One of the complaints people make about the police violence is that juries generally don't want to hold them accountable, that they are generally given the benefit of the doubt in any court proceeding. The case against Jason Stockley was resolved by a bench trial, so there was no jury. But I've been over the entire 30-page ruling (which you can read here), and I have to say, without passing judgment one way or the other on Stockley's actual innocence, there are aspects the ruling that bother me, and seem to suggest those complaints have justification.
The judge resolves every issue of fact in Stockley's favor, and some of them seem a bit like a stretch. For example:
1. Defense did not deny that, less than a minute before the chase ended, Stockley said, "We're killing this motherf***er." Defendant claimed he couldn't recall saying it, and therefore could not explain it or give it context. That's not a very satisfying answer, but the judge was happy with it, accepting the claim that a lot of things get said during a chase, and therefore, actually saying you are going to kill someone you later do kill is not evidence of intent.
2. Before the chase, the deceased had backed his vehicle into the patrol car while trying to escape. Prosecution offered this as motive. The judge made a point to explain that the collision was not "gentle," but pretty darn violent...and then rejected that it showed motive, although the judge did accept this collision as evidence that the officers felt the suspect was dangerous. Both the state and the defense could have a point here, and they would not be mutually exclusive, but the judge was only convinced by the defense.
3. The gun, part 1: A key point was a gun Stockley himself claimed to find in the car between the console and the seat, which he then emptied of shells, and placed on the passenger seat. Prosecution argued he planted the gun. His DNA was on the gun. The deceased's DNA was not. Another officer who had looked into the car after the shooting, but before Stockley returned to the car and found the gun, testified that he did not see a gun.
4. The gun, part 2: Stockley was the only officer who took off his winter gloves. Prosecution claimed he was thinking ahead, and providing a reason for his DNA to be on the gun he planted. He claimed he wanted to administer some sort of emergency blood clotting thing that is apparently standard equipment, and needed to take off his gloves to find it in his bag. This emergency medicine was never administered. Stockley claimed he could tell it was a lost cause, despite the fact that the driver appeared to still be alive at that time.
5. The gun, part 3: The previous two entries are certainly not necessarily outrageous. Stockley's story could well be true. However, the most disturbing part of the judge resolving all these facts in Stockley's favor is how he ended it: by taking judicial notice that a heroin dealer would probably have a gun.
There were some other facts that were more obviously favorable to Stockley. For example, while the prosecution argued that he fired four shots, then paused, then took a "kill shot," at least one witness testified that there was no pause between shots. So, it's not like the prosecution's case didn't have holes. It's just troubling that the judge resolved every single question of fact in one direction, and how he did it.
But, to me, perhaps the most disturbing is a question of law. The judge made it a point to specify that the state had not disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an affirmative defense, it's not normally the state's job to do this, but rather the defense's job to prove it. However, in Missouri, once it is raised, the state must disprove it, and it becomes an issue for the jury (or judge).***
The reason this is especially troubling is that, even if the judge believed the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof on the elements of murder, it was the prosecution's failure to disprove self-defense that was used to dismiss any consideration of conviction on lesser charges, such as manslaughter. The judge should have looked at the issue of self-defense more closely when considering lesser charges, at the very least.
Long story short, and again, without making any judgment as to Stockley's actual innocence, the ruling paints a picture of a judicial system in which it would be effectively impossible to convict a police officer for committing murder in the line of duty. The judge essentially set an impassable bar, which the prosecution, predictably, failed to clear.
*** PS: After doing some more reading, I'm surprised at just how many states (most of them) now follow the same law as Missouri. Since I studied law in Ohio, I was introduced to the traditional rule that any affirmative defense requires the defense to prove it by at least a preponderance of the evidence, with self-defense being no different. Ohio appears to be a dinosaur in this regard now.
With that now in mind, I'd say the real problem here is that this rule does not seem to be applied fairly by triers of fact, going back to the original problem raised at the very beginning of this post: juries (and judges) tend to believe cops. So, since it is a matter for the jury, a cop will successfully prove self-defense in situations where a non-cop, with the same fact pattern, probably would not.
Edited for clarity.
Edited again for postscript.
The judge resolves every issue of fact in Stockley's favor, and some of them seem a bit like a stretch. For example:
1. Defense did not deny that, less than a minute before the chase ended, Stockley said, "We're killing this motherf***er." Defendant claimed he couldn't recall saying it, and therefore could not explain it or give it context. That's not a very satisfying answer, but the judge was happy with it, accepting the claim that a lot of things get said during a chase, and therefore, actually saying you are going to kill someone you later do kill is not evidence of intent.
2. Before the chase, the deceased had backed his vehicle into the patrol car while trying to escape. Prosecution offered this as motive. The judge made a point to explain that the collision was not "gentle," but pretty darn violent...and then rejected that it showed motive, although the judge did accept this collision as evidence that the officers felt the suspect was dangerous. Both the state and the defense could have a point here, and they would not be mutually exclusive, but the judge was only convinced by the defense.
3. The gun, part 1: A key point was a gun Stockley himself claimed to find in the car between the console and the seat, which he then emptied of shells, and placed on the passenger seat. Prosecution argued he planted the gun. His DNA was on the gun. The deceased's DNA was not. Another officer who had looked into the car after the shooting, but before Stockley returned to the car and found the gun, testified that he did not see a gun.
4. The gun, part 2: Stockley was the only officer who took off his winter gloves. Prosecution claimed he was thinking ahead, and providing a reason for his DNA to be on the gun he planted. He claimed he wanted to administer some sort of emergency blood clotting thing that is apparently standard equipment, and needed to take off his gloves to find it in his bag. This emergency medicine was never administered. Stockley claimed he could tell it was a lost cause, despite the fact that the driver appeared to still be alive at that time.
5. The gun, part 3: The previous two entries are certainly not necessarily outrageous. Stockley's story could well be true. However, the most disturbing part of the judge resolving all these facts in Stockley's favor is how he ended it: by taking judicial notice that a heroin dealer would probably have a gun.
There were some other facts that were more obviously favorable to Stockley. For example, while the prosecution argued that he fired four shots, then paused, then took a "kill shot," at least one witness testified that there was no pause between shots. So, it's not like the prosecution's case didn't have holes. It's just troubling that the judge resolved every single question of fact in one direction, and how he did it.
But, to me, perhaps the most disturbing is a question of law. The judge made it a point to specify that the state had not disproven self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. As an affirmative defense, it's not normally the state's job to do this, but rather the defense's job to prove it. However, in Missouri, once it is raised, the state must disprove it, and it becomes an issue for the jury (or judge).***
The reason this is especially troubling is that, even if the judge believed the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof on the elements of murder, it was the prosecution's failure to disprove self-defense that was used to dismiss any consideration of conviction on lesser charges, such as manslaughter. The judge should have looked at the issue of self-defense more closely when considering lesser charges, at the very least.
Long story short, and again, without making any judgment as to Stockley's actual innocence, the ruling paints a picture of a judicial system in which it would be effectively impossible to convict a police officer for committing murder in the line of duty. The judge essentially set an impassable bar, which the prosecution, predictably, failed to clear.
*** PS: After doing some more reading, I'm surprised at just how many states (most of them) now follow the same law as Missouri. Since I studied law in Ohio, I was introduced to the traditional rule that any affirmative defense requires the defense to prove it by at least a preponderance of the evidence, with self-defense being no different. Ohio appears to be a dinosaur in this regard now.
With that now in mind, I'd say the real problem here is that this rule does not seem to be applied fairly by triers of fact, going back to the original problem raised at the very beginning of this post: juries (and judges) tend to believe cops. So, since it is a matter for the jury, a cop will successfully prove self-defense in situations where a non-cop, with the same fact pattern, probably would not.
Edited for clarity.
Edited again for postscript.
Last edited: