noting that, under a broad reading of Johnson, “[a]ll plaintiffs need do to receive an automatic trial is simply assert, without any evidence, that ‘the police are lying’ ”
How later courts described this case
- noting that, under a broad reading of Johnson, “[a]ll plaintiffs need do to receive an automatic trial is simply assert, without any evidence, that ‘the police are lying’ ”
- reversing officer’s police excessive force conviction in case involving intoxicated and violent complaining witness
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER
A member of the Court requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard en bane. *175 A majority of the judges in active service voted that it should not be reheard en banc.
Judges Hall, Murnaghan, Ervin, Michael, and Motz voted for rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Wilkinson, and Judges Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Hamilton, Luttig, and Williams voted against rehearing en banc.
Chief Judge Wilkinson filed an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Judges Russell, Widener, Wilkins, Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams joined. Judge Motz filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Judges Hall, Murnaghan, Ervin, and Michael joined.
The suggestion for rehearing en banc is hereby denied. Entered at the direction of Chief Judge Wilkinson for the Court.