Georgia Court Sets Aside Immunity Ruling for 3 Deputies in Stun Gun Death

After the death of 58-year-old Euree Lee Martin, three white Washington County deputies were indicted with the murder of the man. In 2018, the officers applied for immunity, which all three received. This decision is now being appealed by Georgia’s highest court.

What We Know:

  • Euree Lee Martin was approached by officers, Henry Lee Copeland, Michael Howell and Rhett Scott when a homeowner called the police to report Martin. In the call, it was never mentioned that Martin approached the homeowner to ask for some water. Instead, the homeowner said he wasn’t sure whether he was “crazy, drunk, or what”.
  • Martin was approached by Howell as he walked down a road in Deepstep, Georgia. When Martin refused to stop, Howell called back up. Copeland arrived and asked Martin to get off the road. They, then, walked out of view of the dash cam.
  • Officers Michael Howell, Henry Lee Copeland and Rhett Scott, who also responded to the call for back up, used stun guns on Martin out of view of the dash cam. Their testimonies stating that Martin was in a “defensive stance” were used to determine if the use of the stun guns was appropriate.
  • It was found that the court exaggerated truths in relation to appropriateness of self defense, did not use clear factual evidence of whether the officers had intention to kill Martin, and the lower court failed to review each deputy individually.
  • Supreme Court Justice Charlie Bethel wrote in the unanimous opinion, “We determine that, in granting immunity, the trial court made findings of material fact that were inconsistent with its legal conclusions regarding the deputies’ encounter with Martin.”
  • The case will be sent back to trial court where it will need to be determined if use of deadly force was appropriate, and if Martin was actually committing the crime of walking on the highway. If Martin was not walking on the highway, he would have had the right to resist arrest.

The case will be sent back to the low courts to review the facts pertinent to each officer individually.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *