Oscar Grant (BART Shooting) Trial Update

[Kamakazie Sith]

Source

LOS ANGELES — Almost every witness who either recorded video of or saw former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle fatally shooting Oscar Grant III in the back testified last week that Mehserle looked surprised after he pulled the trigger of his gun.

Most of the witnesses said Mehserle immediately re-holstered the gun after firing, put his hands to his head and looked "shocked," "dumbfounded" and "stunned."

Even Carlos Reyes, a friend of Grant's who sat about 2 feet away from the 22-year-old Hayward man when he was shot, said Mehserle appeared shocked and shouted, "Oh (expletive), oh God, I shot him," after the bullet entered Grant's back, causing his death hours later.

The testimony gave credence to defense attorney Michael Rains' argument that Mehserle never intended to use his gun on the Fruitvale BART station platform in Oakland, but instead tragically mistook the lethal weapon for his Taser when he pulled the trigger, attorneys following the case said.

"That bodes well for the defense because it corroborates, at a certain level, what the defense is, that this was an accident," said Michael Cardoza, a Northern California attorney. "You're not going to get around that testimony. The question is, What impact is it going to have on the jury? What weight will the jury give to it?"

To be fair, the testimony came during the first week of what is likely to be a monthlong trial and before Deputy District Attorney David Stein

Called other former BART police officers to the witness stand to explain why they acted aggressively toward Grant and his friends.

The testimony also came from witnesses who said most BART police officers on the Fruitvale platform early Jan. 1, 2009, were using excessive force against Grant and his friends. They all also said that Grant and his friends never resisted arrest or tried to strike the officers.

Also, Stein has not yet called a BART police official who is expected to testify that in the hours that the official sat with Mehserle after the shooting, the then-26-year-old BART officer never said he made a mistake.

Nevertheless, the brief glimpses of Mehserle after the shooting that were captured by video and described by passengers most likely will become the pivotal evidence for Rains as he tries to win acquittal for his client.

"It means a lot," said Jim Hammer, a former San Francisco homicide prosecutor and now a private attorney. "The most difficult statements and reactions that are the hardest to argue against are those that happen immediately after the event."

Hammer said juries are more likely to believe the actions and statements a defendant makes in the immediate aftermath of a crime because, at that time, the defendant had not had a chance to think of an excuse.

"What happens immediately after an event is the best example of what is in their state of mind," Hammer said.

Stein is expected to argue that Mehserle's reactions were a result of his quickly realizing that he should not have shot Grant. Stein still could argue that Mehserle intended to kill Grant but realized that was the wrong choice after shooting him.

Rains, of course, will argue that the reaction proves that Mehserle never intended to use his gun and was shocked when he pulled the trigger and a bullet fired from a gun rather than two electrically charged darts from a Taser.

Whatever explanation a jury deems reasonable could play a large role in determining the outcome of the trial, attorneys said.

At this point, Cardoza said, it would be hard to believe that the jury thinks Mehserle's reactions came as a result of his realizing that he should not have fired his gun.

"I don't think that is a reasonable explanation," Cardoza said. "To believe that, you would have to believe that Mehserle was in a stupor before he shot."

If the jury does believe both interpretations of Mehserle's reactions are reasonable, the law states that it must side with the defense's explanation.

"You can interpret every reaction in a number of ways, and the question is, What is the most reasonable explanation?" Hammer said. "If there are two possible explanations, and the jury considers both reasonable, it must give the defense the benefit of doubt."

Both attorneys cautioned, however, that the trial has just begun and that other evidence presented in the next three weeks, including possible testimony from Mehserle, could lessen the impact of the witnesses' recounting of the former officer's reactions.

"This is not a slam dunk on either side right now," Hammer said. "All the other stuff, the police aggressiveness, shows that there was no reason to do anything that the officers did.

"It's a tough case, and that is why we have trials and why we have juries."

They charged the responsible officer with murder. I hope they know what they're doing because this article confirms what I was afraid of in the original thread that was posted here a while ago. If they can't meet the burden of proof for murder then this officer will get away with what he did...

[Coyote]

What do you think would have been a wiser alternative? Negligent homicide? Manslaughter?

[SVPD]

What do you think would have been a wiser alternative? Negligent homicide? Manslaughter?

Either one, depending on what the statutes are called in California. Far better chance of a conviction.

[ShadowDragon8685]

For once, I have to agree with Kamikaze Sith and SVPD.

What this fuck-up did was completely unacceptable, and he deserves to spend some time sizzling in the clink, but the shooting itself was almost absolutely negligent discharge rather than intent to kill. Unless the California murder statues specifically include negligent homocide by firearm as being murder and not a lesser charge (and it's gun-phobic California, so I wouldn't rule that out without looking through California's codebooks,) they pretty clearly over-charged him here, and he might walk because of that.

Unless California's criminal law allow for a jury to convict on a lesser charge.

[LaCroix]

Wait? In your court system, if they charge him for murder and find out it was 'only' manslaughter, he gets off? How fucked up is that?

Every sane court system would automatically up- or downgrade the charge during the case.

What logical reason would be for a system that means overcharge = get free card.

[Terralthra]

They charged the responsible officer with murder. I hope they know what they're doing because this article confirms what I was afraid of in the original thread that was posted here a while ago. If they can't meet the burden of proof for murder then this officer will get away with what he did...

Where in the article does it say that? I don't see it, and it's not typically the way trials work in California.

[General Zod]

Wait? In your court system, if they charge him for murder and find out it was 'only' manslaughter, he gets off? How fucked up is that?

Every sane court system would automatically up- or downgrade the charge during the case.

What logical reason would be for a system that means overcharge = get free card.

Double jeopardy laws. You can't keep throwing charges against someone for the same event and hope that one of them sticks. Of course this assumes the only thing the jury is allowed to do is determine guilt or innocence of the charges in question and not propose alternatives.

[Flagg]

Wait? In your court system, if they charge him for murder and find out it was 'only' manslaughter, he gets off? How fucked up is that?

Every sane court system would automatically up- or downgrade the charge during the case.

What logical reason would be for a system that means overcharge = get free card.

Double jeopardy laws. You can't keep throwing charges against someone for the same event and hope that one of them sticks. Of course this assumes the only thing the jury is allowed to do is determine guilt or innocence of the charges in question and not propose alternatives.

The defense can request lower charges be considered IIRC, but I don't know how often judges go for it or what criteria are to be met for a judge to be allowed to do so.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They charged the responsible officer with murder. I hope they know what they're doing because this article confirms what I was afraid of in the original thread that was posted here a while ago. If they can't meet the burden of proof for murder then this officer will get away with what he did...

Where in the article does it say that? I don't see it, and it's not typically the way trials work in California.

I assumed that was rather well known that they intended on charging him with murder since it was pretty much decided back in 2009.

Here's a recent article

In a Los Angeles courtroom Monday, the prosecution rested its case against Johannes Mehserle, former BART police officer accused of murdering an unarmed passenger in Oakland.
...
This is the first time in California that a police officer has been tried for murder for an on-duty shooting. It is still unknown whether Mehserle will take the stand in his own defense. There is still a gag order on the case.

[Terralthra]

Yes, it says they are charging for murder. It does not say they can't commute to a lesser charge, as that is fairly routine. The judge can instruct the jury after arguments are presented that if they find x, y, z, they should return guilty for foo, while if they do not find z, but still find x, and y, they should return innocent on foo but guilty for bar.

You seemed to indicate that the article said they couldn't do that in this case, but it doesn't say that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, it says they are charging for murder. It does not say they can't commute to a lesser charge, as that is fairly routine. The judge can instruct the jury after arguments are presented that if they find x, y, z, they should return guilty for foo, while if they do not find z, but still find x, and y, they should return innocent on foo but guilty for bar.

You seemed to indicate that the article said they couldn't do that in this case, but it doesn't say that.

Well, allow me to clarify here. I'm not indicating that the article is saying that. I am saying that. Yes, a judge can do that. Will he?

[Questor]

Yes, it says they are charging for murder. It does not say they can't commute to a lesser charge, as that is fairly routine. The judge can instruct the jury after arguments are presented that if they find x, y, z, they should return guilty for foo, while if they do not find z, but still find x, and y, they should return innocent on foo but guilty for bar.

You seemed to indicate that the article said they couldn't do that in this case, but it doesn't say that.

Well, allow me to clarify here. I'm not indicating that the article is saying that. I am saying that. Yes, a judge can do that. Will he?

My understanding is that the prosecutor - not the judge - has to choose to charge both if he wants both to be considered, and that sometimes they don't charge the lesser includeds because they think that the jury will pick the lower one and they want to make a statement of some kind, or to use the "let the guy walk or convict him of murder" idea. I would think then that jury instructions would be very important in that case.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Looks like the verdict is out. In a few minutes, we'll find out how badly Oakland is going to burn to the ground.

[Terralthra]

Yes, it says they are charging for murder. It does not say they can't commute to a lesser charge, as that is fairly routine. The judge can instruct the jury after arguments are presented that if they find x, y, z, they should return guilty for foo, while if they do not find z, but still find x, and y, they should return innocent on foo but guilty for bar.

You seemed to indicate that the article said they couldn't do that in this case, but it doesn't say that.

Well, allow me to clarify here. I'm not indicating that the article is saying that. I am saying that. Yes, a judge can do that. Will he?

Yes, he did.

Jurors were given four options during deliberations. They could convict Mehserle, 28, of second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, or they could acquit him.

[Cecelia5578]

Its involuntary manslaughter

[Cecelia5578]

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_15467680

Mehserle: Former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for killing Oscar Grant
By Chris Metinko and Paul T. Rosynsky
Oakland Tribune
Posted: 07/08/2010 10:38:25 AM PDT
Updated: 07/08/2010 04:09:34 PM PDT

More

* Oakland BART shooting: Full coverage

LOS ANGELES — Former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle was found guilty of guilty of involuntary manslaughter Thursday for killing Oscar Grant III early Jan. 1, 2009.

The verdict, which came after 6½ hours of deliberation, ends the initial chapter of an unprecedented criminal case that marked the first time in at least 15 years that a California police officer was charged with murder for an on-duty shooting.

The case began more than a year ago when Mehserle pulled out his gun and shot Grant in the back as the 22-year-old laid prone on the Fruitvale BART station platform.

The shooting followed a sometimes chaotic scene at the station which began with a call from dispatch early New Year's
Day asking for officers to respond to a fight on a Dublin-bound train.

The first officer to respond, former officer Anthony Pirone, immediately pegged Grant and four of his friends as the individuals involved in the fight. But Pirone's aggressive actions toward the group eventually led to a hectic scene on the platform followed by Mehserle shooting Grant in the back.

The jury of eight women and four women, but no African-Americans, came to its decision after wading through six videos that captured the events before, during and after the shooting, hundreds of pages of documents and the testimony of more than 50 witnesses.

The videos, three of which captured the shooting, became the central piece of evidence of the case as
Advertisement
Quantcast
both the defense and prosecution used the recordings to argue their side of the case.

For the prosecution, the videos gave a clear picture of how a group of rouge police officers allowed emotions to overtake training resulting in the death of an unarmed man.

For the defense, the videos presented direct evidence that the shooting was an accident as they showed Mehserle with a look of shock on his face a second after he fired his gun.

Both sides attempted to use frame-by-frame analysis of the videos to dissect every movement made by Grant, his friends and the BART police officers.

Defense attorney Michael Rains even hired a video expert who attempted to convince the jury that Mehserle and Pirone were hit by Grant and his friends before the shooting.

The training of BART police officers and the history of police officers mistaking guns for Tasers also played a pivotal role in the trial.

The prosecution pointed to police officer training to show that at least one of the BART police officers who responded to the scene did not follow proper procedures in detaining Grant and his friends. Deputy District Attorney David Stein also pointed to the training to argue that Mehserle did not even have the right to use his Taser on Grant.

The defense used the training to show that Mehserle, while trained well on the use of his gun, lacked sufficient training on his Taser.

Rains argued that Mehserle never had a chance to practice holstering and un-holstering his Taser resulting in the former officer making a fatal mistake during a stressful situation.

But it was Mehserle himself who provided the trial with its most dramatic and pivotal moment.

Mehserle waited until the last week of the trial to explain, to the public and Grant's family, how he ended up shooting an unarmed Grant in the back in front of dozens of BART passengers and while Grant was lying prone and held by Pirone.

During his explanation, which was laced with loud sobs by both Mehserle and his mother, the 28-year-old said he never intended to shoot Grant.

"I didn't think I had my gun," Mehserle said last week as his face turned red and his lips started quivering. "I heard the pop. It wasn't very loud. It wasn't like a gunshot. And then I remember thinking, What went wrong with my Taser?

"I remember looking at my gun in my right hand," Mehserle said as he broke down in sobs. "I didn't know what to think. It just shouldn't have been there."

But Mehserle's failure to immediately explain his actions became a key piece of evidence for the prosecution as Stein continually reminded the jury that Mehserle did not act like a man who had made a mistake.

In fact, Mehserle quit the BART police force six days after the shooting, handing in a resignation letter on the same day he was scheduled to give a statement to internal affairs investigators.

A week after that, former Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff filed a murder charge against Mehserle. The then 27-year-old was arrested January 13, 2009 in Nevada where he went after the shooting, his lawyers said, because of safety concerns.

Stein used the lack of statement as evidence that the defense's contention that the shooting was a mistake was merely a concocted explanation made in hopes of winning an acquittal.

Although several witnesses, including Grant's friend Carlos Reyes, testified that Mehserle looked shocked and dumbfounded after the shooting, Stein provided evidence showing that the former officer never mentioned to fellow officers or a close friend that he had made a mistake.

Stein also focused on the actions of Pirone to highlight how the officers who responded to the call for a fight on the train acted like a rouge group of officers looking to mend out punishment.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, he did.

Jurors were given four options during deliberations. They could convict Mehserle, 28, of second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter, or they could acquit him.

Good. I've lost a lot of faith in the courts recently so it's good to see something happen. Now hopefully the people of Oakland will be satisfied.

[Kanastrous]

Involuntary manslaughter, they're calling it.

LOS ANGELES — A jury found a former San Francisco Bay area transit officer guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of an unarmed black man on an Oakland train platform.

The eight-woman, four-man panel read the verdict at 4 p.m. PDT Thursday after deliberating for more than six hours over two days.

Johannes Mehserle was found guilty on Thursday in the New Year's Day 2009 killing of 22-year-old Oscar Grant. Involuntary manslaughter carries a sentence of two to four years.

At least five bystanders videotaped the incident -- one of the most racially polarizing cases in California since four Los Angeles officers were acquitted in 1992 in the beating of Rodney King.

Prosecutors said the 28-year-old Mehserle became angry at Grant for resisting arrest. Mehserle claims he mistakenly drew his gun instead of his Taser.

The trial was moved to Los Angeles after racial tensions boiled over into violence in Oakland.

Police in Oakland expected protests after the verdict and prepared by getting crowd-control training and working 12-hour shifts. A group of activists planned a rally outside City Hall.

None of the jurors listed their race as black. Seven said they were white, three were Latino, and one was Asian-Pacific. One declined to state their race.

The verdict followed a three-week trial in which prosecutors played videos by bystanders, and witnesses recounted hearing the frightening gunshot that killed Grant.

Mehserle, 28, testified that he struggled with Grant and saw him digging in his pocket. Fearing Grant might have a weapon, Mehserle said he decided to shock Grant with his Taser but pulled his .40-caliber handgun instead.

Alameda County Deputy District Attorney David Stein said in his closing argument that Mehserle let his emotions get the better of him and intended to shoot Grant with the handgun without justification.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38156983/ns ... nd_courts/

[Master of Ossus]

Involuntary manslaughter's the only one they could prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[Cecelia5578]

I for one am glad I don't have to be in the East Bay in the next couple of days.

[Havok]

Meh. I don't think anything major is going to happen. The Rodney King riots were sorta spur of the moment, and at a time when L.A. was way more worked up than Oakland is right now. They also already rioted when the killing happened and it was pretty small in comparison.

The thing is though, this was a BART cop, not and Oakland Police Officer. It's not the same as when L.A.P.D. beat the shit out of King. Oakland PD is actually pretty good about this type of thing and they are pissed on the officer level, and I'm sure further up, that they are taking the heat for this. If this happened a couple of stops down the tracks in Fremont, this wouldn't be half the issue it is right now, black victim or no.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Meh. I don't think anything major is going to happen. The Rodney King riots were sorta a spur of the moment, and at a time when L.A. was way more worked up than Oakland is right now. They also already rioted when the killing happened and it was pretty small in comparison.

The thing is though, this was a BART cop, not and Oakland Police Officer. It's not the same as when L.A.P.D. beat the shit out of King. Oakland PD is actually pretty good about this type of thing and they are pissed on the officer level, and I'm sure further up, that they are taking the heat for this. If this happened a couple of stops down the tracks in Fremont, this wouldn't be half the issue it is right now, black victim or no.

Well I hope you're right. Because I don't think most people are smart enough to distinguish between Oakland PD, and a BART Officers. Also even though many civil rights groups in support of Grant have called for calm regardless of what the verdict is, they at the same time have expressed that they want nothing less than 2nd degree murder.

[Havok]

No, around here, people know that BART cops are just that. They don't connect them with any particular city. There has also been enough said about it that those interested know this was not OPD. In fact, if it was actually OPD, I would not at all be convinced that nothing was going to happen and I would probably be armed at the moment.

[Cecelia5578]

Involuntary manslaughter's the only one they could prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, according to his defense attorneys, yes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Involuntary manslaughter's the only one they could prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, according to his defense attorneys, yes.

According to the jury as well...

Proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for murder is pretty much impossible when you consider the evidence. He did have a "oh shit" look on his face after he realized what had happened, and this "oh shit" look was also observed by witnesses who were also friends or associates of Oscar Grant.