A Vermont judge has refused to dismiss a charge of simple assault brought against Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore, who was caught on video kicking a person in custody.
The ruling Wednesday by Judge Samuel Hoar follows a hearing last week in Grand Isle County Superior criminal court in North Hero, at which Grismore’s attorney, Robert Kaplan, sought to have the charge thrown out.
In his three-page ruling, Hoar wrote that Grismore “asserts that the State does not have admissible evidence to prove either that he acted recklessly or that his actions caused bodily injury. The court denies the motion.”
The judge then set the case for a status conference on Oct. 12 as it now moves toward a trial.
Grismore pleaded not guilty to the simple assault charge.
Grismore, who provided an email statement Thursday in response to the filing, said he would not be doing media interviews.
He wrote in the statement that, while he was “disappointed” the judge rejected his request to dismiss the case, he “expected this as a highly probable” result.
“We knew the motion to dismiss was a long shot based on how criminal procedures work in Vermont but it was a necessary step in the process,” Grismore said. “The Court evaluates evidence in the light most favorable to the state, excluding modifying evidence.”
He wrote that he was ready for the next steps in the court process, including a jury trial, and looked forward to “providing all of the evidence.”
In addition to the criminal matter, Grismore faces an impeachment inquiry in the Vermont House of Representatives over his conduct. Additionally, the Vermont Criminal Justice Council is set to hold a hearing next month on whether to revoke Grismore’s law enforcement certification.
The incident leading to the charge stems from Franklin County sheriff deputies Karry Andileigh and Christopher Major arresting Jeremy Burrows of Winooski, who was described as intoxicated when he was taken to the sheriff’s department on Aug. 7, 2022, for processing.
Grismore, who was off-duty, was also at the department at the time.
Video from the officers’ body-worn cameras released by the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department shows the moment Grismore kicked Burrows and events leading up to it.
While in custody at the sheriff’s office, Burrows, who testified during last week’s hearing that he was heavily intoxicated during his interactions with Grismore and the other deputies, is seen shackled to a bench. At one point he falls down while trying to walk away from the bench. The two deputies help him back up, and he appears to refuse orders to sit down.
Grismore, who was a deputy at the time, then can be seen entering the frame and kicks Burrows back onto the bench. Eventually, Burrows stands up, and Grismore kicks him again in the groin back onto the bench.
Grismore has said that his actions were a necessary use of force in the situation to protect both himself and the two other deputies from being spit on by the suspect.
Kaplan, Grismore’s attorney, had contended that Grismore, as a police officer, had to make a quick decision about how to respond to the situation and as a result his conduct should not be “reckless” under Vermont law.
Kaplan argued that Grismore’s conduct did not meet the definition of simple assault under Vermont’s statute, which reads in part that someone “recklessly causes bodily injury to another.”
“Recklessness requires a conscious disregard of the obvious,” Kaplan said during last week’s hearing. “It has to be much more than simply making a choice and being wrong about whether or not the force is appropriate under the circumstance.”
The judge, in denying the motion to dismiss, cited in his ruling a report submitted in the case by former Connecticut State Police detective Eric Daigle, who is also a national trainer on use-of-force investigations and general counsel for the National Internal Affairs Investigators Association.
“Here, Mr. Daigle’s opinion establishes that a reasonable law enforcement officer in Mr. Grismore’s position would not have acted as he did,” the judge wrote.
While Daigle didn’t offer an opinion on “whether the departure from the standard of care was minimal or gross, at the very least, his opinion does not foreclose the latter finding,” Hoar wrote. “Nor can the court say, as a matter of law, that on Mr. Daigle’s opinion and review of the video of the incident, no reasonable person could conclude that Mr. Grismore’s conduct represented a gross deviation from the applicable standard of conduct.”
The judge then concluded, “In short, the State’s evidence sufficiently establishes recklessness to warrant presenting the question to a jury.”
