REGION: Jury not to hear histories of Foley, Mansker
Civil trial over shooting of former Charger to start Monday
By TERI FIGUEROA - Staff Writer | ∞
SAN DIEGO ---- A jury will not hear that the off-duty officer who shot then-Chargers starting linebacker Steve Foley in 2006 had tried previously to pull over other motorists while off the clock, a judge ruled Thursday.
Nor will the jury at the civil trial be told that Foley had at least two prior encounters with the law ---- both while allegedly intoxicated.
The former football player has sued Coronado police Officer Aaron Mansker and the city of Coronado for battery, excessive force and negligence.
Mansker had been on the job with the city for 13 months when he shot Foley, 32, three times on Sept. 3, 2006, in a confrontation in Foley's cul-de-sac in Poway.
It happened after the officer ---- in street clothes and driving his personal car ---- spotted Foley weaving and speeding and, fearing he was a threat to others, tried to pull him over, on suspicion of drunken driving.
The shooting ended Foley's football career. He is suing for his losses, his attorneys said, but would not ask a jury for punitive damages. The attorneys did not say how much they were asking the jury to award Foley.
Jury selection starts Monday. Testimony is to start next week and could run from four to six weeks.
On Thursday, attorneys from both sides were in court to settle disputes regarding what evidence the jury could consider.
Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss denied a request to inform the jury that Mansker's father was killed by a drunken driver when Mansker was a teenager living in Escondido.
The panel also will not hear that Mothers Against Drunk Driving honored Mansker, in part for his actions in pursuing Foley.
But jurors can hear about the police officer standards and training Mansker underwent for the Coronado Police Department. Foley’s attorneys contend that Mansker should have seen it as taboo to pull over a suspected drunken driver while off-duty.
Foley eventually pleaded guilty to drunken driving; prosecutors said his blood-alcohol content was twice the legal limit. His blood was taken after he was shot.
The shooting left the veteran linebacker with .40-caliber bullet wounds in his leg, hip and arm.
"He’s maimed for life," Foley attorney Jordan Cohen said after the brief court hearing Thursday. "He walks with a marked limp. He cannot put his heel on the ground."
Cohen said that Foley is "devastated" by the loss of his football career.
After the hearing, Norm Watkins, who is representing Mansker and the city of Coronado, characterized the officer as "a fine young man" who has "performed admirably on the job."
"This case is about ... way too much alcohol and very bad judgment on that night, and we will just have to let the evidence unfold," Watkins said. He said that he would reserve his comments regarding the case for the jury.
Mansker was heading home from work at about 3:30 a.m. on Labor Day weekend when he spotted Foley driving erratically.
The officer called for assistance and then ----- when uniformed officers were en route but too far off ---- Mansker pulled up next to Foley at a stoplight and told him to pull over.
Mansker has testified that he identified himself as a police officer, and showed Foley his gun, but not his badge.
He followed the football player to the cul-de-sac, where Foley got out of his car and approached the officer. Cohen said Foley thought Mansker was an overzealous fan.
A warning shot fired by Mansker failed to deter Foley's approach. Mansker testified that he saw Foley reach for his waistband. Fearing the football player had a gun, Mansker shot Foley.
Foley's companion on the night of the shooting, Lisa Maree Gaut, was tried and convicted for her role in the confrontation. As shots were fired, Gaut jumped into the driver's seat of Foley's car. She said she tried to rescue her bleeding friend.
Mansker said he thought she was aiming the car at him. Gaut was later convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for driving toward Mansker.
Harvey Levine, another Foley attorney, said the civil trial would present evidence not included in Gaut's criminal trial, regarding both the early-morning confrontation and the rules for off-duty policemen.
"I think it will be very enlightening to the public and serve some purpose to what our community wants to do with regard to this continuing problem of off-duty officers," Levine said. "Maybe it will help provide the officers themselves with a better understanding of what they should or shouldn’t do."
The Foley incident was one of two recent shootings by off-duty police officers that has grabbed headlines and stirred debate in North County.
In March, an off-duty San Diego policeman shot an 8-year-old boy and his mother in a road rage confrontation in an Oceanside parking lot.
The mother, Rachel Leann Silva, who reportedly tailgated the officer aggressively, prompting the officer’s wife call to 911, has been charged with felony child endangerment and drunken driving.
County prosecutors are probing whether the officer, Frank White of Oceanside, should face criminal charges.
Last year, the same office cleared Mansker and Foley of criminal wrongdoing. San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said their probe revealed both men were acting in self-defense ---- Foley when he confronted the out-of-uniform officer, and Mansker when he pulled the trigger.
Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 740-5442 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
RG wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:00 PM:Of course Mansker's attorneys don't want the jury to hear about his prior history of being a loose cannon and his continued violations of the Coronado police Policy and Procedures. I guess they won't hear about his reckless driving record either.
Steve wrote on Jun 13, 2008 7:21 AM:What a joke and typical!
esteban wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:06 AM:Hey RG...on the flip side, the jury won't hear about Foley's obvious disdain for cops. Your disdain for cops is loud and clear however.
Dude wrote on Jun 13, 2008 10:21 AM:Cops & Lawyers = Organized crime
Really wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:10 AM:"continuing problem of off-duty officers," Levine said"
Really, how about the continuing problem of drunk drivers?
two off duty officers, two drunk drivers.
hint, hint, stop drinking and driving and you won't be shot! If you don't believe they are police officers, use common sense and drive to the nearby police station. I'm pretty sure both Foley and Silva knew where the nearest station was located. But then again, anyone who drink and drive lack a lot of common sense!
Bo wrote on Jun 13, 2008 1:34 PM:This should never have happened. If Mansker thought that Foley was a public threat he should of called 911 to get on-duty uniformed police officers from the local jurisdiction to handle it. Mansker is the threat to the public! His record shows that he has been admonished by the Coronado PD for similiar behavior and his record should be presented to jurors because it shows a pattern of abusing authority that is relevant to this case.
Billy B wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:39 PM:This is just another of many examples of police abusing their power. They think that they are above the law. The cop should have called other cops. Put yourself in Foley's shoes. A guy starts following you and at a stoplight pulls out a gun and says he's a cop with no ID. They guy then continues following you all the way home, at night. Its obvious why he was "threatening." Also the cop did stupid stuff before. Yeah drunk driving was not smart or safe, but two wrongs don't make a right. The officer should be reprimanded and have the case heard to if he should continue patrolling.
Big J wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:48 PM:The thing that makes me mad about this article if how it is written. I repeatedly calls Mansker "officer." "Foley approached the Officer" etc etc. At the point in time Foley didn't know he was actually a cop. Just as if someone pulled up to you at a light and said, "I'm a cop" and flashed you a gun you wouldn't believe it. The whole thing has to be looked at in the context he was a civilian. A cop or not, someone in civilian clothes is a civilian
To Bo wrote on Jun 13, 2008 2:54 PM:Obviously you don't how to read! Every news article I've read clearly said, Mansker called 911 but there were no CHP units available, Sheriff were called but they were too far out.
If Foley would have kill someone that night, you would be the first to blame Mansker for not acting.
For your info, normal citizens report and follow what they believe to be a drunk driver all the time and they are not always right.
Do a little bit more research next time.
I think Mansker is DUI profiling for going after drunk drivers, shame on him!
My prediction wrote on Jun 13, 2008 3:39 PM:Predicted results: 1) The jury will find that Mansker was out of line in his actions. 2) Folley will get a large sum of money paid for with a dollar or two from each taxpayer. 3) Foley will get a slap on the wrist and continue his aggressive behavior. 4) Other cops will see that they can get away without any serious consequence. 5) We will continue to read about these off-duty cops shooting people and getting away with it. In other words, NOTHING WILL BE DONE!
RG wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:21 PM:Mansker should be fired, and the guy who hired him should be fired... And, it's time to readdress the policies of allowing off-duty officers full authority, particularly for new cops who have not shown the maturity to conduct themselves in a professional and sensible manner. Maybe after they've been in the job awhile and proved they can handle it, they could be allowed of-duty privileges.
To My Prediction wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:25 PM:Other cops will see that citizens (at least nctimes and his people) are more interesting in defending a drunk driver than us, the normal citizen who follow the law and don't drink and drive.
BTW, I was medically discharged from the Marines Corps because I was hit by one those wonderfull people who you are so eager to defend. I unable to enjoy life to the fullest.
I hope that never happen to you. If an off duty officer who have stop the driver who hit me I would still be able to walk normally. thank you Mansker for stopping another idiot!
esteban wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:27 PM:For the love of Pete folks...for the last time!!!! Mansker DID call 911 and he DID call for other cops...but there were none available. So please stop with the "he should have called 911...". I seriously wonder about some of you people.
My prediction wrote on Jun 13, 2008 5:45 PM:Response to "To My Prediction at 4:25" Please, I understand your point. I have not been injured by a drunk OR someone shooting me. And no, I don't drink myself and drive, and I don't "eagerly defend those wonderful people" who do. I do believe though, that ON-DUTY cops have ample opportunity to observe (like at 2AM near any bar) and keep drunks off the road. We don't need Off-duty cops like Mansker ... running around shooting people. My point was that nothing will change. Peace.
To My prediction wrote on Jun 14, 2008 8:30 AM:I see your point, but Mansker tried to call an on-duty cop but they were no available.
What would you have done instead? Turn around and go home. Take the, "Oh well, I tried." approach and later read on the news how an Innocence citizen like me and you can't walk anymore because Mansker did not do enough to stop Foley.
I see your point about off-duty officer not getting involve but because I'm sitting on an wheelchair and you are not, i have to support the actions of Mansker.
He did what he thought was right to probably save other's lives like me, you and our families. I'm sure you would have a different view of this incident if one of your family members was affected by Foley's actions.
off duty or not he stopped a drunk driver period! You would have to agree that the community is safer now that Foley can't longer drink and drive! we hope, unless some nice judge give him back his license.
When I was hit by a drunk driver, it was his 3rd DUI! This is BS! one DUI is a DUI too many! it should be one DUI no more license period.
squirrel wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:24 AM:To My prediction, so you are saying anyone driving under the influence, should be followed home by a supercop and and shot 3 time and hopefully end up in a wheelchair so he wont be able to drive drunk anymore.
He followed him home he should have waited for an on-duty officer to show up.
to squirel wrote on Jun 17, 2008 8:54 PM:No thats' not what I said and that's not what happened either. Why don't you stop giving the bad guys the benefit of the doubt, Mansker called on duty officers while he was following your hero Foley for miles, unfortunately, they turned into a no way out street so he did what he had to do.
So asked yourself one question, was Mansker committing any crime when he was following Foley? No! Was Foley committing a crime when he was drinking and driving? yes
in 2006, there were 17,602 DUI related deaths (not to mention, us crippled people) compared to 45 off duty officer involved shooting in which not all where fatal shootings.
So I guess you rather see innocence people in a wheelchair than the people who chose to drink and drive that night!
I got your point! Great Posting!
squirrel wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:00 PM:To My prediction, I don't wish to see anyone in a wheel chair.
what Mansker did was wrong.
off-duty means not at work, therefore no shooting people. if he wasn't there he would not have feared for his life.
those statistics suck but that doesn't give him the right to shoot.
esteban wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:59 PM:Mansker was right, Foley was wrong, Foley supporters are wrong (and not very smart). Thanks.
BC wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:58 AM:Why shouldn't Mansker's past be out there and heard? Foley's has been out there for all to hear. They (Mansker's attorney) doesn't want it out there because the trial won't last as long and the attorney would only be able to charge for days, not weeks of trial.
This cop messed up. The DA messed up by not convicting him of anything.
Ask yourself this: Would "YOU" stop for someone in a non-cop car waiving a gun, telling you he's a cop and telling you to pull over? If your answer is anything but "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!". You need to seek help for your own safety.
BC wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:09 AM:And before you all jump on me about my love for Foley or whatever else you want to call me. I do believe he was wrong for drinking and driving, however, that doesn't mean Foley or others who drink and drive should be shot.
Once Foley turned into the subdivision, Mankser should have stopped following him. Reason being, not many subdivisions have a 2nd entrance, therefore, dead end streets, and he probably wasn't familiar with the area. Therefore, he got himself into the "trapped" situation.
Lloyd wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:32 AM:It is funny how a series of events starts by one action. The series then becomes something else and people lose perspective that if that first event didn't happen then everything else after it would have been different. What is that first event??? Foley getting drunk and driving; ... I have never heard him say, nor anything printed, on him taking responsibility for his actions, NEVER!!! It is easy to blame others like Foley is doing, but really if he had made a better decision that night he wouldn't have been putting his fate upon others reacting to him. Foley got what he deserved, and I don't think people that have not been personally devastated by a drunk driver realize what Foley and people like him do to people.
To Lloyd wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:56 PM:Well said!
from a man who was crippled by a drunk driver!
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement