The court heard arguments regarding evidence and expert witnesses. Motions filed brought into consideration what specific terms can be used in the witness box. Those terms are reasonable or unreasonable; justified or unjustified; and lawful or unlawful.
Both attorneys agreed that they would set parameters for their witnesses to not use these terms. Daniel Fultz, an attorney for Sean Grayson, told the court we will “have clear conversations with our experts.”
Both sides frequently referred to the case Graham v. Connor. This is a case frequently used to say excessive use of force can be analyzed through the Fourth Amendment within the legal system. Both sides agreed to not specifically cite the case, but to use the principles of the case as they’ve been used in many previous cases.
While there were motions filed, both attorneys made agreements about those motions. Judge Cadagin said he would consider the rulings regarding expert witnesses and allowed phrases and topics as “reserved.” This means an agreement was made between the parties, but if an issue comes up during the testimony, the attorneys can discuss further with the judge.
Court only lasted 43 minutes. It adjourned for the day and will start again tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.
Grayson looked confused as attorneys argued on specifics. Mark Wykoff repeatedly placed his hand on Grayson’s shoulder as he referred to him.
Trial Blog | Day 2 of Sean Grayson Murder Trial concludes
As in other cases involving the use of excessive force or death by LEO, Graham v. Connor will play an important role in this case. This case will center around how a "reasonable" LEO would assess an immediate threat. Three main factors come into play.
Severity of the crime: Ms. Massey was not committing a crime, rather she was the RP (reporting party) who had called for police assistance due to a threat she herself perceived.
I
mmediate threat: Did Sonya pose a threat to Grayson when she went to the stove as directed because per him "we don't need a fire in the house" He directed her to take preventative action with the pot. (MOO)
Active resistance or flight: Massey was not a suspect or poi. She was, again, the RP, no arrest was threatened or imminent, she was not trying to resist arrest, escape or evade in her own home.
Supreme Court has long established that Graham v. Connor is the standard for what is considered objectively reasonable. Meaning a LEO's actions are judged based on what a reasonable officer would perceive and do in the same situation, at that moment, without the benefit of hindsight.
MO very strongly held Opinion: You need only to watch the body cam from after the shooting and see how his fellow LEOs responded to him to know, not one of them felt his actions were objectively reasonable. I sincerely hope the jurors get to see that footage. that IMO tells them everything they need to know by showing the actions and words of the defendant and the responses from his fellow LEOs
apnews.com
that was the best he could come up with. Told her to go deal with the pot and when she picked it up and said that he "perceived" it as a threat. You cannot have unbalanced people in uniform. I posit he was just as mentally unwell as she was if that was all it took for him to perceive a threat. A sentence. A simple sentence.
