A Black Texas man who aspired to become a police officer spent 16 months fighting felony accusations that he assaulted two officers during a “welfare check” at his home. A jury acquitted him after his son recorded video of the arrest.
The video caught Huntsville police and prosecutors by surprise, Stewart said, because they had expected to secure a conviction based on the officers’ accounts.
The cops accused Stewart of spitting in one of their faces and shoving the other officer, but none of that is captured on video.
“I don’t like to call people liars,” Stewart told ABC 13 Houston after his acquittal.
“But fabrication, yes. Cover up, yes.”
Causality seems messed up here.
Shouldn’t this read “A jury acquitted him after seeing his son’s recorded video of the arrest.” or some such?
It describes a technically accurate sequence of events: His son recorded the video, and some time after that the jury acquitted him. But yeah, the wording weirdly seems to imply the son did the recording because the jury wasn’t yet convinced, and only then did they decide to acquit. Your phrasing is way better.