Jurors watch body-camera video again, professor analyzes
11:23 a.m. Friday, October 24 — Caryn Eisert
At 10:41 a.m., jurors watched Professor Stoughton’s synchronized video of the body-camera recordings. This is the second time jurors have seen the video.
At the beginning, Grayson watched the monitor. After about 7 minutes into the video, he looked towards the table and took notes.
Some of the jurors even leaned forward in their chairs as the video played on the large monitor.
Milhiser stopped the video almost 9 minutes in. This is after Massey was preparing to close the door, and the deputy’s prepared to leave. He asked Professor Stoughton about Grayson’s interactions.
Professor Stoughton detailed to jurors that, in his opinion, it seemed, based on Massey’s responses, there was a mental health issue.
The video resumed at the point when Grayson asked her about the car in her driveway.
The video was stopped almost 10 minutes into the call. Milhiser again asked Professor Stoughton about his opinion on Grayson’s actions.
He wanted jurors to know Massey again showed signs of mental health issues after she mentioned she was taking her medication.
The video resumed to the point when Massey called dispatch again. Professor Stoughton said in his opinion that the callback showed she wasn’t understanding what was going on.
The video resumed to the point when Grayson asked for Massey’s ID. Milhiser stopped the video almost 12 minutes in, and Professor Stoughton said, in his opinion, again, Massey wasn’t understanding what was going on.
Grayson watched the video as it resumed to the point when he pointed out the pot on the stove, and Massey grabbed it.
Professor Stoughton testified that Farley showed signs of creating distance.
“She’s not moving aggressively, but it’s important to manage all of the aspects.”
The video began to play when Massey said, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Professor Stoughton said Massey has the pot of water under the tap for less than 8 seconds. He also mentioned that Massey was saying things that, in his opinion, didn’t make sense.
“There is a risk, but there is no threat,” Professor Stoughton testified as Massey had the pot in her hands.
In the video, as Grayson unholstered his gun, Professor Stoughton began to analyze the former deputy’s actions for the jurors.
Grayson watched as the video played of him shooting Massey. One juror looked down as the video played, not taking notes.
The video was paused again after Grayson fired his gun. Professor Stoughton told jurors in his opinion, Grayson wasn’t’ using a tactical sound maneuver by walking in front of Farley.
“That was not professionally appropriate,” he testified.
This is the unedited version of the body-camera, so Massey’s injuries were not blurred. Members of the Massey family were visibly upset watching the video again.
Milhiser paused the video 16 minutes in as Grayson could be heard saying, “I’m not going to waste my stuff.”
Jurors then watched a short version of the body-camera video. This was the point when Grayson pointed out the pot of water on the stove.
Grayson watched the monitor as the video was played in open court.
Milhiser asked Professor Stoughton to again analyze Grayson’s actions frame-by-frame.
He told jurors in his opinion that at the time Grayson pulled his gun, Massey had not changed her position on the pot. He added that when she crouched below the counter, she did not have the pot. Then, at about 12 minutes and 15 seconds into the video, Professor Stoughton pointed out that Grayson moved closer to Massey.
Milhiser asked Stoughton to clarify to jurors that as Grayson fired the gun, Massey lifted the pot.
At this point, Grayson has leaned back in the seat.
Professor Stoughton made sure to point out that after the gun was fired, both deputies then backed away.
Milhiser asked Professor Stoughton, "Were the defendant's tactics professional appropriate?"
"No," he responded.
Trial Blog | Day 5 of Sean Grayson Murder Trial
11:26 a.m. The defense calls a sidebar regarding having enough time to cross-examine. Judge Cadagin has called a lunch break until 1 p.m. Wykoff will cross-examine Stoughton after the break.
11:25 a.m. Milhiser asks if the shooting of Sonya Massey was acceptable, proper, or appropriate in regard to tactics. Stoughton: “No.” Milhiser wraps up the examination.
11:19 a.m. Stoughton says both officers could have walked out of Massey's house when she grabbed the pot, since there was no tactical need to be inside the home.
11:14 a.m. The entire courtroom is silent, focused on Stoughton's frame-by-frame analysis.
11:12 a.m. Stoughton is examining the video frame-by-frame.
11:09 a.m. We are now viewing the snippet of the full video that shows Grayson shooting Sonya Massey.
11:07 a.m. Sean Grayson leans his elbows on the defense table and props his head up in his hands, watching the footage. In the video, once Farley goes over to Massey's body lying on the floor after being shot, Grayson stops watching.
11:06 a.m. Stoughton says Grayson moving forward towards Massey after drawing his firearm increased the opportunity for Massey to cause harm.
10:59 a.m. Stoughton says Dep. Farley did a good job of creating distance between himself and Massey as she went into the kitchen to grab the pot off the stove. Massey had the ability to harm, and Farley took away that opportunity by moving away. He says Massey showed no intent to harm.
10:53 a.m. We have stopped at the moment Grayson walks into Massey's house. He says this is still a casual interaction. Massey continues to show signs of cognitive or mental health issues.
10:50 a.m. We have paused the video at the point where Sonya Massey answers the door. Stoughton says Massey showed signs of cognitive or mental health issues.
10:49 a.m. Sean Grayson is watching the full-length version intently. He occasionally leans forward to take notes.
10:47 a.m. Milhiser approaches the witness with a CD. Stoughton made a full-length version (most of Grayson's camera is off; the majority of the video is Dep. Farley's camera) and took a snippet from that video when Grayson shot Massey. We are now watching both videos on the monitor.
10:44 a.m. Stoughton synchronized both body cam footage from Dep. Farley and Grayson via the audio. Stoughton: "What you see in one video is only the perspective of that camera." Synchronized video allows for multiple camera perspectives.
10:38 a.m. The 'final frame' approach misses everything that happened beforehand that led up to that moment. Stoughton emphasizes the importance of looking at the 'totality of circumstances.'
10:37 a.m. However, Stoughton says, when Grayson approached Massey after she apologized, since Grayson closed the gap, and with Massey’s motion of throwing the pot, there was an imminent threat. This moment is referred to as the ‘final frame.’
10:32 a.m. Stoughton says that at the moment Grayson draws his firearm, Massey has the ability (holding a hot pot of water) but no opportunity (she's too far away) to harm Grayson. Her behavior suggests no intent to harm. Therefore, the situation poses risk, but no threat.
10:30 a.m. Stoughton says Sean Grayson made decisions that were tactically unsound. The decisions include pulling his gun and stepping in front of Dep. Farley.
10:28 a.m. A risk is any one or two of the components of a threat.
10:26 a.m. A threat is defined in three parts: 1) Ability- a subject has the physical capacity to cause harm (if they have a weapon) 2) Opportunity- has the opportunity to cause harm (close to the officer) 3) Intention based on actions (do they look like they are trying to cause harm)
10:22 a.m. Stoughton explains the distinction between 'risk' and 'threat.' It can be professionally appropriate for officers to use force when there's a threat. It is not appropriate to use force when there is a risk.
10:17 a.m. Judge Cadagin and the Jury have re-entered the courtroom. Milhiser continues questioning Stoughton on police tactics.
9:55 a.m. Judge Cadagin overrules the objection. Wykoff talks about an "expansion of the guardrails" (referring to yesterday's questioning of Dekmar) and wants to be given "the latitude to cross-examine the witness within the barometer of what the state is now seeking from the court."
9:52 a.m. Milhiser– “It’s hard to believe we are doing this now when the defense counsel made an untimely motion.” Milhiser shakes Stoughton's 40-page report in the air. Grayson looks restless and stands with his hands behind his back.
9:51 a.m. Fultz explains that Grayson was trained according to Sangamon County policy, not national standards. The defense believes that not having this distinction would confuse the jury, as they would hold Grayson to a standard he wasn't trained to.
9:47 a.m. Fultz: "Your honor, again, I am concerned about your confusion." The defense believed Stoughton would discuss Grayson’s actions related to Sangamon County policy and, by extension, national standards. Fultz argues that Stoughton's testimony had nothing to do with policy.
9:42 a.m. Judge Cadagin asks if Grayson's actions are consistent with police practices and tactics. "Generally, is this what police work looks like? The expert will say no based on generally accepted practices." Cadagin wonders why that question-and-answer would not be allowed?
9:40 a.m. Milhiser emphasizes that they are discussing ‘generally accepted police practices.' Judge Cadagin understands from the pre-trial motions that the attorneys didn’t want witnesses to offer legal conclusions to the jury.
9:33 a.m. The defense wants to make an objection based on the belief that Stoughton's testimony could lead to significant confusion with the jury because Stoughton and Grayson have different understandings of ‘best practices.’
9:30 a.m. When reviewing a case, Stoughton aims to understand all of the facts and conducts a comprehensive review of all materials. Stoughton began discussing policing tactics when Fultz called a sidebar. The jury has left the room.
9:26 a.m. Stoughton: “Policing is a highly diffused profession policing is so highly localized." He looks at what officers are doing—not to identify best practices, but to determine what a reasonably well-trained officer would think in a situation, based on what officers actually do.
9:17 a.m. Wykoff seeks clarification that Stoughton has testified as an expert at a criminal trial in the past. Stoughton clarifies that he indeed has. Wykoff accepts Stoughton as an expert. Milhiser is now examining Stoughton.
9:14 a.m. Stoughton has testified as an expert about 150 times and at trial 16-20 times. Milhiser asks Judge Cadagin to accept Stoughton as an expert in the area of generally accepted police practices and use of force. Wykoff has follow-up questions for Stoughton.
9:13 a.m. Stoughton wrote a book titled 'Evaluating Police Uses of Force.' The book aims to answer how society evaluates use-of-force incidents by examining four perspectives—constitutional law, state law, administrative regulation, and community expectations.
9:09 a.m. Stoughton is the Faculty Director of the Excellence in Policing & Public Safety (EPPS) Program at the Univ of South Carolina and a Law Professor teaching criminal law, criminal procedure, and police law and policy.
Day 5: Live updates of Sean Grayson's trial
