Jury Awards More Than $2 Million To Family Of Disabled Man Killed By Deputy
Attorneys for former deputy Gregory Bergman suggested he acted in self defense. The family of Delmar Espejo, who was homeless and disabled, said that was impossible.
A jury awarded $2.27 million Friday to the family of a man killed outside the Capitol in 2019 by a deputy sheriff and found the state liable for failing to properly train and supervise the law enforcement officer.
The civil trial brought renewed scrutiny to the state鈥檚 Sheriff Division, which now falls under the Department of Law Enforcement and is in the midst of two unrelated misconduct investigations.
The former deputy on trial, Gregory Bergman, who works as an officer with the San Diego Police Department, was never criminally charged in the February 2019 shooting of Delmar Espejo. He was hired by the San Diego department on June 18, 2020, and earns $115,128 a year there, according to records released by the department.
Since his move to San Diego, Bergman has been involved in two other fatal police shootings, according to media releases. Honolulu First Circuit Court Judge Dean Ochiai ruled last week that those incidents couldn鈥檛 be mentioned during the trial.
Attorneys for the family of Espejo, a 28-year-old homeless man who was disabled from a childhood polio diagnosis, said he posed no threat to Bergman when the deputy sheriff confronted him for drinking alcohol on Capitol grounds the night of Feb. 18. They also accused the Sheriff Division of not having a field training officer and leaving Bergman unsupervised even though he only had less than two years on the job.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated how many jurors found Bergman used excessive, unreasonable force.
While 10 out of 12 jurors found Bergman was negligent with his use of force on Espejo, all of the jurors agreed the state had breached its duty to properly train and supervise Bergman. Two jurors found he used excessive, unreasonable force, and 10 jurors did not.
“It’s very clear that the jury very much felt the state itself was largely responsible for this,” Terrence Revere, one of the Espejo family’s attorneys, said. “They do a terrible job training, they do a terrible job supervising.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated what entity will pay the punitive damages.
The jury awarded Espejo’s mother, Crescencia Espejo, $750,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages. Attorneys for Espejo’s family said the Attorney General’s Office will pay the damages, but in a statement, Attorney General spokeswoman Toni Schwartz said the state does not pay punitive damages. She would not clarify who pays.
Bergman and his attorneys declined to comment outside the courtroom. In a statement, Schwartz said errors were made during the trial that affected its fairness, but she did not elaborate on what they were.
“We are considering our options,” the statement says.
Following the jury’s decision, Espejo’s aunt said the outcome wasn’t enough to alleviate her family’s grief, and she wished more could be done to hold Bergman personally accountable.
“For us, we are still grieving,” Carol Cardenas said outside the courtroom. “He was a young boy, disabled.”
She described her nephew as a funny young man who loved to joke around and tease his mother. She said she felt Bergman and his attorneys weren’t affected by the death because they didn’t know Espejo, but for her family, the loss has been devastating.
“He was just in the wrong place,” she said. “It kills me.”
Bergman, who was represented by the Attorney General鈥檚 Office, said he responded with appropriate force because Espejo didn’t follow his commands and was acting aggressively toward him.
Bergman testified he approached Espejo, who was sitting with a man named Thomas Boyd and drinking vodka out of a clear bottle. He said he asked Espejo to pour the bottle out. Espejo started to resist and at one point swatted at Bergman and said 鈥渇uck you.鈥
Bergman said that鈥檚 when he told Espejo he was under arrest. Espejo then fell backward with Bergman landing on top of him.
A scuffle ensued, and Bergman shot Espejo in the back, at close range.
Boyd disputed that account. In an interview recorded by a Sheriff Division internal investigator after the shooting, he said that Bergman 鈥渢ackled鈥 Espejo. A photo taken during Espejo鈥檚 autopsy and shown to jurors at trial showed a blood smear on the back of his head, indicating he鈥檇 hit it on something hard, like the ground, attorneys said.
The internal affairs investigator, Garrett Medeiros, testified that Bergman could have distanced himself from Espejo and waited for backup to arrive. But he didn鈥檛 call for backup until he was already scuffling with Espejo and shot Espejo shortly after the fight started.
Medeiros said all law enforcement officers are taught a use of force continuum that starts with giving verbal commands and ends with deadly force.
鈥淗e didn鈥檛 use any other less-lethal force,鈥 Medeiros said.
Pivotal Question: Did Officer Face ‘Active Aggression’?
Deputy Attorney General Yanita Spiker, who represented Bergman and the state, said the version of events presented by Espejo鈥檚 attorneys was not accurate. She said Espejo was exhibiting 鈥渁ggravated active aggression,鈥 which, according to Sheriff Division policy, allows personnel to respond with the highest level of force. A judge ruled though, that Bergman couldn’t claim self defense during the trial.
She said Bergman had no malicious intent and was only trying to do his duty. During her closing arguments, she encouraged jurors to say 鈥渘o鈥 to the plaintiff鈥檚 allegations that Bergman intentionally and wrongfully killed Espejo and that the state failed to properly train and supervise him.
鈥淪aying no doesn鈥檛 mean that you don鈥檛 think that Mr. Espejo’s death was a sad event.鈥
Deputy Attorney General Yanita Spiker
鈥淪aying no doesn鈥檛 mean that you don鈥檛 think that Mr. Espejo’s death was a sad event,鈥 she said. 鈥淚t just means that the accusations against Deputy Bergman and the state are not true.鈥
Espejo鈥檚 mother and multiple members of his family attended the trial every day. Espejo had previously lived with his mother but was living on the streets at the time of the shooting because of problems he had with her boyfriend, attorneys said.
One of his eight siblings, Emily Godwin Espejo, testified via Zoom from Pennsylvania.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 want anything for myself, I just want justice done,鈥 she said. 鈥淗opefully my mom will recover from this, she suffers a lot.鈥
Trial Viewed As Window Into Treatment Of Homeless
Revere said the case demonstrates how homeless people are often treated by law enforcement.
He told the jury during closing arguments that punitive damages against the state would send a message to other law enforcement officers that they can鈥檛 get away with discriminating against people based on their socioeconomic or housing status.
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 treat people like garbage because they鈥檙e homeless,鈥 he said.
Attorneys also accused the state of mishandling evidence.
鈥淚鈥檝e never seen a case like this where so much of the evidence was lost, mishandled, gone.鈥
Terrence Revere, attorney for the Espejo family
Revere said the Attorney General鈥檚 Office gave over still images taken from surveillance video at the Capitol but never handed over the videos. It also didn鈥檛 preserve body camera footage from Honolulu police officers who responded to the scene after the shooting. Bergman was not wearing a body camera at the time of the shooting.
鈥淚鈥檝e never seen a case like this where so much of the evidence was lost, mishandled, gone,鈥 he said.
He also said the department has been resistant to placing more cameras around the Capitol.
Department of Law Enforcement spokesman Brooks Baehr said the department would not comment on the outcome of the case. He also said deputy sheriffs don鈥檛 wear body cameras but the department is in the process of rolling them out.
