The trial of the
former police officer who shot dead Walter Scott,
an unarmed African American, in an incident that was caught on cellphone video and reignited the debate on race and policing in the US, has ended in a mistrial.
Michael Slager, 35, was caught on film shooting Scott, 50, five times from behind after pursuing the father of four when he fled a traffic stop in South Carolina in April 2015. The
video filmed by a witness, which propelled the case into the global spotlight, showed Scott was running away with his back turned when Slager, then an officer with the North Charleston police department, opened fire.
The jury of 11 white people and one black person was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the murder and manslaughter charges, meaning the case resulted in a mistrial. The result appears to have hung on the opinion of single juror who, on Friday, indicated in a note to the Judge Clifton Newman, that they could not “with good conscience consider a guilty verdict”.
The jury’s foreperson had pushed deliberations into a fourth day, after tense scenes in court on Friday, allowing jurors a weekend break after a monthlong trial.
Prosecutors have indicated they will seek a retrial.
Slager has also been indicted
on federal charges that he violated Scott’s civil rights and could still face life in prison, but the failure to reach a decision in this state murder trial, will likely be seen as a stinging blow to the Black Lives Matter movement, which has campaigned doggedly for police reform and equal justice.
Speaking after the jury left court on Friday evening , Anthony Scott, Walter’s brother, told reporters that the family still had hope that jurors would return a guilty verdict.
“We feel the prayers. We feel the presence of God. And we know that God has been moving in our favour,” Scott said through tears.
The judge had allowed the jury to consider a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, meaning an unlawful killing that occurred without “malice” but rather in the heat of passion after provocation. But the failure to reach a verdict indicates at least one juror believed that Slager’s decision to shoot Scott was a reasonable use of force.
Advertisement
The jury had sought sought clarification on the distinction between “fear” and “passion”, the potential difference between a justifiable self-defense claim and a manslaughter conviction.
The former officer pleaded not guilty to murder and testified he had shot Scott because he was in was in “total fear” for his life after Scott had repeatedly disobeyed his commands and “grabbed” the officer’s Taser during a scuffle on the ground.
Although Slager conceded under cross examination that the video showed he had opened fire after his Taser dropped to the ground and when Scott was at least 17 feet away from him, he argued at the time of shooting his “mind was like spaghetti”, meaning he had perceived a greater threat.
Slager also said he was unable to remember why he could be seen in the video retrieving the Taser and
dropping it next to Scott’s dead body, but denied it had been an attempt to plant evidence.
Slager’s defence team took an aggressive stance throughout the trial, first attempting to have the video struck out as evidence, and then accusing
the witness who recorded it, Feidin Santana, of being ideologically opposed to law enforcement and unpatriotic for not handing the film over to authorities immediately.
Santana, a Dominican migrant who had never met Scott before,
told the Guardianlast year that he had attempted to hand the recording to police immediately but was ignored, and eventually handed it over directly to the Scott family. Santana also said he lived in fear for his life after the incident.
During closing arguments last Wednesday afternoon, Slager’s defence attorney, Andrew Savage, unleashed a tirade against the media, arguing his client had become a “poster boy” for perceived police brutality around the US and placed blame for the incident on Scott’s “felonious conduct”.
“The impression that the media has, and the state is trying to sell you, is that nothing happened – he just ran after him and shot him in the back,” Savage told the jury. He argued that Slager had no opportunity to “pat him [Scott] down” during their interaction, meaning the officer did not know if the suspect was armed at the time he opened fire.
Scarlett Wilson, solicitor of South Carolina’s ninth judicial district and lead prosecutor on the case, responded by accusing Slager’s defence team of bamboozling the jury with a large volume of testimony and attempting to characterise Scott as “a thug”.
A total of 55 people testified during the trial, ranging from eye witnesses, Scott’s mother, to members of the North Charleston police department and expert psychologists.
As Wilson made her final argument she urged jurors to “do the right thing”, played the video of Scott’s death a final time and displayed a North Charleston police department badge on a screen for jurors to see.
“That badge is supposed to be a shield, not a sword,” Wilson said. “Our community, our courtroom can only have one fountain for justice. It’s time for Michael Slager to take his drink.”
In allowing the jury to consider a manslaughter charge, Judge Newman said that “the essence of the case” boiled down to whether “the force used [by Slager]” was reasonable”.
