Chris Madel: Chief O’Hara strikes again, and this time, it’s even dumber

(Opinion by attorney Chris Madel originally published by Alpha News)

Here’s some cold reality: despite O'Hara's statement to the contrary, there are an array of passages from the judge's ruling that "question the truthfulness" and "veracity" of Katie Blackwell’s testimony.

After Minneapolis Police Chief O’Hara published op-ed after op-ed—including one about Alpha News and senior reporter Liz Collin—I published my own op-ed about how he should put down his laptop and do his job. (After my op-ed, he seemed to stop. I count that as a small win.)

On April 8, the Honorable Edward T. Wahl, in a thoroughly researched and meticulous opinion, dismissed the defamation lawsuit against Alpha News and Collin filed by Assistant Chief Katie Blackwell. (I’m not going to lie, it felt really, really good.)

The next day, though, media enthusiast Chief O’Hara offered several new statements about Judge Wahl’s ruling.

For example, in a statement to the Star Tribune, Chief O’Hara said that Judge Wahl’s ruling “didn’t question the truthfulness” of Blackwell’s testimony. Then he doubled down on this statement in an interview with Fox 9’s Amy Hockert, declaring that the ruling was “simply” about free speech and “not about the veracity of [Blackwell’s] testimony.”

Before all of this, I suggested that Chief O’Hara put his laptop down and do his job. Now I’m going to suggest that the Chief do something else: stop talking about things you have no clue about—and instead, do your job.

Here’s some cold reality: despite O’Hara’s statement to the contrary, there are an array of passages from the judge’s ruling that “question the truthfulness” and “veracity” of Blackwell’s testimony.

Here are a few examples:

• The ruling states the impression left by Blackwell that “the depicted technique [a knee-on-neck restraint] was never trained by MPD” is “undermined by evidence in the record,” such as “MPD training materials from 2018-2019—the period of Blackwell’s tenure—[which] included images of officers applying knees to the neck or upper back” and “34 officers swore they were trained or saw knee-to-neck training.” (Order at page 32.)

• “Furthermore, MPD’s own Policy Manual (§ 5-311), in effect at the time, defined a neck restraint as including compression ‘with an arm or leg.’ This conflicts with Blackwell’s suggestion that MPD neck restraints were trained using only arms.” (Order at page 32.)

• “Because the documentary evidence contradicts the unequivocal nature of her statements, the implication that [Blackwell’s] testimony was inconsistent with MPD’s policy and training is supportable and not defamatory.” (Order at page 33.)

• “…MPD policy and training materials were at odds with key aspects of their testimony.” (Order at page 33.)

• “The assertion that ‘it doesn’t seem like’ these witnesses were telling the truth generally aligns with the record’s substance. MPD’s neck restraint policy included use of the leg … Training slides showed applications using the leg … Officers testified that such techniques were permitted and were regularly taught and demonstrated … .” (Order at page 33.)

• “MPD policies authorized neck restraints using a leg … Training slides depicted the application of a knee to the upper back and neck area … Officers understood such techniques to be policy-consistent and part of their training … Under these facts, it is possible to interpret Blackwell’s testimony as incomplete or misleading by omission. Therefore, the challenged statement is substantially true … .” (Order at page 34.)

• “Accordingly, each of the three statements challenged by Blackwell are not actionable because (1) they accurately reflect the gist of the available record; (2) they are supported by MPD policies, training materials, and sworn officer declarations … .” (Order at page 35.)

• “Yet MPD’s own policy manual and other officers indicate that similar techniques were part of MPD’s training materials and policies. Even if Blackwell attempted to distinguish MRT … the overall record supports the film’s implication that her testimony was at odds with MPD’s institutional policy manual and the training some MPD officers claim they received.” (Order at page 50.)

• “In her testimony, Blackwell stated unequivocally that [it] was ‘not something we train.’ She did not acknowledge that MPD’s written policy permitted such a technique or that its training materials had historically included it. Whether or not this omission was intentional, the sting of Statement 5—that she and others misled the public—is not materially false.” (Order at page 50.)

• The documentary’s “core message—that [Blackwell’s] statements conflicted with MPD’s policy manual—is substantially true.” (Order at page 52.)

• “Blackwell stated that [the] restraint was ‘not something we train.’ But training slides do depict similar techniques, and multiple officers swore they were trained in knee-on-neck control.” (Order at page 54.)

I see three potential explanations for Chief O’Hara’s misstatement.

First, he can’t read. (Seems improbable, but it’s possible.)

Second, he can read, but he rushed to give a statement without actually reading or understanding the ruling. (More probable, but …)

Third, he read the ruling but intentionally misstated its holdings to protect himself after his earlier, nonsensical defense of Blackwell’s meritless lawsuit. (I think that’s the ticket.)

I understand and appreciate the need to “spin” a court order that contradicts your narrative to try to save your tarnished reputation, your failed leadership, and your dismal performance. But again, I’d prefer that this guy just does his damn job.

Chief: the reason you’re having a tough time recruiting is because cops do not believe in Minnesota’s leaders—starting with you. The easiest way for you to remedy that is to shut the hell up about Alpha News and Liz Collin. Stop talking about things you don’t understand.

You’re still down nearly 40% of MPD officers, and you’ve done practically nothing to increase that number—certainly nothing effective. Maybe you and Katie should get out of your offices and make a few arrests. You can start outside my office—I can show you where the crime is. (Remember how I tried to tell you that before and you referred me to your personal lawyer instead of having a conversation with a business owner in Minneapolis?)

I think that would be a much better idea than “spinning” yourself into a new defamation lawsuit against the two of you. (Although believe me, I’d personally love that.)