Sentencing Memo For Steven Zamiar
Sentencing Memo For Steven Zamiar
Sentencing Memo For Steven Zamiar
)
) No. 13 CR 929
)
) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
)
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Zamiar was a highly successful police officer. At the height of his
career, immediately prior to being charged in this case, he was Deputy Chief of
Police for the Midlothian Police Department, a position that made him second in
command of the department with supervisory authority over its police officers.
Trial in this case focused on Zamiars arrest of James Snyder on November
23, 2011. During that arrest, Zamiar used excessive and unreasonable force when
he beat Snyder with a metal police baton, repeatedly striking him in the head, neck,
and spine. Adding insult to injury, Zamiar directed his subordinate police officers on
the scene to arrest Snyder and take him into custody.
Snyders legs and missed, he prepared a false use-of-force form asserting facts that
were untrue, and he repeated those lies on a second police report, this one a level-ofresistance report. Trial in this case was his second opportunity for contrition. But
instead of accepting responsibility for his crime, Zamiar consciously sought to
obstruct justice. He deliberately took the stand at trial where, under oath, he lied to
the jury about critical facts.
Moreover, the governments continued investigation has revealed that
Zamiars actions on the night of November 23, 2011, and at trial were no aberration.
He has violated other individuals civil rights and has gained notoriety within the
Midlothian Police Department as an unethical and corrupt police officer.
A fair and just sentence in this case will account for Zamiars history and
characteristics, including his repeated civil rights violations and obstruction of
justice, as well as the need to deter other law enforcement officers from engaging in
the same or similar type of conduct. A sentence of 87 to 108 months imprisonment
is sufficient, but not great than necessary, to accomplish those goals.
II.
BACKGROUND
A.
Durbins, parked his unmarked car, walked up to the bar, and stood in the front
beer garden.
When a Durbins bouncer looked out the glass window from inside the bar, as
he testified at trial, he saw a man (Zamiar) holding an extended police baton. That
the Zamiar was standing outside the bar with an extended metal police baton is
telling; Zamiar was primed for a fight and looking for an opportunity to use the
baton. The bouncer approached Zamiar who was wearing plainclothes with no
outwardly visible police markingsand Zamiar responded by pulling out his police
badge, identifying himself as a police officer.
After walking through the beer garden and not finding anyone to arrest,
Zamiar went to an adjacent parking lot where he saw a bar patron, James Snyder,
entering a car driven by his girlfriend. Zamiar approached, but did not show his
police badge, or otherwise identify himself as a police officer. Instead, Zamiar took a
deadly and dangerous weaponhis metal police batonand lunged. Snyderfaced
with a man armed with a deadly weaponturned and ran for help. As Snyder ran
back towards the bar, Zamiar repeatedly struck Snyder with a metal police baton
across the back of Snyders head, neck, and back, leaving large welts, red marks,
and bruises. These welts, marks, and bruises are evident in the photographs of
Snyders back and head that the government introduced at trial, taken several
hours after the incident
During trial, Zamiar chose to testify in his own defense. He took the witness
stand, swore an oath to tell the truth, and proceeded to tell lie after lie to the Court
5
and to the jury. He lied in an effort to convince the jury that Snydernot him was
the aggressor that night and to portray himself as simply a police officer trying his
best to do his job. The jury was not convinced, finding Zamiar guilty of intentionally
depriving Snyder of his civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. This Court, too,
should not be convinced; what Zamiar did was obstruct justice, plain and simple.
Zamiars lies began on direct examination when he testified about his
encounter with the bouncer outside Durbins Bar. When asked what he did when he
approached the bar, Zamiar testified that he made contact with an individual Id
seen pushing them [bar patrons] out, who I knew to be a bouncer or security at the
bar. Tr. 450. When asked if he had anything in his hand at that point, Zamiar
testified, I dont believe so, but maybe a flashlight, you know. Id. Zamiar was then
asked, Did you have your baton out? Zamiar responded, No. Id. This testimony
was directly contradicted by the unimpeached testimony by the bouncer, who
testified that he clearly recalled that the object in Zamiars hand was a baton,
approximately nine to sixteen inches long. See Tr. 356. Zamiars lies continued
throughout his direct and cross-examination:
When asked what he observed in the Krispy Kreme parking lot, Zamiar falsely
testified, They [Snyder and Burns] closed the distance, and Mr. Snyder threw a
punch. Tr. 471.
When asked what happened after the punch was thrown, Zamiar falsely testified
that he identified himself as a police officer, testifying that, I yelled, Hey,
police. Tr. 471. This is contradicted by the testimony, credited by the jury, of
Snyder and his girlfriend.
Zamiar then testified that he chased Snyder up an embankment towards
Durbins. Zamiar falsely testified that Snyderdefying the laws of physics and
common sensestopped on a dime with Zamiar a step or two behind him, and
took a fighting stance: Once we were up the hill on a flat surface, Mr. Snyder
6
stopped abruptly and turned back towards me with his hands in the air. Tr.
474.
Zamiar falsely testified that he did not strike Snyder in the head and neck with
a police baton. Tr. 475. This testimony was flatly contradicted by the
photographs of Snyders head taken immediately after the incident, Snyders
testimony, the testimony of one of Zamiars own fellow officers, and the
attending paramedic.
Zamiar falsely testified that he struck Snyder three times with his baton, once in
the arm and twice to the back. Tr. 475-80. This testimony was flatly contradicted
by Snyders testimony, the testimony of another Midlothian police officer on the
scene, and the photographs of Snyders back and neck, showing multiple
(between nine and twelve) welts and strike marks.
Zamiar falsely testified that another officer gave the order to arrest Snyder. Tr.
480. This testimony, yet again, was flatly contradicted by the unimpeached
testimony of the Durbins bouncer, Snyder, and another officer on the scene.
Each of Zamiars lies was intentional, calculated, and material to the jurys
determination of guilt. By falsely testifying that he saw Snyder throw a punch in
the parking lot and that Snyder turned towards him in an aggressive manner,
Zamiar attempted to manipulate the jury into believing that he had a reasonable
basis to use force when, in fact, his actions were unjustified and excessive.
III.
rights under the Fourth Amendment during arrests. Detail, including sworn
witness statements and photographs, regarding those incidents was provided to the
Court and Probation Officer as part of the Governments Version of the Offense,
dated June 3, 2015, and the Supplement to the Governments Version of the
Offense, dated July 31, 2015.
(a) photographs of the arrestees face, reflecting bruises, swelling, and cuts in the
area of the nose, which are consistent with the strikes from a shoe or boot; (b) the
sworn statements of two law enforcement officers who witnessed the incident, both
of whom are currently employed by the Midlothian Police Department and, like the
victim, have no incentive to lie; and (c) a report prepared by an FBI special agent,
summarizing his interview of the victim-arrestee while that person was in custody
at Cook County Jail.
B.
10
to answer. Zamiar then stated that the suspect had a black eye (neither of the two
agents mentioned the black eye and had not shown Zamiar a picture of the suspect
with a black eye). When asked how the suspect got the black eye, Zamiar falsely
stated that he did not know. Zamiar incredulously suggested that maybe the
suspect ran into a tree. Agents then asked Zamiar who hit the suspect. Zamiar
twice responded that neither he nor the other officer hit the suspect, again contrary
to the reliable evidence, including the sworn statements of Zamiars fellow officer
and the victim himself.
The evidence proving that this incident occurred is reliable. Attached as
exhibits to the Governments Version of the Offense are: (a) the sworn testimony of
the victim-arrestee regarding the incident; (b) the sworn testimony of a Village of
Midlothian police officer who witnessed Zamiar beat the victim-arrestee; (c) the
sworn testimony of a Village of Midlothian police officer who saw Zamiar in the
immediate aftermath of the beating; (d) photographs of the victim-arrestees face;
and (e) an FBI report of interview, summarizing FBI special agents interview of
Zamiar regarding the incident.
IV.
The Probation Officer correctly concluded that the base offense level is 14 by
reference to Guideline 2A2.2, which governs aggravated assault. Specifically,
Guideline 2H1.1 covers offenses involving civil rights violations. Pursuant to
11
2H1.1(a)(1), the applicable offense level is the offense guideline applicable to any
underlying offense. As defined in Application Note 1, that means any conduct
established by the offense of conviction under federal, state, or local law.
In this case, the jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Zamiars use
of excessive force resulted in Snyders bodily injury and that defendants actions
included the use of a dangerous weapon. That fits within the definition of an
aggravated assault, which is a felonious assault that involved (A) a dangerous
weapon with intent to cause bodily injury (i.e., not merely to frighten) with that
weapon; (B) serious bodily injury; (C) strangling, suffocating, or attempting to
strangle or suffocate; or (D) an intent to commit another felony. U.S.S.G. 2A2.2,
note 1.
B.
12
The Probation Officer correctly concluded that Zamiar acted under color of
law, warranting a six level increase to the offense level under Guideline
H1.1(b)(1)(B). At the time of the incident, Zamiar was on duty as a police officer
holding the rank of Deputy Chief of Police, and he committed the offense under
color of law as a sworn Midlothian police officer.
D.
trial by falsely testifying about material facts while under oath on the stand. In
addition, defendant prepared two materially false reports in the hours after the
incident, each of which falsely stated that Snyders injuries were attributable to his
own aggressive conduct; this, too, warrants the enhancement.
E.
The Probation Officer correctly concluded that Zamiar does not receive a
downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Not only did Zamiar put the
government to its burden at proof and deny essential factual elements of guilt, but
he also falsely testified at trial. 1 This is a clear case of a defendant failing to accept
responsibility for his criminal conduct; therefore no reduction is appropriate.
V.
The commentary to Guideline 3E1.1 explains that an adjustment for acceptance is not
intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by
denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and
expresses remorse. USSG 3E1.1 (comment, n.2). Moreover, [c]onduct resulting in an
enhancement under 3C1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice)
ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal
conduct. USSG 3E1.1 (comment, n.4).
1
14
violations, his efforts to cover up his criminal conduct from the Midlothian Police
Department, his lies to the FBI, his obstruction of justice at trial, and the need to
deter other law enforcement officers from engaging in similar conduct.
A.
starting point and initial benchmark for sentencing. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 4950 (2007); see also 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4). Next, the Court must consider the other 3553(a)
factors. United States v. Omole, 523 F.3d 691, 697 (7th Cir. 2008). These factors include the
need (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide
the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A)-(D).
15
well aware, bad police officerslike bad applestend to spoil the bunch, making a
difficult job all the more difficult for police officers while straining the relationship
and balance between the police and the community.
Compounding the injuries inflicted outside Durbins, Zamiar came to this
Court, swore an oath, and then lied to a jury of his peerspeople who will go back
to the community knowing that the Deputy Chief of Police from a local community
was willing to lie through his teeth at a federal criminal trial. Zamiars actions
both outside Durbins Bar and in the courtroommake it more difficult for law
enforcement officers, including those from the Village of Midlothian, to do their job
well, and undermine the communitys trust.
B.
16
C.
At the time of the charged offense, Zamiar was a trained and experienced
police officer who held a clear position of authority with the police department. In
fact, Zamiar had been a police officer since approximately 1997 and, throughout the
years, had attended a number of training sessions on proper use of forcea fact
that was thoroughly established at trial. That Zamiar committed this offense near
the pinnacle of his career is not a saving grace for him. To the contrary, it exposes
Zamiars cavalier attitude and arrogance that led him three times, beginning in
2009 and continuing through 2011, to egregiously violate the constitutional rights of
members of the community.
The government acknowledges that it is likely true that, throughout Zamiars
career, he experienced the daily stresses of a being a police officer, which
undoubtedly can be a difficult job. This is absolutely no excuse for his behavior. If
anything, the reactions of Zamiars fellow police officers speak volumes about
Zamiars lack of character and unethical behavior. In the statements provided to the
Court, one officer described specific instances of unethical behavior by defendant
that he witnessed; another officer described Zamiar as a bad dude who would have
jammed up the officer had the officer disclosed what happened when Zamiar beat
an arrestee; a third described Zamiar as hyper, aggressive, and out of control as a
police officer; and a fourth described Zamiar as devious and not trustworthy.
17
VI.
CONCLUSION
The government respectfully submits that, under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a),
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned Assistant United States Attorney hereby certifies that in
accordance with FED. R. CRIM. P. 49, FED. R. CIV. P. 5, LR 5.5, and the General
Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF), the following document:
GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
was served pursuant to the district courts ECF system as to ECF filers on
September 25, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
ZACHARY T. FARDON
United States Attorney
By:
/s/Patrick M. Otlewski
PATRICK M. OTLEWSKI
Assistant United States Attorney
219 South Dearborn Street, 5th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 469-6045