The federal appeals court based in Colorado has upheld a jury’s verdict that found a Denver officer responsible for excessive force by opening fire on an unarmed man, and the city itself liable for failing to adequately train him.

Sgt. Robert Motyka Jr. seriously injured Michael Valdez following a January 2013 vehicle chase in which Valdez was a passenger. Once Valdez exited the vehicle in surrender, Motyka, who had been wounded by one of the vehicle’s other occupants, repeatedly shot at Valdez. Denver subsequently gave him an award for his conduct.

But a jury in 2021 decided Valdez had used excessive force and Denver was likewise responsible for Valdez’s injuries because it failed to train officers they should not use force out of retaliation or anger from being shot at. The city appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, arguing the trial judge never should have sent the case to a jury to begin with.

While Denver did train its officers on the proper use of deadly force, the question was whether the need for specific training about anger-based force was so obvious that officers were virtually certain to violate people’s constitutional rights in its absence. The city argued that “better or different” training was unnecessary because shooting someone out of anger was clearly unlawful.

A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit disagreed. 

“Denver’s argument is legally flawed because it fails to recognize that even if acts are illegal or clearly inappropriate does not mean officers need not be trained to avoid them,” wrote Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. in the panel’s April 24 opinion.

Matheson added that the obviousness of the need for such training was a factual question for the jury to resolve – which it did in Valdez’s favor.

Adam Mueller, an attorney who represented Valdez, said he was hopeful the 10th Circuit’s decision would remind Denver of its obligation to properly train police officers.

“Michael was in the wrong place at the wrong time and for his trouble, Denver officers fired at him 19 times, all while Michael was lying on the ground with his hands above his head,” Mueller said. “It is no exaggeration to say that Michael is lucky to be alive. Despite these facts, Denver refused to give an inch, arguing that its officers acted reasonably.”

The Denver City Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Valdez was a passenger in a pickup truck on Jan. 16, 2013 when police spotted the vehicle, which was wanted by law enforcement. A chase ensued and other occupants of the truck, but not Valdez, shot at officers. One bullet went through Motyka’s windshield and hit his shoulder.

Although wounded, Motyka continued the pursuit until the truck crashed. Valdez got on the ground in surrender but Motyka opened fire, joined by Lt. John Macdonald, who shot because he saw Motyka shooting. One bullet destroyed Valdez’s finger and another damaged his spine and bowel.

Moytka later said if the truck had stopped, “there’s going to be a gunfight,” and that the bullet in his shoulder was “my probable cause.” Motyka received an award and an endorsement of his conduct from Denver’s then-manager of safety. Valdez went to jail for two months.

Then a federal jury found Denver liable for $2.4 million in damages and Motyka liable for $131,000 based on his excessive force. To hold Denver responsible, Valdez needed to show that its own conduct motivated Motyka’s actions – specifically, that the city never trained officers they could not shoot to retaliate or because of adrenaline and anger after being shot at.

On appeal, Denver challenged the way the trial judge, William J. Martínez, handled the case. The city contended Martínez was wrong to deny Denver summary judgment – and not throw out the case before trial – because it did offer training on deadly force.

“If we provide an officer the legal confines in which they can use lethal force, when a plaintiff comes up and says, ‘They should have done it a little bit different here,’ that goes into the realm of, ‘Well, could we have offered better or different training?’ Maybe,” said attorney Katherine Field during oral arguments in January. “But that’s not sufficient.”

The 10th Circuit panel rejected that view. Martínez, in declining to end the case in Denver’s favor, found a jury could decide it was obvious that officers would react angrily when being shot at, and the city should have trained them how to respond.

“The district court allowed Mr. Valdez the opportunity to prove at trial that this need was ‘obvious’,” Matheson wrote. “And because that issue is at least partly factual and the jury considered it at trial, we do not review it on an appeal.”

The panel also found Martínez properly decided issues related to evidence and jury instructions earlier in the case. At the same time, the panel rejected the claim Valdez made on appeal: That Macdonald, the lieutenant who started shooting after seeing Motyka open fire, was improperly dismissed from the lawsuit.

Matheson wrote that the trial judge who originally made that decision, the late Richard P. Matsch, correctly found Valdez had not presented evidence showing Macdonald caused his injuries.

The case is Valdez v. City and County of Denver et al.