Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / News / Booking room brawl caught on video

Booking room brawl caught on video

A surveillance video that failed to convince a jury she did not intentionally assault a Monroe County Sheriff’s deputy will now serve as the centerpiece of Jennifer J. Merrow’s civil suit against Sheriff Patrick O’Flynn, two deputies, and the Monroe County Jail superintendent.

The 96-second video showing what happened in the jail booking room about 7:40 p.m. on Dec. 19, 2014, starts with Merrow having trouble putting on a jacket when a female officer suddenly kicks her and bangs Merrow’s head into a wall.

The female officer tackles Merrow, and a male officer joins them on the floor, helping to restrain Merrow, and appears to hit her at least two more times.

Four more male officers enter the scene and help restrain Merrow on the floor. They put a bag over her head and handcuff her and start to take her out of the room when she seems to fall at the end of the video.

“This is really a straightforward excessive use of force,” said Anjan Ganguly, Merrow’s lawyer in the civil suit.

Jennifer Merrow

Jennifer Merrow

In an email, Merrow said: “I can’t even begin to describe what a nightmare this has been and how much it has impacted my life.”

But Sheriff’s spokesman Cpl. John Helfer said the officers’ use of force was justified by Merrow’s attempt to kick the female deputy.

“You’ve got to be really careful and when you review it because of the shadowing, but you definitely see her knee come up and kick the female deputy in front of her,” Helfer said.

“The video evidence was used to convict the defendant at court that same video was reviewed by an independent citizen review board who exonerated the deputies of any wrongdoing,” he said.

Merrow, 33, who weighed less than 120 pounds at the time of the incident in the booking room, said she suffered two black eyes, sever bruises to her head, and a severely sprained wrist that will require surgery.

Merrow pointed out in an email that “my arms and hands are up above and behind my head when she comes at me with such brute force and momentum I immediately feared for my safety.”

“I posed no threat didn’t resist or anything,” she said in an email.

According to the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office, on the day the video was recorded Merrow caused an accident near the intersection of Dewey Avenue and West Ridge Road when she rear-ended a vehicle that was waiting at a red light.

Merrow refused to give Rochester Police any information to help them arrange for her to get a ride home from the scene, according to the DA’s office. She was then taken to the Monroe County Jail for processing where she assaulted a deputy, ripping her hair out and spraining the deputy’s neck, the DA’s office said in a news release.

Merrow was convicted in November of driving while intoxicated and second-degree assault. She was sentenced to time served (about 16 hours) on the assault conviction and three years of probation on the DWI.

The assault conviction was under state Penal Law Article 120.05 (7) for intentionally injuring another person while charged with a crime in a correctional facility.

In the federal suit filed April 22, Merrow claims she was taken to the jail where she was “attacked, choked, punched, thrown to the ground, maced, and subject to extreme physical restraint.”

Merrow also claims she lost consciousness, and when she woke up naked deputies ordered her “to take various poses so that she could be photographed” with cell phones, the suit claims.

Ganguly said he has no objection to the DWI arrest or the booking procedure at the jail.

“But really the entire case comes down to one, or both, of two things. One is this video, which seems to clearly demonstrate excessive use of force; and second, the allegations regarding her being naked and such,” Ganguly said.

Merrow’s trial lawyer, Thomas A. Corletta, said he “raised a defense of justification,” although the video doesn’t seem to show her fighting back against the officers.

“Our position was that she was not, based on the video,” he said.

“Apparently the jury saw it some other way. I can’t really tell you why. It seemed fairly obvious to me, but unfortunately the jury saw it in another way,” Corletta said.

Corletta said the video was shown “ad nauseam” at trial.

“It was shown over and over and over again on two screens. It was shown during the examination of almost every witness,” he said.

“Apparently they did not see the same things that I saw on that video,” Corletta said.



    Weird. Makes you wonder what set the deputy off. She just lit into that woman for no obvious reason!

  2. I beg to differ with Attorney Corletta. I was on the jury when she was convicted of DWI and assault on the Deputy. She’s lucky Judge Randall elected to give her credit for time served (16 hours???) and probation. In my opinion, she was clearly uncooperative leading up to her booking and, probably due to her intoxication, continued to be uncooperative during the video, refused to allow booking photographs to be taken that day and then refused medical treatment after the incident until a day later. We viewed the video in slow motion, in it’s entirety and we all agreed that Ms. Merrow acted in an aggressive manner that caused the deputies to take the action that they did. Frivolous lawsuit. Not that we didn’t feel sympathy for the bad decision that she had made and the impact it will have for her and her child but there was no doubt that she should be held responsible for her action. She should certainly not be rewarded for it.

  3. @Juror, were you paid off, or just a moron? She did not assault anyone. She was, CLEARLY, just putting on a jacket, and the female cop was the aggressor.

  4. Matthew R. Stone

    Juries don’t get it right 100% of the time. This happens to be one of those times. The fact that she was uncooperative isn’t grounds for a severe beating. If it were, I would get a beating every time I pass through a TSA checkpoint.

  5. Mr. Stone is correct, this is definitely a situation where the juror’s got it wrong. For some reason, they decided to take each deputy’s oral description of what occurred instead of what they could see with their own eyes. This is because the jurors in this case are the type of people that refuse to believe that the police would/could never abuse their power or lie. Which is silly because while they are police officers, they are still human and humans do lie, and there are quite a few police officers that abuse their power just because they can. So even though they could plainly see that the woman was attacked by the female deputy, and then by the male deputy as well, they decided to believe a spoken lie over a visual truth. It is really sad because this woman could have been incarcerated out of the juror’s refusal to believe what they saw with their own eyes. I guess in some cases it is easier for the weak to believe the lies that they want to believe when the truth hurts.

  6. Shes clearly drunk out of her mind. Most likely she has no recollection of the whole event. Her claims that she was beat unconscious are bull. She woke up next day cause thats what drunks do, wake up when they sober up. You dont kick someone who’s tryin to help you put yer clothes on. Especially if its a cop.

  7. If people can not see this woman raised her right leg up to kick the cop before any other contact was made, there’s something wrong with their eyes! Change the speed down on the video and put it on full screen and maybe then you’ll see what really happened in the beginning. Plus she’s saying she was knocked out? lol! After they stand her up she was still trying to kick, that’s why she fell back down! Slow the video all the way down and you will see! The jury DID get it right! Hopefully this woman realised she can’t hold her alcohol and stop drinking! Just thinking what you all would be saying, if she had her CHILD in the car that day when she was driving DRUNK and rear ended someone? Would you feel the same as you did while writing that? I don’t think so!

  8. If someone is coming at me like that and my hands are over my head, my first reaction is to lift my leg too, to protect myself. How about not charging at someone if your claim is that you are trying to “help” them. That deputy came at her FAST and didn’t stop. The woman’s leg barely got off the floor before she was tackled. It is very disheartening that people put so much power in the hands of the police, essentially giving them license to abuse citizens like this.


    Michelle!! YES!!! It amuses me that some people are refusing to think of it a defensive way. Their bias is showing I guess.

  10. @ Lisa, YES, she raised her leg up before any other contact was made, in order to stop the cop from attacking her. She used her leg because her hands were stuck in a jacket! I have watched this video tons of times, i have even watched it in super slow motion so I could see each and every moment without confusion. She was defending herself as she could with what she had available at the moment.

  11. It’s clear her “kick”’was an act of defense against a rushing officer

  12. Wow unbelievable. In any context that 5 officers have to restrain a small woman that way . The fact they used such extreme violence in such a situation makes one pause . What kind of society allows this and to relish this as a smug juror who commented earlier . Not only are you wrong but you are morally corrupt. In any way shape or form to think a public figure to use her as tool to make their office look good is nauseating. Articles like this not only make people HATE police – but equally hate Americans. I truly pity you .

  13. Jury was right.


    “At her deposition, Plaintiff admitted that she had no recollection of any person removing her clothing. Docket No. 25-25 at 9:19-21. Plaintiff further testified that she “honestly [didn’t] know” who removed her shirt, and that it “possibly” could have been her. Id. at 9:14-15. Plaintiff also testified that she could not identify which defendant deputies were looking at her naked in the holding cell. Id. at 10:17-11:8. Plaintiff stated that she had no recollection of being moved from the Booking Scan Room to the holding cell, and she had no knowledge or information that any of the named defendant deputies removed her clothing. Id. at 13:5-9, 21-24.

    Regarding her claim that the defendant deputies took photographs of her while she was naked, Plaintiff testified that she was aware that, at her criminal trial, the prosecution presented two photographs taken of her while she was in the holding cell; therefore, “[i]t just makes sense to me that since the camera was there that they would have taken these pictures,” but Plaintiff admitted that she “[didn’t] know for a fact.” Id. at 15:11-22. Plaintiff was shown the two photographs from her trial; she agreed that these photographs showed her in the holding cell, stated that she was not aware of any other photographs depicting her in the holding cell, and admitted that she had no knowledge of any person taking additional photographs. Id. at 16:5-17:13. Rather, Plaintiff testified that she assumed that someone was taking photographs of her because she was being asked to pose. Id. at 18:3-13.”