A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has dismissed the grand jury murder indictment against former LAPD officer Clifford Proctor for the 2015 shooting death of Brendon Glenn, an unarmed unhoused man. Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Coen found that a special prosecutor appointed under former District Attorney George Gascón failed to present critical exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, an error severe enough to compromise the integrity of the indictment.
The decision abruptly halts a decade-long legal battle that came to symbolize the deep political fractures in the Los Angeles criminal justice system. By throwing out the second-degree murder charge, the court exposed how high-profile prosecutions can collapse when caught between shifting political administrations and procedural missteps.
The core of the dismissal rests on the legal obligations of the prosecution during grand jury proceedings. Unlike a trial, where both sides present their narratives, a grand jury hears only from the state. Because of this imbalance, prosecutors are legally bound to present known exculpatory evidence that might directly undermine the justification for an indictment.
Judge Coen ruled that Lawrence Middleton, the special prosecutor originally hired to re-examine the case, failed to meet this threshold. The judge noted that after reviewing video footage of the struggle multiple times, it could not be shown that Proctor acted with legal malice.
The fatal encounter occurred on May 5, 2015, outside a bar near the Venice Beach boardwalk. Proctor and his partner responded to a disturbance involving Glenn, who was highly intoxicated and had been involved in an altercation with a bouncer. During an ensuing struggle on the sidewalk, Proctor fired two shots into Glenn’s back.
Proctor maintained that he believed Glenn was reaching for his partner's service weapon. A subsequent investigation by the LAPD contradicted this assertion. Surveillance video did not show Glenn's hands near the holster, and Proctor's partner stated he did not feel any jerking movements on his belt. The investigation prompted then-LAPD Chief Charlie Beck to take the unprecedented step of publicly recommending that the District Attorney file criminal charges against one of his own officers.
Political shifts within the District Attorney’s office directly shaped the erratic timeline of the prosecution. In 2018, then-District Attorney Jackie Lacey declined to file charges, concluding that the available evidence could not legally disprove Proctor’s claim of self-defense. Her office relied on a national use-of-force expert who concluded Proctor’s perceptions during the rapid, chaotic struggle were consistent with an perceived threat.
The case remained dormant until George Gascón took office on a platform centered on holding law enforcement accountable. Gascón hired Middleton to review legacy cases of police violence, resulting in the secret grand jury indictment unsealed in late 2025. By the time the indictment was unsealed, Nathan Hochman had defeated Gascón in the November election, inheriting a prosecution initiated by his predecessor's special team.
The dismissal highlights the strict procedural boundaries governing the prosecution of police use-of-force cases. To secure a grand jury indictment that withstands judicial scrutiny, prosecutors must present a balanced view of the evidence, including findings from independent experts and initial investigative memos that favor the defense. Omitting these elements to secure an indictment often results in a dismissal before the case ever reaches a trial jury.
The City of Los Angeles previously paid a $4 million settlement to Glenn's family to resolve a wrongful death lawsuit, and the civilian Police Commission ruled the shooting violated department policy. However, the criminal standard requires proving malice and overcoming a officer's subjective perception of an imminent threat during a physical altercation.
The sudden dismissal leaves the legal accountability for the 2015 shooting unresolved, underscoring the reality that administrative policy violations and civil liability operate on entirely different legal planes than criminal homicide convictions.
