The National Trial Lawyers
  • Home
    • Meet Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Mission & Goals
    • FAQ
  • Webinars
  • News
  • Membership Directory
    • Top 100 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 100 Map – Criminal Defense
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Civil Plaintiff
    • Top 40 Under 40 Map – Criminal Defense
  • Top 100
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 100 President’s Message
    • Diplomat
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 100 Badge
    • Media
  • Top 40
    • Civil Plaintiff Officers / Executive Committee
    • Criminal Defense Officers / Executive Committee
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Bootcamp
    • Benefits
    • About
    • Top 40 President’s Message
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Top 40 Badge
    • Media
  • Specialty Assoc
    • About
    • Shop
    • Officers
    • Membership Renewal
    • Member Profile Updates
    • Media
  • Nominate
    • Top 100
    • Top 40
    • Specialty Association
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer of the Year
    • Trial Team of the Year
    • America’s Most Influential Trial Lawyer
    • America’s Most Influential Law Firm
    • Lifetime Achievement Award
  • Shop
  • Magazine
    • A-List
  • Education and Networking Agenda
    • Trial Lawyers Summit
      • Summit Sponsors
    • Top 40 Under 40 Trial Academy Boot Camp
    • Mass Torts Made Perfect
    • The Lanier Master Class 5.0 Trial Academy 2021
    • Webinars
  • Hall of Fame
    • Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame

$1 Million Award Upheld in Officer’s Killing of Unarmed Man Shot in the Back

Posted on July 24, 2015 by Eleanor Smith

images-6

A $1 million award for the family of a man killed in 2008 in Cape Girardeau was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, seven years after Zachary Snyder, 23, of Dexter, Missouri, was killed by a Department of Corrections officer. The appellate court upheld the 2012 jury award for the children of Snyder, who was fatally shot at an apartment complex in 2008.

Corrections officer Steve R. Julian, a fugitive unit investigator, was called to an apartment complex on Themis Street in February 2008 in response to a report that Snyder, wanted for a parole violation and failure to appear, was at the complex. Reports from the night of the shooting show Julian went to parking lot on Themis Street, pulled his service pistol and approached Snyder. According to witnesses, Snyder initially was compliant, but turned and ran, at which point Julian admittedly shot him in the back.

Snyder died as a result of the gunshot wound, and Julian was ultimately charged with involuntary manslaughter.

See Also: Lawsuit on behalf of Tamir Rice Must Overcome Police Exception

Civil Rights

Although Julian was found not guilty of the manslaughter charge in October 2008, Snyder’s estate later brought an action for civil rights violations, excessive force, and wrongful death. The appellate court found the evidence supported that Julian acted with reckless, intentional indifference in causing Snyder’s death. According to the attorneys for Snyder’s estate, Danny Moore and Steve Walsh,

“We were expecting the jury verdict to be upheld on appeal. This was a tragic case involving a kind, gentle young man who lost his life in a senseless shooting by a remorseless parole officer. There are four young children who are growing up without a father, but at least this verdict will give them the means to get through life and get a good education.”

Snyder’s estate brought the wrongful death suit on behalf of Snyder’s four children, who at the time ranged in age from four to nine.

Julian argued in a post-trial motion in 2012, through his representative, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, that he was entitled to “official immunity” under Missouri law and that he was protected from liability by Missouri’s public-duty doctrine. Julian also urged the court to grant him a new trial because the damages award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence.

Running Away

Snyder was paroled in 2007 after serving sentences for possession of a controlled substance and automobile theft. He absconded from supervision by probation and parole officials when Julian was assigned to apprehend Snyder. Julian reportedly drove to the address Snyder had been seen and positioned his car in a well-lit parking lot in front of the apartment building. According to the court opinion:

“Julian saw Snyder, got out of his car and informed Snyder that he was a parole officer with a warrant for his arrest. In response to Julian’s order, Snyder placed his hands on the back of Julian’s car. Julian approached Snyder, stood to Snyder’s left and placed his left hand on Snyder’s shoulder. At that point, Snyder reportedly turned to his right and began to run. After Snyder took two steps, Julian fired one shot at Snyder. The bullet entered Snyder’s right back and exited his left chest area, traveling at an upward angle through his right lung, killing him.”

Snyder was unarmed at the time he was shot.

Malice and bad faith

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri found that Julian was not entitled to official immunity because the evidence supported a finding of malice and bad faith, and the appellate court agreed.

Judges Steven M. Colloton, Roger L. Wollman, and Duane Benton concluded “a reasonable juror could have found that Julian shot Snyder when Snyder was running away from Julian, not after Snyder turned toward Julian in a threatening manner.”

On appeal, Julian argued the award was improper because Snyder had spent little time with his children because he was in prison for most of their lives, and Snyder’s life had minimal future earning potential. It is clear the jury heard “substantial evidence” of non-economic damages arising from the loss of their father.

“In light of the evidence concerning Snyder’s relationship with his four children, and (his) youth and life expectancy, we cannot say that the damages award ($150,000 per child after fees and expenses) constituted a plain injustice or monstrous or shocking result,” Colloton wrote.

Posted in Blog, Civil Rights, Criminal Law / DUI

Comments are closed.

News Categories

Subscribe to Blog and VFJ via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog, the Voice for Justice and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Read about other Top Jury Verdicts

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

Toyota Will Pay $180M to Settle Violations of the Clean-Air Act

The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that the United States has[Read More...]
Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Boeing's Insitu Will Pay $25M to Settle a Whistleblower Complaint About Used Drone Parts

Bingen, Wash.-based Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, has agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that it used recycl[Read More...]
Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

Deutsche Bank Agrees to Settle Criminal and Civil Charges for $130M

DEUTSCHE Bank AG agreed to pay US$130 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it bribed foreign officials and manip[Read More...]
Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing Pays $2.5B to Settle Charges Tied to the 737 MAX Crashes

Boeing has agreed to pay just over $2.5 billion to resolve a federal charge of “criminal misconduct” for how its [Read More...]
Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Seeks $43M in Google Antitrust Lawsuit

The mass exodus of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's top staff over accusations of bribery against their former boss has le[Read More...]

#LegalNews

@@TheNTLtop100

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Attorney information and content provided on this website is provided for the benefit of members of The National Trial Lawyers and as a public service by Legal Associations Management, Inc. The website and all data are the property of Legal Associations Management, Inc. Data, including without limitation attorney information and content, on the site may not be mined, sold, or used commercially for any purpose without the explicit written consent of Legal Associations Management, Inc. This site may not be accessed by any automated program for extracting data for any use. By accessing and using the site you agree that you will not develop, support or use software, devices, scripts, robots, or any other means or processes (including crawlers, browser plug-ins and add-ons, or any other technology) to scrape data or otherwise copy profiles and other data. Unauthorized use or attempted unauthorized use of this system may subject you to both civil and criminal penalties.