Response to motion for summary judgment - Kentucky.com
Response to motion for summary judgment - Kentucky.com
Response to motion for summary judgment - Kentucky.com
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
At page 22 of their papers, the Defendants argue that Plaintiff has “no proof that any amount<br />
of <strong>for</strong>ce was used on Gerald Cornett.” However, both McCoy and Gaines have admitted that they<br />
used “pain <strong>com</strong>pliance techniques” on Gerald when, according <strong>to</strong> them, he was unconscious from<br />
his head wound. A jury would be well-within its rights <strong>to</strong> determine that these two went <strong>to</strong>o far with<br />
their “pain <strong>com</strong>pliance” techniques.<br />
Finally, these Defendants make unsupported and entirely speculative arguments that Gerald<br />
could have suffered these unbelievably painful injuries some time prior <strong>to</strong> his incarceration. First,<br />
of course, there is absolutely no proof of any such thing in the record. Terry McClanahan testified<br />
that Gerald was fine when he left Terry’s home, and had no injuries of any kind. Officers Greene and<br />
Washing<strong>to</strong>n testified that Gerald was fine, just drunk, and <strong>com</strong>plained of no injuries even when<br />
asked about same. Gerald was checked out by three (3) EMT’s who confirmed these same facts. He<br />
was seen by numerous members of the Detention Center staff, all of whom denied Gerald making<br />
any such <strong>com</strong>plaints or having any symp<strong>to</strong>ms of any such injuries. Gerald spoke <strong>to</strong> Rice and did not<br />
mention any such injuries .If Hat<strong>to</strong>n is <strong>to</strong> be believed, Gerald was medically assessed by her on two<br />
(2) separate occasions, and he did not mention or exhibit symp<strong>to</strong>ms of such injuries either time.<br />
As discussed above, the Defendants’ reliance on Officer Hayes’, Brian Rice’s and Dr.<br />
Nichols’ testimony <strong>for</strong> the proposition that all of Gerald’s bruises pre-dated his incarceration is<br />
misplaced. Dr. Davis already cautioned the parties and the Court as <strong>to</strong> the voodoo science of<br />
attempting <strong>to</strong> assign a date <strong>to</strong> bruises beyond “old” and “new.” Officer Hayes and Brian Rice are<br />
not expert witnesses, and Dr. Nichols did not even review pictures of the bruises. On the other hand,<br />
as stated above, numerous witnesses testified that they did not see bruises, even on Gerald’s arms<br />
and legs, be<strong>for</strong>e he entered the Detention Center.<br />
30