Opinion ID: 489887
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Haynesworth

Text: 7 In December 1977, Haynesworth, an employee of the District of Columbia Superior Court, was accosted in a courthouse corridor by three men, who were not known to him, dressed in street attire. One, without any explanation, seized Haynesworth and slammed him against a wall. 30 When Haynesworth endeavored to protect himself and identify his assailant, the latter punched him in the jaw. 31 While the other two men pinned Haynesworth against the wall, the aggressor frisked him and removed his identification badge and pocket calculator. 32 8 This episode was interrupted by a courthouse guard, who approached the group, identified Haynesworth as a court employee, and demanded to know what the other three were doing. 33 The assailants, Joseph Schwartz, Donald Lyddane, and Patrick Mooney, for the first time identified themselves as police officers. 34 One instructed the guard to arrest Haynesworth, but the guard demurred, saying that Haynesworth had done nothing to justify an arrest. 35 Haynesworth, seeing that a crowd had gathered, suggested that the three officers accompany him to an adjacent room. 36 There Schwartz, the aggressor in the corridor, grabbed Haynesworth while either Mooney or Lyddane administered a chokehold, restricting Haynesworth's breathing. 37 Haynesworth was struck with a blackjack and handcuffed, 38 then taken to police headquarters, where he was charged with disorderly conduct. 39 9 Processing of the charge against Haynesworth was assigned to appellee Miller, Chief of the Law Enforcement Section of the Corporation Counsel's office. After first talking privately with Schwartz, Lyddane, and appellee Dixie Gildon, their supervisor, Miller held a conference with the officers, Haynesworth and his attorney. 40 Miller stated that he might dismiss the charge under certain conditions, and asked Haynesworth whether he intended to file a civil suit. Haynesworth's counsel objected, stating that this question should be addressed only to him. 41 Miller then asked everyone but the attorney to leave the room. On her way out, Officer Gildon remarked that Haynesworth's initiation of civil proceedings would change their decision to drop the charge; Miller interjected that he, not the police, would make that decision. 42 When the others had departed, Miller told Haynesworth's attorney that the Corporation Counsel's office would pursue the disorderly conduct charge only if Haynesworth threatened civil action against the officers. 43 The attorney responded that he had no authority to waive Haynesworth's right to sue. Miller summoned the others back into the room and announced that Haynesworth would be prosecuted for disorderly conduct. 44 10 Haynesworth retained another attorney and, during subsequent discussion of the case, Miller admitted to the attorney that he had previously broached the subject of a release of civil claims. 45 On the day set for trial, Haynesworth and his new counsel met Schwartz, Lyddane, and Mooney on their way to Miller's office for another conference on the case, and Schwartz stated that potential civil litigation was an obstacle to dismissal of the charge. 46 At the conference, Miller, without any reference to waiver, reiterated his intention to press the disorderly conduct charge. 47 11 The charge against Haynesworth, like those against Hancock, was ultimately dismissed, but only after further demands to supervisory officials and the threat of a suit. 48 Haynesworth alleges that the charge would have been dropped at the outset but for the tacit policy of retaliation that prevailed in the Corporation Counsel's office and the Metropolitan Police Department. 49