Yall, I’m dragging a little bit today. My very rude cat, Binx walked on my keyboard last night so I sat down today and this bratty little cat turned on sticky keys and idk what else. She’s lucky she’s cute.
Aaaanyways we are off to running start on the 5th day of trial, my 3rd day here and do not fear, I’ve got on actual tie up shoes double knotted nice and tight, so I won’t be chucking my Chucks.
The first witness is called to the stand at about 9:05 am. This is Seth Stoughton a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law (I’m a law nerd so this makes me giddy)
Seth is the faculty director of the Excellence in Policing and Public Safety Program at the University of South Carolina and a Law Professor teaching criminal law, criminal procedure and police law and policy.
Okay, Stoughton is super impressive! He has written a book titled “Evaluating Police Uses of Force”. This book is about how society evaluates the use-of-force incidents by examining four perspectives. These are constructional law, state law, administrative regulation and community expectations.
Stoughton has also testified as an expert about 150 times. Milhiser asks Judge Cadagin to accept him as an expert in the area of generally accepted police practices and the use of force. The defense has follow up questions (like seriously though why, this guy is def an expert)
At 9:17 ish Wykoff asks if Stoughton has testified as an expert in a criminal trial in the past. Stoughton answers in the affirmative. He is accepted as an expert, so Milhiser begins questioning.
Stoughton that policing is a highly diffused profession and highly localized. He deciphers what a well trained officer thinks in a situation based on what officers actually do, so when reviewing a case, Stoughton aims to understand all of the facts. He then conducts a comprehensive review of materials. Fultz calls a sidebar and jury exits.
9:33 am Fultz and Wykoff object because they believe there could be confusion because Stoughton and Grayson may have different understandings of “best practices”.
The discussion continues and Milhiser points out that at focus here is “generally accepted police practices” I mean, hello, common sense is common sense, and right is right. I don’t understand the confusion, but that’s just me.
Judge Cadagin accepts the fact that from pre-trial motions that witnesses are not to offer legal conclusions to the jury; however, the issue at hand is a fair generalization. In other words, generally accepted practices as opposed to legal conclusions. Fultz is pushing hard. He states that Stoughton’s testimony will be based on national standards as opposed to Sangamon County policy.
Fultz and Wykoff are concerned that the national standards are higher than Sangamon county and that this would confuse the jury. Bro, they aren’t dumb.
Milhiser is piiiiissed! “It’s hard to believe we are doing this now when the defense counsel made an untimely motion” He is shaking the 40 page report in the air. Grayson is fidgeting and you can tell he’s antsy. Seriously though, these guys had access to the witnesses’ backgrounds before now. They had plenty of time to make these motions and mention these things before today.
This is likely why he overrules the objection. Wykoff wants a similar allowance as yesterday with Dekmar, asking to cross-examine the witness “within the barometer of what the state is now seeking from the court”
At 10:17 the judge and jury are back in the room. Milhiser returns to his questioning and Stoughton explains the difference between risk and threat. It’s professionally appropriate to use force when there is a threat, but not when there is a risk.
Three parts of a threat
Ability - a subject has the physical capacity to cause harm, such as having a weapon
Opportunity - a subject has the opportunity to cause harm (they are close enough or within range considering the weapon)
Intention - based on actions, for example if they look as though they are about to cause harm. Think, they have something heavy in hand and are raring back to throw it.
A risk is any one or two components of a threat. So basically a threat is all three and a risk is one or two
Approaching 10:30 and Stoughton states that Grayson made decisions that were not tactically sound. (pulling his gun and standing in front of Deputy Farley)
Stoughton states that at the moment Grayson draws his firearm massey has the ability (holding a pot of hot water) I’m still calling bull shit that there was any hot water still in the pot. Remember the body-cam? So, you hear the water running. If you watch Sonya Massey, she goes to the sink, and well what do we do with a pot of hot water at the sink with water running? Just sayin. She did not have the opportunity, though because she was too far away to harm Grayson (duuuuh). Her behavior also does not suggest any intent to harm him. So, there is a risk but no threat.
Now, when Grayson approached Massey after she apologized (because of course everyone apologizes and ducks when they are about to attack. Literally my eyes are rolling more than a cue ball on league night. I also have Limp Bizkit Rollin stuck in my head because apparently that’s a theme right now) and with the “Massey’s motion of throwing the pot” I wanna knock dude out, because he definitely did not watch the same thing I did. Anywhozit this supposed motion creates an imminent threat. This moment is referred to as the final frame. If I can figure out a way to link my tiktok in which I slowed down the ISP video literally frame by frame to google docs I will, because I just honestly don’t see it.
https://www.tiktok.com/@jessa_belle_writes/video/7395770160671509791?_r=1&_t=ZT-90p7HUdQzZf
Stoughton does say that the “Final Frame” approach does not take the totality of everything that led up to that moment into account. He emphasized the importance of looking at everything leading up to the final frame.
Stoughton synchronized both footages from Grayson and Farley using the audio. Doing this gives both points of view as opposed to just the one.
Milhiser presents a CD that Stoughton made with a full-length version and took a snippet of the point where Grayson shot Sonya. This is now being played for the jury and courtroom.
This time Grayson actually does watch the video, he has also been taking notes during this particular testimony.
At about 11 Stoughton commends Farley for doing a good job of creating distance between himself and Sonya Massey as she went into the kitchen. If Sonya had wanted to, she had the ability to harm them, but Farley took away opportunity by moving away. He says that Sonya showed no intent to harm though.
Stoughton moving closer to Sonya after he drew his firearm increases the opportunity for her to cause harm. Ohhhh, Grayson can’t look at the woman he killed, of course he can’t he’s a, let’s call him a pansy and try to watch my potty mouth. He looks away when the camera cuts to Farley rendering aid.
We are going through the video literally frame by frame now. Stoughton states that both officers could have walked out of the house when Sonya grabbed the pot. There was really no tactical need to be inside the home.
Now Milhiser asks if the shooting was acceptable, proper, or appropriate in regards to tactics and Stoughton answers with a very stern “no”. With that Milhiser has no further questions and defense calls a sidebar. Wykoff is being whiny about having enough time to cross-examine. That’s not an issue because we are going to lunch my guy and he can cross after that.
Back to the grind at 1:05 (I had Taco Bell today, because a cantina chicken taco sounded good) Wykoff is still salty, and I’m tempted to wear my morton’s shirt under a blazer one of these days.
He asks Stoughton for more details about his experience as an officer (we’ve already admitted him as an expert but okay) Ohhhh, yuck I see what he’s doing. He goes over to his lil buddy Sean and pats his back noting that they were officers for a similar number of years, calling them “similarly situated”.
This literally gives me all the ick, yall. On the stand we have a man who obviously respects the badge, law enforcement, and the people that officers serve in their communities. Sitting across from him in the defense seat is a “man” who rotated through all of the small town police departments, did not respect the community enough to move to city limits, and couldn’t even bother with protocol.
Stoughton seems to have the ick as well, because I see a mouth shrug and his nose crinkles a little bit with a fairly classic disgust micro-expression. (Thank you the behavior panel and Professor Briley at Lincoln Land for those lil lessons) he also states, “The source of my expertise is as a police researcher for the past 13 years.” YESSSIIIIRRR
So, basically Wykoff is debating The Force Science Institute’s 24 articles most of which were published, but Stoughton states that the journal in which they’re published is a “nonscientific journal”.
1:44 The defense asks Stoughton if he has a good handle on generally accepted practices and how they tie into the use of deadly force. Obviously, he answers with a yes.
Ten till two p.m and Wykoff is reading the Sangamon County Deadly Force Application Policy. It states in the policy, “When reasonable, the deputy shall, prior to the use of deadly force, make efforts to identify as a police officer and to warn that deadly force may be used.” I don’t think telling a frail woman who only said “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” “You better fucking not. I’ll shoot you right in the fucking head” but I’m no expert.
So, now Wykoff is bringing up the margin of error in the Deadly Force Application guidelines and it’s a good thing I only had the one taco, because this argument is so contrived I want to yak. Wykoff brings up a bull crap example of someone taking a pen out of their pocket, and an officer shooting them because they believed the pen to be a switchblade. This humongous reach in Wykoff’s opinion falls within the margin of error. Stoughton replies that the question is whether the mistake is reasonable.
Mr. Wykoff, asking a person to remove a pot from a stove, then being all shocked that said woman has that pot in her hands is not reasonable. What did he expect poor Sonya Massey to do? Was she supposed to use some psychokinesis?
Stoughton notes that perfection is not expected, but that an officer acting professionally and appropriately is expected.
2:03 and upon further questioning Stoughton cannot confirm whether the training Grayson received is in accordance with generally accepted practices.
Stoughton asserts that his role today is that of an academic perspective from which he looks at generally accepted practices. With his education and background he identifies best practices and seeks to make them generally accepted.
They both agree that there is a difference between generally accepted practices and best practices.
Stoughton takes a number of factors into account when reviewing use of force. They try to adopt an officer’s mindset as opposed to 20/20 hindsight. Stoughton and his peers focus on the nature of the mistake and if it was a reasonable one also factoring in the officer’s perspective on the scene.
Wykoff seeks clarification from Stoughton on Sangamon Co’s Deadly Force policy. Basically he is trying to point out that the Sangamon County policy does not mention “ability”, “opportunity”, and “intent”. Stoughton contends that the policy references the same concepts, though the wording is different.
I’m thoroughly frustrated and really had to fight to keep my sighs from being loud and annoying. Apparently ISP and Stoughton agree that in the frame by frame breakdown they saw Massey starting to throw the pot of water. I’m telling yall she had a freaking pot holder in her hand.
We are going to break now thank goodness so I can rage internally in the bathroom.
I may have cursed the entire world out under my breath and made someone in the bathroom clutch her pearls, but I’m less heated… well, kinda.
Yall, hold your butts! Wykoff has brought up how Sonya Massey said, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” This dude better take up pilates or yoga with all this stretching he is up to, wait hold that thought. Let’s hope he doesn’t because I want him to feel the stretchy burn. You’ll see what I mean, because he asks Wykoff “In religion, water oftentimes has a meaning, right?”
Stoughton asserts that he is not a religious expert or well versed in it. Fine, fine Stoughton comes off of my anger list a little bit.
Wykoff must think he has won something here. Stoughton’s report indicated that Ms. Massey could have posed an imminent threat of great bodily harm when Sonya had the pot of water and crouched, and when Grayson advanced with his firearm drawn.
Wykoff (I really just wanna call him something else that rhymes with his name, but starts with Jack, but I’ll hold back) takes out Stoughton’s book which references tactical missteps. He’s pointing out the line in the book stating “Time is the single most important tactical principle in training.”
Wouldn’t need to worry about time if you hadn’t Oh I dunno flipped your shit over a simple saying.
Moving on, though, and Wykoff asks Stoughton which sources he used to inform his conclusions about Grayson’s tactically unsound decisions. Stoughton ever so classily replies citing his book “Evaluating Police Uses of Force” as well as a list of other academic sources. That was satisfying.
Wykoff tries to be a petty Betty by asking Stoughton if his being here is a stop on his book tour to advance best practices. Stoughton - “I never had a book tour, that would be nice. The book is not about best practices. The book is about generally accepted practices.” With that shut down the defense has no further questions and my dark lil heart does a flip.
I’m not surprised that Milhiser redirects at 3:27 ish and references the defense’s question about how Grayson and Stoughton were both officers for similar amounts of time. He points out how Grayson was involved in an officer involved shooting while Stoughton never was. (cackling!!!)
Long story, short Stoughton points out there are different experiences and outcomes when an officer follows his training vs one who does not. Well played my guys, well played.
With that we are done. I need wine, or something as well as to scream and yell at stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment