Correspondence from Winter to Hehman Re: Civil Appeal Pre-Argument Statement

    August 18, 1981

SLW:ac
cc: Walter L. Bailey, Jr

Henry L. Klein

m m1 i

t— ,arn,-

Hon. John P. Hehman 
Clerk516 U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Building 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

r-*

Dear Sir:
Re: Garner v. Memphis Police Department

Please find enclosed the original and one 
copy of appelant's pre-argument statement pur­
suant to Rule 18.

Thank you for your attention to this matter
Sincerely yours,

Stdven L. Winter

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0  C O L  U M  D U S  C I F ^ C L E  ( 2 1 2 )  5 8 6 - 8 3 9  /  N E W  Y O R K .  N  Y .  1 0 0 1 9  L  - ' f  V  !



JNITED STATES COURT OF A :ALS 
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCULx

CIVIL APPEAL PR.E-ARGUMENT STATEMENT

SZ TITLE IN FULL APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COUR*^
CLEAMTEE GARNER, father and next of 

kin of EDWARD GARNER, a deceased 
minor.

Plaintiffs,

n-; e+-r--Jr-*-. W.D.Tonn., Weattrn Div,
r-7 1dsDistrict Ct. Docket No.:

Date filed in Dist.Ct.: -V //o / 7 f
Plaintiff(s)-Aooellant V.

--------^ ------------
Date Notice of Aooeal Filed: 8/ 7/8]

MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT. CITY OF 
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, WYETH CHANDLER, 
Mayor of Memphis, and JAY W. HUBBARD, 
Director of Memphis Police,

Related Cases (Dist.Ct,):
Cross-aooeal ? ( )Yes (x ) No
Previous aoDeal in case? (x)Yes ( )I

Defendant(s)-Appell ees Citation, if reDorted:600 F.2d 52

XE OF COUNSEL 
For Appellant(s ) :

Steven L. Winter 

Walter L. Bailey, Jr.

ADDPESS

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Cr.
New York, NY 10019
Suite 901, Tenoke Bldg. 
161 Jefferson Avenue 
Memphis, Tenn. 38103

TELEPHONE

(212) 586-8397

(901) 521-1560

For Appellee(s):

Henry L. Klein 2108 First Tennessee Bldg, 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

’ i - \ iiitr-

:stace of 
?r oceec incs

( ) ?r. ?r lal
( ) Durinc Trial

Af re;

2. Throe

DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITION 
(Check as many as apply)

of Judcmenr of Order

( ) 
( )
( )
( )
{ )

Being Appealed
Def aul t 
Dismissal/ 
Jurisdiction 
Dismissal/
Mer i ts 
Summary 
Judgment 
Declare tory 
Judcment

Relief
X)

( )
( ) 
( ) 
(

Judgment 
by court 
Judgment 
Jury verdict 
Judgment NOV 
Directed verdict 
Other (Specify)

( ) Damages
) Compensatory 
) Punitive 

Amount $
(

{ )

Judgment for defendants 
on remand, no additional 
hearing on remanded claims'

( ) 
(
(
.( )

Inj unction 
Preliminary 

) Permanent 
) Granted 

Denied

’S JURISDICTION CONTESTED? ( ) Yes 
,f answer is Yes, check one: ( ) D

( ) Appellare jurisdiction

Ĉ ) No
■Strict court jurisdiction contested

:or.testec

■- ease c. c- ft c . ^  3  c - cr p , c .̂ ;



NATURE OF SUIT 
(Check as many as apj-.̂ y)

1. FEDERAL STATUTES
I ) ANTITRUST 
( ) BANKRUPTCY
( ) BANKS & BANKING
(X ) CIVIL RIGHTS 
( ) COMMERCE, ROUTES,

AND TARIFFS 
( ) COMMODITIES 
( ) COMMUNICATIONS
( ) CONSUMER PROTECTION
( ) COPYRIGHT ( ) PATENT

OR ( ) TRADEMARK 
( ) ELECTION
( ) ENERGY
( ) ENVIRONMENTAL 
( ) FREEDOM OF

INFORMATION 
( ) IMMIGRATION
{ ) LABOR
( ) OSHA 
( ) SECURITIES 
( ) SOCIAL SECURITY
( ) TAX
( ) OTHER (Specify);

2. TORTS
( ) ADMIRA*LTY/MAJUTIME 
( ) ASSAULT/DEFAMATION 
( ) PRODUCT LIABILITY/ 

WARRANT 
( ) DIVERSITY 
( ) OTHER (Specify):

3. CONTRACTS
( ) ADMIRALTY/MARITIME 
( ) ARBITRATION 
( ) COMMERCIAL 
( ) EMPLOYMENT 
( ) INSURANCE 
( ) NEGOTIABLE

DISBURSEMENTS 
( ) DIVERSITY 
( ) OTHER (Specify):

4. PRISONER PETITIONS
( ) CIVIL RIGHTS 
( ) HABEAS CORPUS

(2254)
( ) MANDAMUS AND 

OTHER 
( ) PAROLE 
( ) VACATE SENTENCE

(2255)
5. OTHER
( ) FORFEITURE/

PENALTY .....
( ) REAL PROPERTY 
( ) TREATY (Soecifv): 
( ) DIVERSITY 
( ) OTHER (Specify):

ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL, INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES

1. Did the district court ere in denying plaintiff a hearing on remand?
2 . Is the use of deadly force to apprehend an unarmed fleeing felony 

suspect punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause?
3. Does it deprive him of his right to life in violation of the Due 

Process Clause because it is not justified by countervailing state 
interests?

4. Did ‘the district coi.art err in rejecting plaintiff's offer of proof 
and ruling that the policy was not racially discriminatory?

5. Does the use of hollow point, "dum-dum," bullets constitute excessive 
force in violation of the Due Process Clause?

6- If so, did these' constitutional violations flow from the policies 
and customs of the Memphis Police Dept, and the City of Memphis 
rendering the municipal defendants liable for the death of plaintiff's 
decedent ?

This is to certify that this civil appeal pre-argument statement was mailed 
the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Aoneals for the Sixth Circuit and a copy

i e r  eo:August
irved to each party or their counsel of record this _18£h day of

19 B1
\  .

M ,̂
 aaJ~̂   ̂ (  A ./ 'A / ■ _̂____

feicnature of Counsel)