|
|
| |
| Wed, Dec. 3, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict in inmate death case Friday, Apr 27, 2007 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a jury verdict exonerating law enforcement officers in the 2000 death of a Crawford County jail inmate. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis affirmed a verdict in favor of the defendants in a lawsuit that alleged officers violated the constitutional rights of Daniel Grayson, 31. Grayson died Oct. 15, 2000, after gouging out his eyes at the Crawford County Detention Center. An autopsy report said Grayson died from excited delirium caused by acute methamphetamine intoxication and a physical struggle, with an enlarged heart as a contributing factor. Grayson was being held at the jail following his arrest earlier in the day after he drove a truck into Lee Creek in Van Buren. Grayson's widow, Jerala Grayson, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Fort Smith in October 2001 against Bob Ross, then the Crawford County sheriff, and jailers John McAllister, Chris Porter and Roy Bass. She later dropped Bass as a defendant and added the arresting officer, Van Buren police officer Michael Sharum. The cases against Ross and Sharum were dismissed before the suit went to trial. Jerala Grayson alleged her husband's rights to medical treatment and due process were violated. He should have been taken from the accident site to a hospital, not to jail, and should have been watched more carefully at the jail, she claimed. At a May 2004 trial, a federal jury decided in favor of the defendants. Jerala Grayson appealed the verdict and the dismissals of Ross and Sharum. The 8th Circuit upheld the dismissals and most of the jury's verdict but initially said it was uncertain about one of Jerala Grayson's claims - that U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren gave the jury improper instructions. She claimed Hendren should have instructed jurors that the defendants violated her husband's constitutional rights if they acted with "conscious indifference" to his medical needs, but instead he told the jury a violation occurred if the officers acted with "deliberate indifference." The appeals court asked the state Supreme Court for clarification of the proper standard to apply in the case. In an answer issued last month, the Supreme Court said deliberate indifference was the proper standard, based on case law. Accordingly, the 8th Circuit issued an opinion Thursday affirming on that issue as well. The Supreme Court's answer "resolves our uncertainty and dictates that we should affirm the district court," Judge Arlen Beam wrote in the opinion. No issues remain undecided in the appeal. |
