissed and try to fight the cops? He definatley should have gotten a lot worse and so should the other cops on planting the pipe as a joke.

Hock
Hock

I'll be the first to admit that the shooting looks bad, but I'll never disagree with a judge assuring a person gets due process. Due process is a fundamental right in our criminal justice system.

O C D Sara
O C D Sara

Poor judgemental fools, there hasn't been a completed investigation. It is not murder if there is probable cause, the dog WAS aggressive, Guess what officers are also Law abiding citizens, which is why there needs to be a full investigation BEFORE people make judgements, and judgements based on what exactly? Media! Have you been to his court proceedings? I have, and Heard both officers on stand stating they were told by Vergillo immediatly after it happened that the suspect and dog was aggressive! It sucks that the dog was shot because it was just protecting its owner, but it is Dannys fault his dog was killed, if he would have complied and left the trailer, his dog and him would be alive.

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

God, I wish I had the good fortune to be in a union... Basically these guys can piss on a busload of dead orphans on live TV while beating their wives and then not be held accountable for their actions.

And we wonder why we keep getting dirty cops?

GENO
GENO

I'm really disappointed in the Judge's ruling. Because the allegations presented are very serious and grave. We are talking about a cold blooded murder and animal cruelity(also unlawful acts of planting bogus drug paraphilia on a innocent person).

Yet, he's still employed.

And that's what troubles me as a law abiding U.S. citizen. He needs to get his fired. And hopefully--imprisoned for the ghastly crimes he had committed.

ArizonaCentral
ArizonaCentral

Most people would get fired for coming to work on time just because of an insecure boss, let alone killing a dog, shooting an unarmed man, planting drug related items as a joke.

alehound
alehound

Because, a pig is a pig. and that's that.

O C D Sara
O C D Sara

You said it The Baron , WITHOUT hearing testimony or evidence. This hearing was not a guilty/ not guilty hearing. What facts should have been brought up? oh wait the facts brought up were that Constitutional ammendments would be broken, that 2 officers on stand said Vergillo told them the dog was aggressive and so was the suspect! but guess what, Mr. Jackass Harris decided he would fire an officer because PR got out of control without EVER interviewing witnesses. Thus if Chrisman stands trial and is PROVEN not guilty he will not be able to get a job, ruining a good cops career forever. The judge agreed with this because of the testimony of 3 other men. 2 having been thru this process of charged and found not guilty, and the VP of Plea! EVIDENCE matters, do you know that the toxicology report and autopsy report are still 60 days out? hum why so quick to fire a man but so slow to do an investigation?

Eleanor
Eleanor

There was other evidence that was produced yesterday that probably had something to do with what went down today.

blhfish
blhfish

Innocent until proven guilty, RIGHT!

The Baron
The Baron

So this judge claims, without having heard one witness testify or examining the evidence, that this officer shouldn't lose his job because of "a strong likelihood of success (in his murder case) on the merits"? What a putrid excuse for jurisprudence! When the cop's own partner states openly that there was no reason for Chrisman to escalate the situation, much less shoot the victim or his dog, the decision defies reason and credulity. This judge is lucky he works behind metal detectors, because he deserves the same form of execution he allows rogue police officers to commit.

Charles Ward
Charles Ward

This is why we need to be able to discover more information about judges BEFORE elections. While I have reservations about the independence of the judiciary, why do cops always slide with this sort of crap -- even including murder?

Charles Ward
Charles Ward

As draconian as the drug laws of Arizona are, that was no joke.

whatacrazyworld
whatacrazyworld

Yes, shooting a suspect who is being aggressive (and possibly armed) is exactly like pissing on dead orphans.

whatacrazyworld
whatacrazyworld

In this case it may have been his job to shoot the dog and the suspect. That is the difference. I agree on the joke though, he should have had a far worse punishment.

whatacrazyworld
whatacrazyworld

Did you not read the story. Their were witnesses there, and it wasn't to even determine guilt but rather to determine if it should be held off until the actual criminal proceedings took place.His partner also said first that there was a reason. I know people like to crucify cops at any chance they get, but at least let him go to trial for crying out loud.

Mistalee
Mistalee

Oh, come ON, how many times have Phoenix area cops actually been convicted on criminal charges for murdering somebody? There is a strong likelihood of success in this case just because cops who kill people tend to walk.

Get a clue
Get a clue

Clearly Baron has failed to read, watch or listen to the news. Chrisman's attorney put on multiple witnesses including the first supervisor on the scene and an officer who discussed the case with Public Safety Manager (awh I mean Police Chief) or whatever he is Jack Harris. They also discussed how screwed up the Grand Jury was and that that Cop Hater Romley refused to allow defense witnesses testify (which is legal in Grand Juries). Isn't Chrisman innocent until proven guilty or are you a cop hater too?

Tommy Collins
Tommy Collins

What exactly makes you think Chrisman has gotten away with anything? This is just a legal ruling regarding due process. It doesn't mean he won't be fired, just that the firing has been stalled.

At this point, keeping his job is the least of his worries. It's highly likely Chrisman will be spending some time in pink. Hopefully with the Flaccid Fool and his minions also in pink.

whatacrazyworld
whatacrazyworld

Why wouldn't a judge favor Richard Chrisman getting his due process. That seems like a no-brainer to me

Mikey1969
Mikey1969

"possibly armed"? Is this your first exposure to this case? The guy wasn't armed, and he was walking AWAY from the officer. I suppose you're going to tell me that he wasn't complicit in planting a crack pipe on a homeless woman, either? How did you get onto this website, did someone else figure out the internet for you, or something?

Charles Ward
Charles Ward

Good point. I jumped the gun on this case.

whatacrazyworld
whatacrazyworld

No, I have plenty of exposure to this case. Do you not recall when Chrisman's attorney said that there was a weapon. You are only hearing one side. I am fortunate enough to hear more than one side.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...