Jurors in Jason Van Dyke Trial Say Officer’s Claim of Self-defense Did Not Match Video
After the verdict at the Leighton Criminal Court Building on Oct. 5, 2018, three jurors, who didn't want to be named, speak about their experiences during the trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke. (Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune)
Megan Crepeau, Stacy St. Clair and Jason Meisner
Chicago Tribune
Jurors in the murder trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke said they believed the officer escalated a situation that could have been defused when he shot teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times on a Southwest Side street four years ago, and that they did not buy Van Dyke’s explanations for what happened that night.
Speaking after convicting Van Dyke of second-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery — one for each shot fired at McDonald — jurors said they found the officer’s testimony to be rehearsed as he tried to explain what happened on a video they viewed many times while deciding his fate.
As a police officer with some 13 years of experience, Van Dyke should have found a way to avoid having to kill McDonald, they said.
“He should have realized what the situation was and, instead of escalating the situation, looked for other options,” one juror said.
The video itself belied Van Dyke’s claim that McDonald was menacing him with a knife, they said. Jurors said they could see for themselves that Van Dyke exited his police vehicle and moved toward McDonald, after allegedly saying in the car that officers would have to shoot him.
“It was stepping forward instead of retreating,” another juror said. “It was a bad decision.”
The jury forewoman, who is white, said the jury’s first vote was seven for conviction, two for a finding of not guilty, and three undecided, and that the jurors worked from there. She said the decision to convict on second-degree murder rather than first-degree murder came down to the consideration of what was going through Van Dyke’s mind at the time of the shooting.
“We considered the mitigating factor of how he perceived his actions of the event, the escalating risk and why he took that action,” she said. “We felt that taking that action was unreasonable, but we took into account what he thought.”
Jurors have been identified in court by number, and were identified in the same way during their brief media session. Some agreed to appear on news video feeds, while others spoke off camera.
The jury did find Van Dyke not guilty of a charge of official misconduct. Jurors who spoke to the media said they believed Van Dyke had the right to use deadly force because of his job.
Van Dyke was immediately ordered into custody by Judge Vincent Gaughan pending his sentencing. Prosecutors said he faces at least six years in prison.
The second-degree murder verdict required jurors to unanimously find that prosecutors had proven all the elements necessary for a first-degree murder conviction, but also find that while Van Dyke believed he was justified in shooting McDonald, that belief was not reasonable.
The defense had argued Van Dyke was within his rights as a police officer to fire on McDonald, who they said was closing the distance between himself and Van Dyke as he walked up Pulaski Road while carrying a small pocket knife. The teen already had punctured the tire of a squad car and was acting erratically and ignoring police commands, Van Dyke’s lawyers said.
Testifying in his own defense, Van Dyke said McDonald walked toward him with his eyes bugging out, and then moved the knife across his chest in the officer’s direction. Van Dyke said he was unsure at first if he had hit McDonald and continued firing after McDonald spun and fell to the ground — because he thought the teen was trying to get up.
Jurors said they did not find that testimony credible.
“It seemed like he was finally (performing) the play after what they’d been rehearsing for weeks,” one juror said. “We just didn’t buy it.”
Prosecutors argued the dashcam video at the center of the case did not show the scenario Van Dyke and the defense described. McDonald was clearly angling away from the officer as he walked, they said, and Van Dyke gunned him down unnecessarily before emptying his service weapon into McDonald’s body.
Van Dyke did not value McDonald’s life at a basic level, prosecutors said, alleging that even before Van Dyke arrived at the scene, he told his partner “we’re going to have to shoot the guy.” Van Dyke was the only officer at the scene to fire on McDonald, shooting him 16 times.
While the case roiled the city in part due to its racial overtones — Van Dyke is white and McDonald was black — jurors said that did not factor into their decision. In fact, the panel’s lone African-American, a woman, said she bristled at one comment from a defense lawyer who suggested things might have ended differently if McDonald had been walking down the street in a Boy Scout uniform, which she took as racially suggestive.
“We didn’t come here because of race. We came here for right and wrong, that’s all,” she said.
The jurors reached their verdict after 10 days of testimony from 44 witnesses. They deliberated a little more than seven hours over two days.
One juror, a white man, said the jurors got to know and respect each other despite their very different backgrounds. “We are actually a very diverse group, economically, socially. ... We come from all parts of Cook County,” he said.
The same juror said he marveled at the jury’s task every day as he made his way to the courthouse.
“Every morning I got on the (jury) bus and I saw hundreds and hundreds of my fellow Chicagoans, and I thought, ‘How did I get on this jury? I’m doing this work and nobody knows it,’” he said.
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
sstclair@chicagotribune.com
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
Megan Crepeau, Stacy St. Clair and Jason Meisner
Chicago Tribune
Jurors in the murder trial of Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke said they believed the officer escalated a situation that could have been defused when he shot teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times on a Southwest Side street four years ago, and that they did not buy Van Dyke’s explanations for what happened that night.
Speaking after convicting Van Dyke of second-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery — one for each shot fired at McDonald — jurors said they found the officer’s testimony to be rehearsed as he tried to explain what happened on a video they viewed many times while deciding his fate.
As a police officer with some 13 years of experience, Van Dyke should have found a way to avoid having to kill McDonald, they said.
“He should have realized what the situation was and, instead of escalating the situation, looked for other options,” one juror said.
The video itself belied Van Dyke’s claim that McDonald was menacing him with a knife, they said. Jurors said they could see for themselves that Van Dyke exited his police vehicle and moved toward McDonald, after allegedly saying in the car that officers would have to shoot him.
“It was stepping forward instead of retreating,” another juror said. “It was a bad decision.”
The jury forewoman, who is white, said the jury’s first vote was seven for conviction, two for a finding of not guilty, and three undecided, and that the jurors worked from there. She said the decision to convict on second-degree murder rather than first-degree murder came down to the consideration of what was going through Van Dyke’s mind at the time of the shooting.
“We considered the mitigating factor of how he perceived his actions of the event, the escalating risk and why he took that action,” she said. “We felt that taking that action was unreasonable, but we took into account what he thought.”
Jurors have been identified in court by number, and were identified in the same way during their brief media session. Some agreed to appear on news video feeds, while others spoke off camera.
The jury did find Van Dyke not guilty of a charge of official misconduct. Jurors who spoke to the media said they believed Van Dyke had the right to use deadly force because of his job.
Van Dyke was immediately ordered into custody by Judge Vincent Gaughan pending his sentencing. Prosecutors said he faces at least six years in prison.
The second-degree murder verdict required jurors to unanimously find that prosecutors had proven all the elements necessary for a first-degree murder conviction, but also find that while Van Dyke believed he was justified in shooting McDonald, that belief was not reasonable.
The defense had argued Van Dyke was within his rights as a police officer to fire on McDonald, who they said was closing the distance between himself and Van Dyke as he walked up Pulaski Road while carrying a small pocket knife. The teen already had punctured the tire of a squad car and was acting erratically and ignoring police commands, Van Dyke’s lawyers said.
Testifying in his own defense, Van Dyke said McDonald walked toward him with his eyes bugging out, and then moved the knife across his chest in the officer’s direction. Van Dyke said he was unsure at first if he had hit McDonald and continued firing after McDonald spun and fell to the ground — because he thought the teen was trying to get up.
Jurors said they did not find that testimony credible.
“It seemed like he was finally (performing) the play after what they’d been rehearsing for weeks,” one juror said. “We just didn’t buy it.”
Prosecutors argued the dashcam video at the center of the case did not show the scenario Van Dyke and the defense described. McDonald was clearly angling away from the officer as he walked, they said, and Van Dyke gunned him down unnecessarily before emptying his service weapon into McDonald’s body.
Van Dyke did not value McDonald’s life at a basic level, prosecutors said, alleging that even before Van Dyke arrived at the scene, he told his partner “we’re going to have to shoot the guy.” Van Dyke was the only officer at the scene to fire on McDonald, shooting him 16 times.
While the case roiled the city in part due to its racial overtones — Van Dyke is white and McDonald was black — jurors said that did not factor into their decision. In fact, the panel’s lone African-American, a woman, said she bristled at one comment from a defense lawyer who suggested things might have ended differently if McDonald had been walking down the street in a Boy Scout uniform, which she took as racially suggestive.
“We didn’t come here because of race. We came here for right and wrong, that’s all,” she said.
The jurors reached their verdict after 10 days of testimony from 44 witnesses. They deliberated a little more than seven hours over two days.
One juror, a white man, said the jurors got to know and respect each other despite their very different backgrounds. “We are actually a very diverse group, economically, socially. ... We come from all parts of Cook County,” he said.
The same juror said he marveled at the jury’s task every day as he made his way to the courthouse.
“Every morning I got on the (jury) bus and I saw hundreds and hundreds of my fellow Chicagoans, and I thought, ‘How did I get on this jury? I’m doing this work and nobody knows it,’” he said.
mcrepeau@chicagotribune.com
sstclair@chicagotribune.com
jmeisner@chicagotribune.com
No comments:
Post a Comment