Jude beating trial in federal court ends distinctly differently than the state trial in Wisconsin.

• Author: Zemlicka, Jack

Byline: Jack Zemlicka

A similar time span for court proceedings and jury deliberations in the federal case against one suspended and three former Milwaukee police officers accused of violating the civil rights and assaulting Frank Jude, Jr. while acting as officers, ended distinctly differently than the state trial. Additional testimony from former police officers may have helped solidify the convictions of fired officers Jon Bartlett, 35; Andrew Spengler, 28; and Daniel Masarik, 27. Inconsistent statements spared suspended officer, Ryan Packard, 27, who was acquitted of both charges. The state trial concluded in April 2006 with acquittals of Bartlett, Spengler and Masarik on assault charges, while Packard was not charged. Marquette University Law School Professor Michael M. O'Hear suggested that while the charges were different, the two cases boiled down to the same thing. Those elements included who was actually present when the beating occurred, and among those present, which ones were participating in or encouraging the cops' actions as they crossed the line from lawful restraint to an unjustified assault. New Faces in the Same Place One of the three federal prosecutors noted that a key distinction in earning three guilty verdicts from the eight-woman, four-man jury was new testimony. Four former officers involved in the incident pleaded guilty to federal charges after the state trial and two, Jon Clausing and Joseph Schnabel, offered significant testimony in support of the prosecution during the federal proceedings. "If we can develop people who were involved to plead guilty and testify, obviously that changes the dynamic," said Assistant U. S. Attorney Mel Johnson, who noted that the officers were in a different position in the state case. "Once we were able to prove they were culpable, that put them in a position where it was in their advantage to plead guilty and try to improve their situation for sentencing," Johnson said. "It made sense to agree." During the trial, both Clausing and Schnabel admitted to taking part in the assault and identified Bartlett, Spengler and Masarik as fellow participants. The former officers had previously lied about their roles in the incident. The fact that the two, and especially Schnabel, revised their stories was a tremendous asset to the prosecution, especially in light of the sometimes muddy testimony of other witnesses who also appeared at the state trial, Johnson said. "Even though (Schnabel)...