Police Brutality is the focal point of the case. I think the main charge of Civil Rights Violation reflects that. I guess that the jury just felt that the cop was doing his job and was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt even if they thought the force was excessive, which reminds of the first Rodney King trial when the policemen were found not guilty even with the beating video tape. I don't recall how the second trial came about after the LA riot. Based on the law, the policemen could not have been tried twice for the same alleged crime. How did the government circumvent that legal block and get the second trial? Anyone care to enlighten me?
