SEBA Deputy Webb is Exonerated
By Bill Hadden
Silver, Hadden, Silver, Wexler and Levine
On June 28, 2007, after deliberating for only three hours, a San Bernardino County jury exonerated former San Bernardino Deputy Sheriff Ivory John Webb, Jr., of charges of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm in regard to his on-duty shooting of an intoxicated military policeman named Elio Carrion. 
The case had received international attention as the events immediately leading up to and including the shooting were captured by a neighbor on a grainy video, which the prosecution claimed showed Deputy Webb callously firing upon Carrion after telling him to get up off the ground.
Throughout the 18-month ordeal, Deputy Webb was represented by Michael Schwartz and Bill Hadden of Silver, Hadden, Silver, Wexler & Levine.
The night of the shooting
Back on Jan. 29, 2006, Deputy Webb was on patrol near the end of his shift, anticipating the start of a two-week vacation. He was patrolling the Chino Hills area, when he heard a broadcast from fellow Deputy Charles Carter, who announced he was in pursuit of a Corvette at speeds in excess of 100 mph in a residential area. A nine-year veteran of the department, Deputy Webb continued to monitor the pursuit, and staged his vehicle so as to assist if necessary.  
The Corvette at one point spun out and stopped a few feet from the front of Carter’s unit, before again jetting away in a manner that would threaten the lives of motorists, pedestrians and deputies, not to mention the two occupants of the Corvette. Deputy Carter’s Crown Victoria could not safely keep pace with the Corvette, which proceeded to zip past Deputy Webb.
Sensing that the safety of the public was in jeopardy, Deputy Webb initiated his own pursuit to stop the suspects’ vehicle, also reaching speeds over 100 mph in an effort to at least obtain a license plate number. As he did so, he could not help but wonder what other crimes the suspects might be running from, or how soon it might be before their antics killed someone.  
His opportunity for reflection was brief, as the suspects’ vehicle pulled away from him. In Deputy Webb’s mind, it appeared that the suspects would stop at nothing to avoid arrest, but the Corvette then swerved out of control. He braced himself for a collision that never came, as the suspect vehicle crashed against a cinder block wall, now facing in the same westbound direction as the Sheriff’s unit.  
Deputy Webb’s first instinct was to call out his location and obtain backup, something he had been unable to do as the pursuit unfolded. Just as he reached for his radio to try again, the Corvette’s passenger, Elio Carrion, got out of the car, while the driver, Luis Escobedo, sought feverishly but unsuccessfully to exit the vehicle from his side. 
Unbeknownst to Deputy Webb at the time, the two suspects had been drinking all day at Carrion’s home at a party Carrion threw for himself to celebrate his recent return from Iraq.
Although Carrion could easily have turned to run westbound, he instead moved eastbound in the direction of Deputy Webb, who had drawn his firearm and ordered him to the ground. Carrion stepped back slightly towards the Corvette, but did not comply with the directive. 
At the same time, both Carrion and Escobedo began a non-stop barrage of verbal distractions for Deputy Webb, who was now in close proximity to suspects he could only presume were armed, without any sense of when or if backup would arrive. It was at this point that the video footage showed the chain of events leading to and including the weapon discharge.  
Undoubtedly due to the profanity used by all parties at the scene, the mainstream media has never played the video and audio for the general public, nor has the media even had access to the multiple versions of expertly enhanced versions that gave improved perspectives on the behavior of the suspects. 
Contrary to the claims of the prosecution, the videos showed that Deputy Webb’s actions were not “out of control,” but instead remarkably restrained.
As the video began, Deputy Webb told Carrion, who was partially standing inside the door of the Corvette, to cross his ankles. Carrion failed to do so, while at the same time Escobedo profanely stated that the suspects did nothing wrong.  The tape showed that the 6’2, 240 pound former University of Iowa football star told the ranting suspects at gunpoint at least seven times to “shut up” so that he could begin to control the situation. 
Sometimes he yelled, sometimes he used profanity, but still neither of the suspects obeyed the commands, prompting fear in any reasonable officer that the suspects may be parolees or gang members working in tandem to formulate a plan of attack against him.  
Deputy Webb told Carrion numerous times to get to the ground, but Carrion did not do so on his own, as he continued to try to divert Webb’s attention. Deputy Webb was forced to use his foot to move Carrion to the ground.
Incredibly, Carrion, whose military and police training should have given him every reason to know the importance of following orders and being sensitive to officer safety concerns, next quickly thrust his left hand within inches of Deputy Webb’s gun. Showing amazing restraint, Deputy Webb refrained from firing as he yelled at Carrion to put his hand back on the ground, while still trying to monitor the movements of Escobedo in the darkened car.  
Carrion did so, but only briefly, when again his left hand reached towards the deputy’s gun. A second time Deputy Webb showed restraint and withheld fire, again emphatically telling Carrion to put his hand on the ground. In between Escobedo’s protestations of innocence from behind the wheel and Carrion’s babbling about the incident all being “a misunderstanding,” Deputy Webb told the non-compliant Carrion four more times to put his hand on the ground, to no avail. 
Next, in a situation that had escalated to make Deputy Webb, “the most scared I had ever been in my life,” Carrion audaciously lectured to Deputy Webb in a threatening tone, “I spent more time than you in the f’ing police, in the f’ing military, you f’ing believe me alright,” as he thrust his right hand in the middle of his jacket.  
From Deputy Webb’s perspective, the hand appeared to go into the waistband area, which would have justified an immediate deadly force response by any officer. But as the hand entered the jacket, Deputy Webb gestured with his firearm seemingly for Carrion to get his hand up, while the audio suggests that the words “get up” may be among other inaudible words. Immediately thereafter, Carrion came up off the ground in his own words, “as quickly as I could,” even though he testified that the command that he heard to get up was one that he would never have given to a suspect himself, and which otherwise gave him “pause.”  
The rapid manner in which Carrion came up off the ground, in combination with Carrion’s hand movement and verbal challenges, in the context of everything that had happened previously, caused Deputy Webb to view Carrion’s movements as a threatening lunge towards him, and he fired his weapon three times in self-defense, consistent with his training.
Testimony of the alleged victim
Certainly one of the high points of the trial was Michael Schwartz’s relentless cross examination of Carrion, who the prosecution tried to paint as a wholesome airman who was just trying to diffuse the supposedly out of control deputy. 
The following excerpts from the trial transcripts focusing on Carrion’s non-compliance with Deputy Webb’s orders provide a significant indication of what Deputy Webb must have encountered from an intoxicated Carrion on the night of the shooting. 
Q:  Now, all the times we’ve just gone over, when he tells you “shut up” or “shut the f--k up,” he’s pointing a gun at you, right?A:  Yes.
Q:  And you keep talking, don’t you?A:  He’s cussing.
Q:  You keep talking, don’t you?A:  I keep talking because he’s cussing.
Q:  You keep talking, yes or no?A:  I keep talking, yes.
Q:  And when he tells you, “Put your hand on the ground,” he’s also pointing a gun at you, isn’t he?A:  He’s cussing at me.
Q:  He’s also pointing a gun at you, yes or no?A:  He’s also pointing a gun at me while he’s cussing.
Q:  And you have got no doubt that this police officer has a right to be there with the two of you, right, doesn’t he?A:  He has.
Q:  He’s doing his job at this point in time?A:  Correct.
Q:  Every time I ask you this question the last few moments, you keep stressing the fact that, “well, but he used profanity,” right?A:  Yes.
Q:  But the question wasn’t whether he used profanity. The question was, he gave you an order to shut up, didn’t he?A:  With cussing.
Q:  He gave you an order to shut up, did he not?  Yes or no?A:  Yes, with cussing in it.
Q:  And you didn’t shut up, right?A:  Uh-huh.
Q:  When he gave you your next order to put your hand on the ground, your recollection was your hand was on the ground, right?A:  Yes.
Q:  But in the video it’s not on the ground?A:  On the video?
Q:  Yeah.A:  No.
Q:  So your recollection was you followed that order, right?A:  Yes.
Q:  That’s your recollection, right?A:  I don’t remember.
Given other similar exchanges in Carrion’s testimony, we were not surprised when jurors told us that they felt that Carrion was an unreliable witness who had provoked his own shooting.
The prosecution’s attack on Deputy Webb’s tactics
As noted, the prosecution’s theory of the case was that Deputy Webb was somehow “out of control,” and that he had shot Carrion in the heat of passion or out of unreasonable fear. The prosecution based its position on criticisms by its “Tactics Expert,” claiming that Deputy Webb should have known that:
The Corvette should not have been pursued; The suspects were merely speeding and were not dangerous; Deputy Webb’s demeanor and use of profanity incited the suspects; Carrion’s hand movements towards the gun were those of a harmless drunk who was just talking with his hands; and Carrion could not realistically have had a firearm in his jacket.
The “expert” insisted that Deputy Webb had created his own deadly force encounter by not properly adapting to the normal stress of the situation. Engaging in a 100 mile-per-hour chase of dangerous suspects, he claimed, should have only produced “moderate stress” in a reasonable deputy, because handling such a pursuit was as routine as “tying your shoes.”  
The “expert” was adamant that Deputy Webb should have never approached the suspect vehicle, citing the lengthy procedures taught in law enforcement academies for high-risk pullovers. Instead, he opined, Deputy Webb should have flooded the rear of the Corvette with light to better see the suspects; removed his shotgun and racked a round; stood in the elbow of what he called “the radio car;” shouted commands over the P.A. system of the unit; continued shouting commands even if the suspect began to approach the deputy, and even though the suspects showed no inclination to follow any of the previous commands; and never approach the vehicle until backup arrived.
Most critically, the “expert” faulted Deputy Webb for not better controlling the scene which, he testified, could have been accomplished simply by giving Carrion detailed instructions to lay prone on the ground, with arms extended to the side, fingers extended as well, palms up and head turned away from the deputy. By failing to perform these “routine” tasks taught in “every” academy for “this” situation, Deputy Webb caused his own stress, the “expert” testified, which provoked him ultimately to use deadly force unnecessarily.
Under cross examination by Michael Schwartz and this author, the “expert’s” opinions were shown to be inconsistent, indefensible and irrelevant. Deputy Webb, he was forced to admit, had violated no law or procedure by engaging in the pursuit, which was skillfully conducted by him. Contrary to his direct testimony, the “expert” was forced to admit that officers are trained not to assume that the occupants of a vehicle fleeing from the police at 100 miles-per-hour are “merely speeders,” not trained to consider such suspects as anything but armed and dangerous, and not trained to view drunks as harmless and weaponless persons who have a license to talk with their hands near an officer’s weapon.  
Similarly, he ultimately came to acknowledge that a suspect, who reaches into a jacket, after previously showing no inclination to follow any commands from the police, may invite an officer’s use of deadly force.
Much of the “expert’s” attack on Deputy Webb’s tactics (an attack for which - unlike the deputy - he had months to prepare) was downright foolish. During his testimony, it became readily apparent that the “expert” had not noticed that after the crash the trunk of the suspect vehicle was sprung open, effectively negating any attempt to light up its occupants from Deputy Webb’s position.
Virtually every other tactical consideration raised by the “expert” was based on an assumption of a compliant suspect who never approached Deputy Webb, which clearly was not the scenario presented. Once the suspect was mobile, Deputy Webb was forced to adapt to the fluid circumstances facing him and, per his own training, could not allow his car to become his coffin. After Deputy Webb’s acquittal, even Sheriff Gary Penrod, in an article in the Los Angeles Times, endorsed Deputy Webb’s approach given the circumstances facing him.
Finally, the “expert’s” analysis was essentially negated when he was compelled to acknowledge that, notwithstanding any of his tactical concerns in Deputy Webb’s approach, the suspects had an absolute duty to comply with the commands given to them, which they continually failed to do. Given those failures, he admitted, Deputy Webb was entitled to consider their non-compliance as a continual and increasing threat. Even the prosecutor, who had invited all the tactics evidence, told the jury in his rebuttal argument that the case was not about tactics.
The defense experts respond
Sergeant Kent Ferrin of the Inglewood Police Department, who testified as a tactics expert for the defense, explained to the jury what police work is really about. First, he emphasized that Deputy Webb’s situation was not a high-risk pullover in which the officer orchestrates the stop with backup and careful planning. Instead, it was a high-risk encounter provoked by the suspects’ crashing of the Corvette without any sign of compliance to that point, followed immediately by Carrion’s unsolicited exit from the vehicle.  
Contrary to what the prosecution’s “expert” would have had us all believe, Sergeant Ferrin testified that in the real world some suspects just won’t comply with police orders, regardless of how they are approached. Noting that Carrion was told numerous times to shut up, to get on the ground, and to keep his hand on the ground, Sergeant Ferrin testified that Deputy Webb reasonably assumed that the suspects may have been working in tandem to attack him.  
In a high point of his cross examination by the prosecutor, Sergeant Ferrin responded to the latter’s suggested criticism of Deputy Webb for failing to give Carrion a command to prone out and perform numerous other acts while on the ground, which would have presumably changed the outcome. Sergeant Ferrin described the prosecutor’s premise as simply “ridiculous.” 
If the suspects are not capable of complying with simple commands like “shut up” and “keep your hand on the ground,” he asked in return, “what would make anyone think they could comply with a command with five parts to it?” The jury ultimately found Sergeant Ferrin’s testimony to be extremely credible, as delivered by someone who works the streets every day, as opposed to the prosecution’s “expert” who had not worked the streets for over 25 years.
The final witness for the defense was Dr. Bill Lewinski, a professor of police science from Minnesota State University, who is probably the world’s leading researcher on the psychological and behavioral aspects of police officers’ use of force. In a very straightforward manner, Dr. Lewinski simplified what might otherwise be complex psychological issues, such as those related to reaction time, divided attention, stress reactions and shooting dynamics. He identified the circumstance in which Deputy Webb found himself as a tremendously dangerous one, with two suspects clamoring for his attention during a high-risk encounter without backup.  
He explained that under the best of circumstances, giving commands to suspects in uncontrolled situations is problematic, and that garbled, sometimes incomplete commands are not a reflection of an officer being out of control or lacking in experience, but instead part of the human dynamic that we should take into account when judging the conduct of an officer in a high stress situation. He completely obliterated one of the prosecution’s theories as gleaned from their “expert,” to the effect that Deputy Webb supposedly made three individual decisions to shoot Carrion, and that he had an abundance of time not to do so.  
Dr. Lewinski carefully explained that the amount of time between the shots fired by Deputy Webb instead was the product of one decision, and that the firing of three shots within the time frames shown at trial were consistent with the manner in which most law enforcement officers are trained. 
Above all, Dr. Lewinski emphasized that when law enforcement officers are trained, they are trained on a foundation of their own humanity and not some model of perfection. Since one of the primary goals of the defense was to have members of the jury walk in Deputy Webb’s shoes, Dr. Lewinski’s testimony was critical in providing expert support for that premise.
Free at last
In a brilliant and passionate closing argument, Michael Schwartz meticulously dissected every aspect of the prosecution’s case, leaving no doubt in the minds of the jurors as to Deputy Webb’s innocence. The prosecution’s “bad tactics” and “out of control” theories were ridiculous he said, as the evidence showed that Deputy Webb had shown amazing restraint and utilized all reasonable means to control suspects who showed disdain for the deputy’s commands. 
It was similarly preposterous, he argued, for the prosecution to try to rewrite the law to claim that the case should be viewed through the bloodshot eyes of a resisting drunken suspect, rather than from the perspective of a reasonable officer trying to protect the community from two dangerous suspects while without backup.  
Most of all, Michael Schwartz encouraged each juror to attempt to walk in Ivory Webb’s shoes before rendering any judgment, and to never forget that law enforcement officers are human beings who must have the authority to reasonably respond to the appearance of danger, so that they, like the rest of us, might go home to their families at the end of the day. In closing, he emotionally appealed to each and every juror to unlock the cage that had surrounded Ivory Webb since the D.A.’s office had rushed to file the charges against him last year, and to set Ivory Webb free at last.
A jury of eight men and four women agreed that under the perilous circumstances thrust on Deputy Webb by two drunk, defiant and non-compliant suspects, he had acted reasonably to defend himself. Shortly thereafter, Judge Michael Smith announced the words Ivory Webb had longed to hear: “Mr. Webb, you are free to go.”
As jurors later told us, the dubious testimony of Carrion, and his even more suspect actions, caused them to believe that Carrion had caused the shooting. It was the suspects, they said, not the deputy, who were out of control.
Having lived with this case with Michael Schwartz and our client Ivory Webb for the last one-and-one-half years, I feel uniquely qualified to make these final observations of indisputable truth:
Ivory Webb is absolutely innocent of the charges that were filed against him; no law enforcement officer should be prosecuted for just trying to do his job; and my co-counsel Michael Schwartz is one absolutely phenomenal trial lawyer.
Acknowledgements
As with any big case, the attorneys involved were tremendously aided by many others, only some of whom we have room to acknowledge. First, we are extremely grateful for having had the opportunity to work with David Notowitz of Notowitz Productions, who was an indispensable member of the defense team before and during trial. 
Mr. Notowitz tirelessly worked to produce numerous enhancements of the video and audio of the tape of the incident. In fact, on one critical part of the tape, the original contained a big blotch of white that prevented us from seeing approximately three seconds of what had occurred. 
The agents of the FBI and the Sheriff’s Department spent hours doing enhancements of the tape, and as skilled as they were in refining the tape, they were unable to remove the white blotch. Mr. Notowitz applied various filters to the tape and eventually we were able to see the additional frames of Carrion’s activities, which helped to disprove Carrion’s version of events. 
Throughout the trial, we benefited from Mr. Notowitz’s preparation of images for the jury’s consideration, which helped simplify an otherwise complex case.  
Looking back, it would have been unimaginable to accomplish what we were able to do without him, and we would recommend his services to any other LDF panel attorney.
Another monumental contributor to our cause was Jan Spaeth of Arizona Jury Research, Inc., who helped us in pre-trial research as well as guiding us though jury selection. Jan and her company could not have been more responsive to our needs or helpful to our outcome, and we would recommend her services to any panel attorney on any case. The ability to identify potential problem jurors is a prerequisite to success, and one will not find anyone more accomplished at that than Jan Spaeth.
We would also like to thank our experts at the trial; Dr. Lewinski, who was a never ending source of information, wisdom and encouragement; Sergeant Kent Ferrin, who poignantly deflated the prosecution’s “out of control” theory, while steadfastly maintaining that what the prosecution called “bad tactics” were instead acts of “valor;” and Forensic Toxicologist Norm Fort, who demonstrated for the jury that Carrion (who had a blood alcohol level of .16) had testified falsely as to his drinking pattern on the night of the incident.
We are similarly greatly indebted to former San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Sergeant Bobby Dean, whose inexhaustible expertise and keen analysis helped us tremendously in addressing law enforcement issues, and also to our tireless, magnificent private investigator Tom Crompton.
We would also like to thank Paris Ward and Mark Ward for their assistance on our audio and video research, as well as attorneys John Barnett and Grover Porter for their insight and support. We also cannot help but acknowledge the extra effort from the incomparable staffs of SEBA and our office, who cheerfully did everything necessary to ensure that Deputy Webb prevailed.
And finally, we will be forever grateful for the incredible support we received from LDF Administrator Larry Friedman and his great staff, who by their creativity, responsiveness and dedication to our cause, provided us the chance to give Deputy Webb what LDF strives to give every member - the best defense possible.