The Colorado-based federal appeals court on Tuesday turned aside multiple challenges to a 2022 jury verdict that found Denver and one of its officers violated the constitutional rights of protesters and were liable for $14 million.

In the first of many lawsuits culminating in a jury trial, 12 plaintiffs largely succeeded in arguing that Denver’s own actions violated their First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, or both during the demonstrations that began in May 2020. At the time, protesters in Denver and across the world took to the streets in response to the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Law enforcement used chemicals, projectiles and other force against them.

In a pair of decisions, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the trial judge did not commit any errors warranting reversal.

“There was sufficient evidence, including from Plaintiffs’ two experts, that Denver policymakers knew its officers would have to confront a civil rights protest,” wrote Senior Judge David M. Ebel in the April 21 opinion. “Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the City was deliberately indifferent in not training its officers adequately on crowd control and the use of less-lethal munitions during protests.”

Among other things, Denver argued that U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson erred by allowing testimony from the city’s former independent police monitor, Nicholas Mitchell, about his investigation. Mitchell’s statements were uniquely damaging, argued attorney Frederick R. Yarger to the appellate panel, because “he is the only witness they could use to tell the jury he was the Denver official tasked with assessing the department’s response to the protests.”

Jackson had ruled that Mitchell could testify about his investigation because it was “paid for by the taxpayers, and it seems to me that these taxpayers sitting in the jury box are entitled to hear about it.”

“Denver doesn’t want to admit that it made even a single mistake,” said Jackson. “There were excessive applications of force. I think the videos demonstrate that.”

After the verdict, the city asked for a new trial, in part, on the grounds that Mitchell had no personal knowledge of what occurred at the protests and was not qualified as an expert witness. Jackson denied the request, finding that even if Mitchell’s testimony was improper, there “was substantial evidence supporting the verdict.”

“Judge Jackson limited Nick Mitchell to testifying about what he did, his personal observations and his personal conclusions,” plaintiffs’ attorney R. Reeves Anderson told the 10th Circuit panel. “And his notices that he previously gave to Denver about the inadequacy of its policies and training.”

The 10th Circuit took no issue with Mitchell’s testimony.

“Mitchell testified to matters that were rationally based on his perception as a fact gatherer, even though his perceptions were not first-hand observations of the protests themselves,” wrote Ebel. “In this respect, Mitchell’s testimony is analogous to testimony from law enforcement officers who, although they did not witness the criminal activity at issue in a given case, are permitted … to testify as to their investigation of that criminal activity.”

The panel separately decided the appeal of Officer Jonathan Christian, who shot a pepper ball toward the street while plaintiff Elisabeth Epps was crossing to the Capitol. Jurors saw a bruise documented on Epps’ leg. They found Christian liable for excessive force.

Christian argued that Jackson should have granted him qualified immunity, a judicial doctrine that shields government employees from civil lawsuits unless they violate a person’s clearly established rights.

“Had he given her a direct command to stop before he fired the shot?” asked Ebel during oral arguments.

“The evidence does not suggest that,” conceded Christian’s attorney, Andrew D. Ringel.

Epps, who subsequently served one term in the state House of Representatives, pointed to a 10th Circuit decision from the same case in 2023 that found “it had been clearly established for (at least) twelve years” that officers commit a constitutional violation by using less-lethal force on non-threatening protesters.

“There was no justified reason for Officer Christian to shoot her,” attorney Brian M. Williams told the panel.

The judges agreed with Epps.

“There was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding, including Epps’ testimony and video evidence that Officer Christian shot Epps, without warning, with a pepperball as she walked by herself (and not in a group), unarmed and non-threatening, across the street toward the capitol,” wrote Ebel. “Any crime she may have been committing, including jaywalking, was minor.”

Lawyers for the defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This outcome is monumental and should be a lesson to law enforcement across the country. No police officer or municipality can escape accountability for their violence against people exercising their sacred right to peacefully protest,” said Tim Macdonald, the ACLU of Colorado’s legal director, who represented some of the plaintiffs.

“Our clients bravely stood up in the streets against police brutality in 2020, and they’ve been doing it ever since in the courts,” added Elizabeth Wang, who represented the other plaintiffs.

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