Arguments over prison time
Criminal defendants are sentenced by judges based largely on the range of punishment prescribed by the law governing their guilty convictions, as well as standardized recommendations based on their personal history, criminal conduct and things like whether they've accepted responsibility for their wrongdoing.
The recommended sentence in Waters' case called for a sentence consisting of only probation. However, in court Friday, prosecutors said that Waters' use of force, subsequent betrayal of trust and his failure to appreciate the seriousness of his conduct warranted some imprisonment.
In court Friday, McBride said Waters' reports contained more "fiction than fact," but used "standard" police language that "struck me to my core."
He said Waters lied in his reports, seeking to create a "fictitious character" and a "stereotype of a Wilmington criminal" to justify his use of force. He told the judge he has been a prosecutor for more than a decade and regularly relies upon the written statements of police officers in litigating against criminal defendants.
"It made me question everything I ever read in every case," McBride told the judge.
Waters' case was a rare public airing of the official reports that all Delaware police create in the course of their work.
Exemptions in state public records law give local police departments broad latitude to hide such documents absent the subpoena power possessed by prosecutors and even in cases where the wide circulation of video depicting police violence creates cause to question officers' actions.
In a written submission to the court, McBride's office also noted that before Waters was a Wilmington officer, he was fired from a police department in Maryland for running a stop sign and then flipping someone off while in uniform. They argued this wasn't relevant to his convictions, but showed his "disregard for professional standards that police should abide by."
McBride said the case erodes the already strained relationship between police and the public and thus deserves serious punishment.
On Waters' behalf, John Malik, his defense attorney, argued that his client had already suffered consequences. He lost his job and ability to be a police officer and thus isn't an ongoing threat to public safety or to re-offend.
He said his client has been working at a national grocers' distribution warehouse and nearly lost that job when he was convicted last year. He argued he'd have trouble finding another job if he were sentenced to prison time.
Malik also cited two recent Delaware police violence cases that only resulted in probationary sentences: one involving a New Castle County officer who dragged a young woman by her hair while in a temporary lockup and a Dewey Beach officer who struck a man while he was on a medical stretcher.
Malik also said it is easy for the public to "Monday morning quarterback" such actions by police. He delved into the facts of the case to argue that Waters' choice to use force was not incorrect, though the type of force he used was wrong.
He noted Waters rescues animals and helped his wife's former student, arguing his actions were an aberration and not in his character. He also disputed that Waters had not shown remorse or an appreciation for his offense, stating that his client has not made such statements because he intends to appeal his conviction.
Waters also declined to address the court Friday, citing his plans to appeal the case.
Ultimately, presiding Judge Francis Jones said he had balanced the factors described by Malik with the seriousness of Waters' betrayal of public trust and concluded that he did not deserve prison time. He said he doesn't believe Waters is an ongoing threat to public safety.
"This was a one-off," Jones said before handing down the sentence of probation.
Meanwhile, Brown filed a lawsuit against Waters and the city, claiming the Police Department has engaged in a practice of violating people’s constitutional rights. In September, a judge ruled that his attorneys had not offered sufficient allegations to support such a claim and gave them the opportunity to amend their complaint.
That amendment is pending submission by Brown’s attorneys.