Insights on the Federal Trial Against Former Memphis Officers in the Murder of Tyre Nichols

At the Institute for American Policing Reform (IAPR), we emphasize the need for proactive, community-driven approaches to community safety with policing practice prioritizing individual officer responsibility and only the necessary and proportional use of force the circumstances make unavoidable. In all such circumstances, a clear chain of responsibility in policing practices must be inculcated to help prevent excessive or unnecessary use of force. Officers' failure to intervene to stop excessive force or deliberate indifference to the care of victims or suspects encountered must be regarded as reckless disregard not only for established policy but also as blatant and unacceptable disregard for human dignity.

Accountability for violations of policy and excessive force, as well as inconsistent performance with training, is not just the responsibility of the courts to adjudicate but is a continuous responsibility of policing leadership. The malicious and deadly actions of each involved Memphis Police Department (M.P.D.) officer, the failures of the M.P.D., and M.P.D. leadership failures enabling the murder of Tyre Nichols on January 7, 2023, will be highlighted in a federal trial that began proceedings this month. This case will also highlight deeper systemic issues in policing, such as accountability, standards, education and training, and police leadership as framed in the IAPR Five Pillars of Police Reform ?.

The upcoming federal trial concerning Tyre Nichols' tragic murder will undoubtedly be another critical moment in the ongoing conversation about policing and public safety. As we follow this case, having additional insight into what is at stake in this federal trial may be helpful.

One key fact that is sometimes misunderstood in federal cases involving an unlawful death is that the U.S. Attorney (federal prosecutor) is not responsible for prosecuting the actual murder. That role falls to the state prosecutor. The federal prosecutor, in this case, focuses on addressing federal civil rights violations related to the killing.

The charges brought by the U.S. Attorney against the former Memphis police officers involved in Tyre Nichols' death are as follows:

1. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242) This statute makes it illegal for anyone acting under the authority of the law (such as police officers) to deprive a person of their constitutional rights. This is often referred to as a “civil rights violation.”
2. Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) This statute makes it a federal crime for two or more individuals to conspire to deprive someone of their civil rights. In this case, the officers are alleged to have acted together in the unlawful use of force and other actions that led to Tyre Nichols' death.
3. Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512) This statute criminalizes any attempt to interfere with or obstruct justice, including efforts to cover up or falsify reports related to the events surrounding Tyre Nichols' arrest and death.
4. False Reports and Cover-ups (18 U.S.C. § 1001) This statute makes it illegal to knowingly and willfully make false statements or representations to federal investigators. The officers allegedly have engaged in such behavior to conceal the truth about their actions.

I will share brief insights with you in multiple parts through several separate articles. These insights are not intended (nor is it possible for me) to be comprehensive. I am offering insights from my perspective of the possibilities. Let’s begin with the prosecutor’s view.

The Prosecution: Part I

Individual Responsibility and Use of Force

The prosecution will aim to establish that each officer individually played a direct role in the unlawful actions that led to Tyre Nichols' death. Key points to watch for:

• Clear Chain of Responsibility: Prosecutors will likely present bodycam footage, witness testimonies, and medical reports to underscore that each officer actively participated in the assault, failed to intervene, and neglected Nichols' medical needs after the beating. This will emphasize personal culpability for violating Nichols’ civil rights.
• Excessive Force: The prosecution will likely use expert witnesses to show that the force applied far exceeded what was necessary or justified, pointing out the specific actions of each officer involved.
• Failure to Intervene: A strong point will be whether fellow officers had a duty to intervene but chose not to, thus making them complicit. There may be evidence of training that explicitly required officers to stop their colleagues from using excessive force.
• Deliberate Indifference: Expect a focus on how Nichols was left without proper medical attention after the beating, despite obvious signs of distress, which could demonstrate a willful disregard for human life.

The federal prosecutor will likely aim to isolate individual choices, suggesting that each officer had both the opportunity and responsibility to prevent Nichols' death but failed to do so.

Another essential area closely tied to individual responsibility is whether the officers adhered to or violated departmental policies on using force.

Violations of Policy and Excessive Force

From the prosecution’s perspective, a key point will be whether the officers acted in a way that clearly violated departmental policies and training. The federal prosecutor will likely argue:

• Exceeding Use of Force Guidelines: Prosecutors will bring up departmental use-of-force policies and training to show that these officers went far beyond what was allowed, particularly if bodycam or witness evidence demonstrates that Nichols posed no threat at the time of the assault. Expect to hear expert testimony on proportionality—was the force used justified by any action or resistance Nichols offered?
• Inconsistent with Training: The prosecution will likely argue that these officers were trained in de-escalation and appropriate use of force but chose to disregard that training. This would demonstrate individual responsibility and undermine any defense of ignorance or misjudgment.
• Systemic or Patterned Failures: The prosecution may also show that individual officers were responsible for following established guidelines even if the department had flaws. The trial will likely highlight other officers in similar situations who responded differently, reinforcing that the accused officers had other lawful options.

It’s important to note that the federal prosecutor won’t rely solely on the department’s policies and guidelines to assess the officers' use of excessive force. While these internal standards are critical, the prosecution will consider broader national standards and legal precedents.

• National Policing Standards: These include widely accepted best practices in law enforcement, such as de-escalation techniques, which may highlight failures in the officers' conduct beyond department policies.
• Existing Constitutional Standards: The Fourth Amendment’s "objective reasonableness" standard, as established in the landmark case Graham v. Connor, will be central in evaluating whether the force used was justified under federal law.
• Court Precedents and Expert Testimony: The prosecution may bring in expert witnesses and cite previous court rulings to demonstrate that the officers' actions deviated from national norms and constitutional rights protections to strengthen the argument for civil rights violations.

Looking Ahead

Remember that the trial will not only focus on the actions of individual officers but will expose broader issues about policing culture, oversight, and accountability. Be prepared to listen to expert testimony on training, use-of-force policies, and officers' responsibility to provide medical care. Watch how the defense and prosecution frame systemic issues, particularly Memphis Police Department accountability, oversight of practices, and transparency.

In Part II, I will point out some specific approaches the defense will likely take.