Evilphd666

 A jury says it cannot reach a verdict in the case of a former Grand Rapids police officer who was accused of murder after he shot and killed a man following a traffic stop three years ago.

The jury deliberated for more than 20 hours before telling the judge Thursday it was hopelessly deadlocked in the case of Christopher Schurr in the death of Patrick Lyoya.

“I did receive communication that you were unable to reach a verdict,” Kent County Circuit Court Judge Christina Mims said as the jury returned to the courtroom Thursday morning. “I wanted to verify that that’s true, that you’re unable to reach a verdict as a panel?”

“Correct,” the jury foreperson replied.

Mims then declared a mistrial.

Jurors had said Tuesday they could not reach a verdict. At that time, Mims told them to keep deliberating. They did so, continued their work through Wednesday and returned Thursday morning.

“To keep sending (jurors) back (to keep deliberating) would have been a little more fraught in the sense that you don’t want to put the jurors in a situation where they’re feeling pressure to compromise,” Professor Tracey Brame of Cooley Law School explained to News 8 after the mistrial was declared. “The verdict has to be unanimous. They could not find a place where all 12 of them could land. I’m not surprised based on the evidence we heard in the case.”

Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker must now decide whether to try the case again in front of a new jury.

“It will come down to whether he thinks he can get a verdict in this case,” Brame said.

Assuming he does go forward with another trial, Brame acknowledged that “it’s going to be a challenge to empanel a set of jurors who not only haven’t seen coverage of the case, but who have not already formed opinions of the case.”

She noted attorneys could move for a change of venue if they feel they cannot find an unbiased jury in Kent County.

THE SHOOTING

No one ever disputed that Schurr shot and killed Lyoya, a 26-year-old refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The question the jury could not decide an answer to was whether it was murder.

“What this boils down to is this was unjustifiable and unreasonable,” the prosecutor told jurors during his opening statement. “It was a crime.” 

“This case is about self-defense. This was not murder. This was about self-defense,” defense attorney Mikayla Hamilton said. “(Schurr) acted to save his own life.” 

The shooting happened the morning of April 4, 2022, during a traffic stop on Grand Rapids’ Southeast Side. Lyoya had been drinking before he died, a witness testified, and his blood alcohol content was more than three times the legal limit to drive, his autopsy showed

Video from the traffic stop shows Lyoya running away from Schurr and an about 2.5-minute struggle between the two, including them grappling over Schurr’s Taser. Ultimately, Schurr, who was on top of Lyoya trying to hold him down, shot him in the back of the head. 

“It was happening fast,” Lyoya’s passenger Aime Tuyishime testified on the first day of the trial. 

Wayne Butler, who lives near where the shooting happened, testified he saw it happen. 

“This isn’t going to end good,” he recalled thinking. 

The prosecutor said the shooting was not justified and charged Schurr with second-degree murder in June 2022. Schurr was fired from the police department. 

Schurr claimed self-defense. A series of appeals from his legal team meant it was more than three years after Lyoya’s death that the case finally went to trial. 

A jury of 14 people — 10 women and four men — was seated April 23, and the trial got underway April 28. 

TESTIMONY

At the center of the case was Schurr’s Taser and the struggle over it. The prosecution called an expert witness from manufacturer Axon to explain to the jury how it worked. He explained it was fired twice — its maximum — and at that point, the harm it could have caused Schurr was less serious than when someone is hit by the darts — though it could have still been dangerous. 

Two experts in police use of force said that, in their opinion, Schurr’s decision to shoot Lyoya was not reasonable. They said Schurr made tactical errors before the shooting. One said Schurr should not have chased Lyoya while Lyoya’s passenger was still in the car. The other said Schurr pulled his Taser too close to Lyoya, giving Lyoya the chance to grab it. One also argued Schurr should have given a specific warning that he was going to shoot Lyoya before he pulled the trigger. 

The defense worked to show that Schurr was in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger. Witnesses called by the defense included officers who responded to the scene after the shooting. They described Schurr as exhausted. 

The defense also called Grand Rapids Police Department captains who said Schurr did not violate department policies in his interaction with Lyoya and that it was reasonable for Schurr to shoot him because Lyoya had gained control of his Taser and posed a threat to his safety.

An expert on exertion and exhaustion factors for a company that provides training to law enforcement told the jury that it looked to him like Lyoya was in control of the fight with Schurr and didn’t seem affected by Schurr’s efforts to subdue him.

Taking the stand in his own defense Friday, Schurr said he was already exhausted by the struggle by the time he drew his Taser. When Lyoya grabbed it, he said, he was afraid Lyoya would use it on him. By the time he drew his gun, Schurr said, he was “running on fumes” and afraid for his life.

“I believe if I didn’t do what I did when I did it, I wouldn’t be here today,” Schurr said.

Schurr did not have to testify. He said he chose to because he felt it was “important to get my side of the story out.”

Under cross-examination, the prosecutor tried to show that Lyoya was just working to get away from Schurr rather than harm him.

“At no point did he go for your gun, did he?” Becker said.

“No,” Schurr responded.

Cooley Law Professor Tracey Brame said it was “essential” for the jury to hear Schurr’s testimony.

“They asked him more questions than any of the other witnesses,” Brame said. “That really allowed them to get a window what he was thinking and feeling at the time. And it seems from their questions and the difficulty in coming to a consensus that they were really struggling with what to do with that.”

The video of the shooting, Brame pointed out, evokes a “visceral” reaction. She said breaking down the images in court allowed the jury to put the actions into context.

“Being able to look at this frame: Did the suspect have the Taser in his hand? What position was he in, etc? It kind of brought it back from an emotional response into a more analytical space where they were able to, again, put into context these actions within the fame of GRPD policy and the law,” she said.

Testimony wrapped up Monday morning, and attorneys for both sides delivered their closing arguments to the jury.

“This is a real man, a human being, shot in the back of the head,” Becker said. “I’m not going to sit here and argue Patrick was a saint. He was drunk driving. He was resisting. He was driving without a driver’s license. None of those are executable offenses.”

Becker told the jury that Schurr made critical mistakes after he pulled over Lyoya that day. He said Lyoya was only trying to get away from Schurr and never posed a threat to him, even if he had gained control of the Taser.

“Pain is not a reason to use deadly force,” Becker said. “Pain of a thousand burning suns doesn’t justify it.”

Defense attorney Matthew Borgula said Becker “failed miserably” to make the case that Schurr was guilty.

“You should find him not guilty after the government’s case,” Borgula said. “His entire life is on the line. The prosecutor cannot show that his fear was unreasonable.”

Borgula reminded the jury that Schurr made a lawful stop when he pulled Lyoya over and stressed that Lyoya resisted him. He argued the prosecution’s expert witnesses were viewing the case in hindsight.

“Judge (Schurr) on the decision, and not all this noise around it,” Borgula said. “If you have any sliver of reasonable doubt, you must acquit.”