The attorney who brought an excessive force lawsuit against three Glasgow Police Department officers that was dismissed has asked that the judgment in favor of the officers be vacated.

David Broderick pursued legal action on behalf of the estate of Jeremy Marr against GPD officers Guy Turcotte, Hayden Phillips and Cameron Murrell.

Broderick alleged the officers used excessive force when they detained Jeremy Marr on April 14, 2020, using stun guns and knee strikes during the encounter.

Marr, 35, was pronounced dead that day at an area hospital.

Last month, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Greg Stivers granted summary judgment to the GPD officers, finding that the officers were immune from legal liability because they acted reasonably while attempting to handcuff Marr, who the judge found was actively resisting arrest after police responded to a report of a residential burglary.

A state medical examiner conducted an autopsy and listed Marr’s cause of death as “agitated/excited delirium complicating acute methamphetamine intoxication during the process of law enforcement arrest,” according to public records.

Tucotte’s body-worn camera captured footage of the interaction with Marr.

Broderick’s motion to alter, amend or vacate the judgment, filed Thursday, argued that Marr was seeking help when officers first encountered him, instead of committing a crime, saying that police radio traffic mentioned that a man could be heard begging the homeowner who called 911 not to let anyone kill him.

“If Mr. Marr truly believed that he was being chased and entered the home seeking safety, then there is a factual question of whether a crime was committed at all,” Broderick’s motion states.

Broderick also argued that Marr had a right not to be Tased or kneed while attempting to comply with the officers’ commands, saying that the body camera footage does not clearly establish whether Marr was resisting arrest or if he was attempting to comply with police commands to put his hands behind his back but could not do so because an officer straddling him had a hold of his arms.

“Mr. Marr, in response to officers’ commands to put his hands behind his back, yelled ‘okay, okay’ multiple times to indicate that he would comply,” Broderick said in the filing. “Officers, however, never gave him the chance and instead continued to pin him down and repeatedly tase him.”

Additionally, Broderick claimed in his motion that the GPD officers’ response to Marr, which involved an estimated eight to 10 Taser deployments, including multiple drive-stun deployments in which the stun gun operator directly pushes the two electrodes on the front of the gun onto the person’s body instead of firing a dart cartridge from a distance, violated internal GPD policy when handling a person with diminished capacity.

A portion of GPD policy included in the filing recommends using a single stun gun deployment coupled with immediate restraint in order to decrease the chance of a drawn-out confrontation.

“The officers did not adhere to this policy,” Broderick said in his motion. “They did not employ a single taser shock, nor did they stage medical attention for when the encounter ceased. Ultimately, the court’s failure to specify that jurors could consider the GPD’s internal policies and that the eight to 10 shocks administered to Mr. Marr were ‘drive-stuns’ are clear errors of law that result in manifest injustice.”