I went to my first trial today in Federal Court. I watched closing arguments in a case my attorney was trying for another client of his. The case Richard Cosgrove vs Glen Wharton was a wrongful termination case. Cosgrove claimed he was fired for speaking out on matters of public concern. Cosgrove was an officer in the gun tower at the Nevada State Prison.
(In a 2006 article) Cosgrove said many of the guards have kept quiet for fear of retaliation. He said he was willing to come forward because he's retiring soon. "Correctional officers are pretty courageous people to do the job they do," he said, "but they're afraid to use their First Amendment rights. They're afraid to speak. We're walking around on eggs."
Ironically Cosgrove had a prior hearing before Hearing Officer Bill Kockenmeister in which Kockenmeister ruled in favor of the State and against Cosgrove. Kockenmeister is a state employee. The Nevada State Prison is a state entity. No conflict of interest there, huh?
The jury disagreed with Kockenmeister and delivered a unanimous decision in favor of Cosgrove and gave him every last dollar that his attorney, Jeff Dickerson, asked for.
Kockenmeister is the same hearing officer who was suspended due to misconduct in my hearing. An objective jury delivers justice. Imagine that...
nvlaw wrote:
Police officers, correction officers and prison guards face countless dangers in the line of duty. We expect them to be 100% right dealing with the most dangerous elements of society. They work in some of the most dangerous settings in America. Their right to speak out on their bosses' mismanagement should not be lightly disregarded. Public safety is at risk when these workers' first-hand reports of short-staffing, and worse, are stifled by politically appointed managers who want to save face and who lie about the reasons why a worker is canned. That a unanimous jury could see through these lies more readily than a politically appointed hearing officer and a politically connected judge is not surprising. Thank God for a system that eventually allows regular citizens to hear all the evidence and decide who is telling the truth.
Comments