Monday, October 27, 2003

By Torsten Ove, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

The experts have squared off over the death of Charles Dixon in a fight with police in Mount Oliver last year, and now both sides in his family's federal wrongful death lawsuit are taking the first steps toward a possible settlement.

Dixon, 43, of Altoona, died Dec. 23, about two days after he lost consciousness while being restrained by police officers on the floor at a birthday party in the Mount Oliver Fire Hall.

On Friday, parties to the suit filed by Dixon's son met with a court-appointed mediator, retired U.S. District Judge Donald Ziegler, in what will likely be the first of several settlement negotiations.

If there's no agreement, the case is scheduled for trial in December.

At issue is exactly how Dixon died and if police officers were responsible, and that's where the experts come in.

Top among the plaintiff's specialists is Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, who has concluded that the cause of death was "positional or mechanical asphyxiation," which can happen when pressure is applied to the back of someone in a prone position.

Wecht has recommended homicide charges in the case, although he hasn't specified who should be charged. Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. has yet to decide whether to charge anyone.

Wecht said police overreacted and used too much force to subdue Dixon, who weighed 330 pounds.

Another plaintiff's expert, D.P. Van Blaricom of Bellevue, Wash., a nationally known police practices specialist, agreed and called the case an "officer-involved homicide."

"In my opinion, [Dixon] was subjected to objectively unreasonable deadly force," he wrote in a report filed in U.S. District Court.

He also faulted Mount Oliver police Chief Frank Mosesso, saying the chief improperly allowed the scene to be cleaned up before evidence could be collected.

But the police have their experts, too, and they say the officers did nothing wrong.

Joseph J. Stine, a former training officer for the Philadelphia Police Department, said officers did everything by the book.

"It is my opinion that the Borough of Mount Oliver Police Department and its officers acted properly and within accepted practices and procedures for situations like they faced on Dec. 21, 2002," he wrote. "They were faced with the daunting task of arresting a physically imposing, intoxicated person in an extremely hostile environment."

Pittsburgh police use-of-force expert David C. Wright said the two city officers involved in the suit, Paul Abel and Kevin Walters, also used proper tactics when they arrived to find Dixon battling with the Mount Oliver officers.

While the officers tried to handcuff Dixon, Wright said, Abel tried to apply force to pressure points under Dixon's earlobe and nose to cause him pain, an accepted police maneuver. He said use of the technique would explain why some partygoers said they saw an officer covering up Dixon's mouth and nose.

But the pressure point moves, like an earlier blast of pepper spray, didn't work. When Dixon tried to bite officers and attempted to crush one officer's hand, Wright said, Abel punched him.

The other city officer, Walters, said he initially tried to help by pushing down on Dixon's head and shoulders as he tried to get up. Wright said Walters then used his baton to jab Dixon in the leg when Dixon rolled over and pulled another officer onto him. When Dixon started crushing an officer's hand, Walters cracked him across the knuckles to make him let go.

Walters later knelt on Dixon's legs and used his baton to pry his arm out from under him, Wright said.

Eventually the officers managed to handcuff Dixon, after which Wright said Abel rolled him over on his side so he could breathe.

"They used legitimate force options to gain control of the actor while simultaneously defending their fellow officers, who were being assaulted by Mr. Dixon," Wright wrote.

A third defendants' expert, Dr. Richard T. Callery, a forensic pathologist from Newark, Del., said the condition of Dixon's body was not consistent with witness testimony that up to a dozen officers piled onto Dixon during the fight.

"The most notable finding is the significant lack of external or internal evidence of trauma ... which would be expected to be found if he were over-laid by multiple police officers during the restraint," he wrote.

Callery said Dixon, despite his enormous physical strength, was "a very sick man" with many medical problems that contributed to his death, including obesity, an enlarged heart and liver and chronic pancreatitis.

The incident began when workers in the buffet line at the party complained that Dixon's brother, Gregory, was causing a disturbance by sticking his hand in a bowl of spaghetti.

When two officers working security, Matthew Juzwick and Ronald Lacher, confronted Gregory, Charles Dixon tried to stop them. Lacher tried to arrest Charles, but he resisted. As the battle began, Lacher and Juzwick called for backup.

At a coroner's inquest, all but one of the officers testified that they did not put pressure on Dixon's back or torso during the altercation, but multiple witnesses said a number of officers piled on Dixon. Some witnesses also said that they heard Dixon saying he couldn't breathe, although none of the officers said he heard him say that.

Wecht said some degree of pressure was applied to Dixon's back to further compromise his breathing. He said that just lying in a prone position does not result in asphyxiation.

The Dixon family's suit says that officers used a "swarming" technique for arresting Dixon in which they grabbed his arms and legs, threw him to the ground and then held him there while they applied pressure to his torso.

After he lapsed into unconsciousness, they left him there for 10 minutes without performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, according to the suit.

But the defendants experts' said the officers applied the correct amount of force as the fight escalated, and they also had to use pepper spray to disperse the unruly crowd.

Stine said Juzwick and Lacher initially told Charles Dixon to go sit down as they dealt with Gregory Dixon. When Charles Dixon became belligerent and the crowd grew agitated, he said, the officers felt they had to do something before the incident got out of control.

"All of these actions by the officers attempting to get control of Charles Dixon are perfectly acceptable practices and procedures for officers involved in a struggle of this nature," Stine wrote. "Eventually the officers were able to overcome the resistance of Charles Dixon. Once he was handcuffed, the officers immediately ceased all use of force."

One key element in a settlement of the suit is Dixon's earning potential. In 2002, he had begun work as a home remodeler. An expert for the plaintiff put his future earnings at $340,161.

E-mail this story   Print this story