Mark Clark, a veteran police officer, was convicted of depriving two individuals of their rights under color of law by using prohibited neck restraints during two separate on-duty incidents. The jury found Clark guilty on two counts, sentencing him to six months’ incarceration for each, to run concurrently. Clark challenged: (1) the willfulness jury instruction under § 242, (2) sufficiency of the evidence regarding unreasonable force and bodily injury, (3) whether the government’s proof exceeded the indictment, (4) the district court’s answers to jury questions, and (5) several evidentiary rulings.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed Clark’s conviction. It first rejected Clark’s argument that the jury charge instructed on the wrong state of mind. Next, the court concluded that ample evidence supported the verdict. Reviewing the body-worn camera footage, the Court found that neither victim posed a threat to Clark, and the use of force in non-life-threatening situations was excessive. Multiple officers testified at trial that such restraint techniques were barred except for dire, life-or-death emergencies, which were not present. The trial evidence also satisfied the statutory definition of bodily injury for each victim.
The panel found no amendment or impermissible variance from the indictment, as the government’s evidence and the court’s instructions tracked the charges as returned by the grand jury. The challenged portions of the evidentiary record—such as statements by restaurant patrons and the victim’s mental health or arrest records—were appropriately excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence and relevant precedent. Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s supplemental jury instructions and responses to jury questions, finding no legal or prejudicial error.
Appeal from District of Columbia.
Opinion by Wilkins, joined by Srinivasan and Childs.