Honolulu, Hawaii — In a significant legal ruling on Friday, a jury determined that the state of Hawaii failed to adequately train and supervise a former deputy sheriff, resulting in the 2019 fatal shooting of a homeless man on the grounds of the state Capitol. The family of the slain man, Delmar Espejo, was awarded $2.27 million in damages after a civil trial that cast a renewed spotlight on the state’s law enforcement practices.
Gregory Bergman, the ex-deputy in question and now a San Diego police officer, was involved in the incident that led to the death of Espejo, who suffered from disabilities due to childhood polio. Despite the serious allegations, Bergman faced no criminal charges, a point of contention highlighted during the trial.
The jury’s decision included a $750,000 award for compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages to Espejo’s mother, though the state reportedly does not cover punitive damages according to the Attorney General’s office. The state’s spokesperson declined to specify who would be responsible for these damages.
Bergman, who earns an annual salary of $115,128 according to San Diego Police Department records, has been involved in two other fatal police shootings since relocating. These incidents were barred from discussion during the trial as ruled by Honolulu First Circuit Court Judge Dean Ochiai in a decision last week.
The trial underscored significant concerns about the training and oversight of the Sheriff Division, especially given Bergman’s involvement in two critical incidents shortly after less than two years of service. Terrence Revere, an attorney for the Espejo family, expressed dissatisfaction with the state’s efforts in law enforcement training and supervisory practices, suggesting systemic shortcomings that contributed to the fatal outcome.
During the trial, attorneys for Espejo argued that the 28-year-old posed no threat to Bergman when the confrontation occurred, describing him as a harmless individual due to his physical limitations and small stature. The altercation began when Bergman confronted Espejo for consuming alcohol on the Capitol premises.
Legal representatives for Bergman defended his actions, stating he acted within the bounds of his training when Espejo resisted his commands. The defense detailed that Bergman had asked Espejo to discard a bottle of vodka, leading to a physical struggle that culminated in Espejo being shot in the back.
This verdict has stirred reactions not just on legal grounds but also on moral and ethical concerns, with Espejo’s family expressing that the financial compensation cannot undo the loss of a loved one. Espejo’s aunt, Carol Cardenas, commented on the persistent grief that lingers over her family, emphasizing the personal impact of the incident.
As the Deputy Attorney General representing the state and Bergman argued, there was no evidence suggesting any malicious intent by Bergman. She appealed to the jurors to consider the complexity of law enforcement responsibilities and the split-second decisions officers often face.
This case not only questioned the conduct of a specific deputy but also shone a harsh light on the systemic issues within the Sheriff Division, prompting broader considerations about the treatment of the homeless and disabled communities by law enforcement officers.
The Department of Law Enforcement has not commented on the verdict, although they noted that a rollout of body cameras for deputy sheriffs is underway—a move that could potentially enhance transparency and accountability in future law enforcement interventions.
This article is automatically generated, and facts, circumstances, and characters might be fictional. For corrections, retractions, or removal requests, please contact [email protected].