I was retained in a criminal defense case wherein the defendant was charged with resisting arrest. I explained to the jury that the manner in which the officers attempted to handcuff the defendant was unreasonable and inconsistent with their training. I also explained to the jury why the force used by the officers was excessive and below the standard of care. The jury took less than an hour to return a verdict of not guilty.
I was retained by a plaintiff’s lawyer to analyze the correctional staff’s role in the death of a county jail inmate due to inadequate medical care. My analysis showed the correctional staff: 1) failed to properly classify and house the inmate, 2) failed to conduct proper required safety checks, 3) improperly enlist the help of other inmates to deliver medical care to the sick inmate, 4) and failed to summon the paramedics in a timely manner. I provided expert testimony in federal court. The jury returned a favorable verdict for the plaintiff.
I was retained by a criminal defense attorney to consult in an attempt murder case. The defendant was charged with attempted murder after he stabbed a man in a bar. After reading the case, visiting the scene, reviewing the detective interviews, and interviewing the defendant, I determined this was a case of self defense because the defendant had been placed in a front choke hold was would have died but for the use of his knife. I also determined the police interview was shoddy and below POST standards. The attorney used my findings and analysis in trail and in less than two hours the jury returned a not guilty verdict.
I was retained by defense counsel to examine the evidence in a jail-made weapon (shank) case and then render my opinion at trial. I determined the evidence was not fashioned as a jail-made weapon. I explained to the jury about how jail-made weapons (shanks) are fashioned and how they are used. I also explained my reasoning as to why the evidence in this case was not such a weapon. The jury returned a favorable verdict for the defendant.
I was retained to analyze and render opinions in a police use of force case wherein the suspect died after resisting the officers. An officer correctly arrested a man for felony. After his arrest he complained of pain and the arresting officer took him to the hospital. Once at the hospital the man refused to follow the officer’s orders. The arresting officer used a TASER to gain compliance. After other officers helped handcuff the man, the man lay dead on the hospital floor. I rendered a number of opinions about what to do when a suspect refuses medical help as well as opinions about the use of force. The jury reached a favorable verdict.
I was retained to analyze and render opinions in a police use of force case wherein the suspect was shot with a TASER and then forcibly handcuffed by two officers. Two officers saw bar security personnel remove a verbally abusive man from a bar. The officers were told by the bar personnel that the man had hit a woman inside the bar. When the officers tried to talk with the man, the man kept walking. The officers then used a TASER and physical force to stop him. My investigation showed that the officer had no legal right to stop the man and that the force used was excessive. I was able to show that the officers failed to conduct a proper investigation of the reported striking of the woman. I was able to show that the police department failed to conduct a use of force investigation. I wrote a Federal Rule 26 report, and, once defense counsel read my report, they settled the case.
I was retained to analyze and render opinions in a police use of force case wherein officers from two local agencies as well as a federal agency served a narcotics search warrant at 3:00 AM. The officers used a battering ram to gain entry. Once inside, the officer used a TASER and their fists to take the father into custody. My investigation showed that the forcible entry was illegal due to improper knock and notice and that the force used was excessive. After my defense deposition, defense counsel settled the case favorably.
Attorney Client Comment:
“My firm retained the services of Richard Lichten for a police negligence case dealing with the standard of care of searching an intoxicated inmate. Mr. Lichten was very professional, thoughtful, well prepared and extremely knowledgeable; he did particularly well while being cross-examined in deposition. Mr. Lichten’s testimony resolved the case positively.”
“I was happy to recommend you, Richard. You did a great job for me at the mediation. You really knew the case.”
24355 Creekside Road, #801884
Santa Clarita CA 91380
661.406.7258 Fax: 661.296.6171
© 2009 - 2014 Police & Jail Procedures - All Rights Reserved