Trending Topics

White New Orleans Cop Acquitted in Killing of Henry Glover After Katrina

Warren and wife

Warren and wife

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is still rocking New Orleans, as David Warren, the white police officer who was convicted three years ago of killing a man and participating in the burning of his body to cover up the act, was acquitted of the same charges yesterday by a different jury.

The family of  Henry Glover, who was Black, broke down in disbelief yesterday in the courtroom when the verdict was announced that Warren would go free after killing the 31-year-old.

Warren, 50, joined his wife and five children for the first time in three years in an emotional reunion.

“It’s a wonderful, joyous feeling, but I’m almost numb at the same time,” he said after the verdict. “I’m so very pleased.”

While patrolling a NOPD detective bureau station in an Algiers strip mall just four days after Hurricane Katrina, Warren shot and killed Glover. He was charged with civil rights and weapons violations and was convicted in 2010, when he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

But two years later, an appeals court granted Warren a new trial, ruling that he was unfairly tried alongside four other officers charged with the grisly cover-up of the shooting, which included setting a car carrying Glover’s body on fire and abandoning it on top of a levee in Algiers.

Though he doesn’t deny shooting Glover eight years ago, Warren still says he did the right thing.

“I believe I took the proper action that day,” he told reporters. “I do not have any regrets.”

While the jury in the first trial heard lurid testimony about a burned body and a brazen cover-up, this time jurors didn’t hear any talk about what happened to Glover’s body or about falsified police reports on the shooting. The three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Warren should have been tried separately from the four other former officers who were charged in the alleged cover-up.

Dane Ciolino, a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans, told the Guardian that prosecutors faced the difficult burden of having to prove that Warren “willfully” took the life of a man he never met before the deadly encounter.

“This came as absolutely no surprise to me,” Ciolino said of Warren’s acquittal. “Once you take away the burned body and the cover-up, it then just boils down to whether it was a bad shoot.”

Aftet the verdict, Glover’s sister, Patrice Glover, slumped over and cried so loudly that U.S. District Judge Lance Africk paused as he spoke to jurors. Patrice Glover was carried out of the courtroom as several jurors wiped away tears.

“He was a good child,” Patrice Glover said of her brother. “That was my baby.”

U.S. Attorney Kenneth Allen Polite Jr. said in a statement that prosecutors were disappointed by the verdict but thanked jurors for their “attentive service.”

On Monday, Warren had testified that he feared for his life when he shot Glover. He said he thought he saw a gun in Glover’s hand as Glover and another man ran toward the building Warren was guarding. But prosecutors said Glover wasn’t armed and didn’t pose a threat.

Defense attorney Richard Simmons said the case was always about “a policeman’s worst nightmare, that split-second decision.”

“The benefit of the doubt has to go to the officer,” Simmons said.


What people are saying

3 thoughts on “White New Orleans Cop Acquitted in Killing of Henry Glover After Katrina

  1. Kerrie McCloud Landreth says:

    Next time you report a story, why don't you try telling the parts you seemingly intentionally left out in what appears to be an attempt to further divide races. Specifically in this particular story the part about Henry Glover showing up at that strip mall to pick up stolen goods, being clear that Warren did NOT participate in the cover up and that 3 of the jurors were black in a case where all of them had to agree on the verdict.

    People like you who tell the story to fit their agenda are the ones who give real journalist a bad name. Your version of the story is so full of holes I can see right through it. Reporting like this makes it easy to understand why we continue to become divided. Those in Atlanta who read your story will, as your agenda dictates, believe that a white man got away with killing a black man for no reason, participated in the cover up and was acquitted by an all white jury.

    Left wing journalism at is worst.

  2. ok where's the link? And does it matter if they were stealing? that's a case for arrest not murder. the only justifiable shoot would be if the cop was in danger. Burning the body speaks volumes to me. If he feared for his life why did he not report the shot and tell the 4 who were in the cover up," No don't do it, I'm reporting that I shot this man because I felt threatened?". Stealing water or food that would is not reason to shoot anyway. There was no shoot looters order.

  3. Brad Landreth says:

    @Valerie – You can do your own research by going to and search for Henry Glover. The was no shooting for looting order. The point was that Henry Glover had no business being there to begin with. Yes it matters if they were stealing. Most intruders, especially in that area of town who steal are armed. That is a very dangerous area. The fact that they were warned twice "Police. Leave the premises" and continue forward would make most sensible people feel threatened. If I told an intruder twice to leave and they disregarded me and continued forward, that would be enough for me to feel threatened. He did report the shooting and knew nothing of the cover up until it already happened. And it wasn't food and/or water that was being stolen. The case for shooting had nothing to do with stealing. It was for threatening an officer by disregarding a direct order.

    To wrap up, I, not my wife made that post. You are missing the point of my post which was to suggest providing pertinent details instead of picking and choosing to make the story fit an agenda be it this story on any other. There were very important details which were left out that would have only added a paragraph or two to the story and painted a more complete picture for those who do not live here and aren't familiar with the story.

    Let me ask you, in any news story, do you only want what the writer wants you to believe or do you want to be informed of the facts of the case so you can come to your own conclusion? Reporters are supposed to do just that. Report. If they want to write an op/ed, they should label it as such. Do you believe that without these details the writer is fueling the flames of racism in this country?

    I'm not a racist at all but people like this make it very difficult to believe that they don't have an interest in keeping racism alive in order to keep their readers interested and selling their story.

    Read the stories through from such sites as and The Advocate if you are interested in learning the facts and drawing your own conclusion.

    And for the record, I do agree that this man wasn't guilty of the crime he was convicted of several years ago and to that end I believe justice was served. As for the actual shooting, he was never tried for that so I can't and won't speculate on what the outcome would have been.

Leave a Reply

Back to top