Mistrial in Walter Scott police shooting sends strong message

Walter Scott's death had been seen as a clear-cut case of police using fatal force unnecessarily. But the mistrial shows how deferential jurors are to police judgment.

Grace Beahm/Post and Courier/AP/File
Former North Charleston police officer Michael Slager sits at the defense table during testimony in his murder trial on Nov. 9 in Charleston, S.C. The judge declared a mistrial Monday.

The mistrial of a former police officer videotaped fatally shooting an unarmed black man five times in the back raises new questions about how the high standing officers enjoy in the criminal justice system could affect meaningful police accountability.

Prosecutors have said they will seek a new trial in the death of Walter Scott, the North Charleston, S.C., motorist killed by former officer Michael Slager after a routine traffic stop. But the fact that the jury deadlocked in what many observers – police officers included – saw as a relatively open-and-shut case underscores the difficulty of convicting police officers.

“It’s notoriously very difficult to get criminal convictions in these cases,” says Kami Chavis Simmons, director of the criminal justice program at Wake Forest University School of Law. “There are some [cases] that are just much more ambiguous than others, and to a lot of people this looked like a clear-cut case.”

Last week, reports suggested that only one juror was responsible for the deadlock. But a note given to Judge Clifton Newman Monday indicated that a majority of jurors could not agree on a verdict. Jurors had three options: murder, voluntary manslaughter, or acquittal.

The inability to reach a verdict after 22 hours of deliberation over four days was a surprise given the course the case had taken to this point.

In general, police officers involved in the most high-profile fatal incidents of recent years have been cleared of wrongdoing – from Ferguson, Mo., to Staten Island in New York, to Baltimore. But the case against Mr. Slager had been different.

Three days after the incident, a bystander video surfaced appearing to contradict Slager’s initial report – that, after Mr. Scott fled a traffic stop for a broken tail light, Scott attacked Slager and took his Taser, leading Slager to use lethal force. After the video become public, Slager was arrested, fired from the North Charleston Police Department, and charged with murder.

Slager’s mere presence in jail was unusual. More unusual was Judge Newman’s decision to deny Slager’s request to be released on bond.

Now, the case has further highlighted how hard convicting police officers on criminal charges is. Prosecutors face a high burden of proof that an officer’s use of force was unreasonable, and judges and juries tend to be sympathetic to the dangerous nature of officers’ work.

Slager’s lawyers argued that the former officer had shot Scott out of fear for his own life. Testifying in his own defense, Slager said he felt “total fear” and fired his weapon “until the threat was stopped, like I’m trained to do.”

Defense attorney Andrew Savage also warned of the implications of convicting of a police officer. “Their greatest protection is the support of the community,” he said during closing arguments.

On Monday, jurors asked the judge why voluntary manslaughter had been added as potential verdict and whether the rules for self-defense were different for police than for civilians.

Prosecutors could drop the murder charge when they re-try the case, or a plea deal could be offered. Slager also faces a federal trial for violating Scott’s civil rights, with a trial scheduled for next year.

Before Judge Newman declared the mistrial, Charles Wilson, chairman of the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, had expected a manslaughter conviction.

“It’s seriously hard to convict a police officer of a murder charge, it really is,” says Mr. Wilson, a former cop who served in Rhode Island and Ohio. “No matter what people think about police officers, in these kinds of situations they are still very willing to give the police officer the benefit of the doubt.”

The Slager trial has come as Americans’ confidence in the police has edged back up after a 22-year low in 2015. Professor Chavis Simmons, a former assistant United States attorney, says cases like this are important to law enforcement accountability in the long-term.

“I’m not privy to all the evidence, so if the jury couldn’t decide they did the right thing in not deciding,” she says. “But I think this is very tragic, and I think we have to be very careful about sending a message that it’s OK for police officers to react in this manner.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Mistrial in Walter Scott police shooting sends strong message
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today