In the midst of a high-profile murder trial, a Kent County judge declined a request for a mistrial involving former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr. Schurr is charged with second-degree murder for the fatal shooting of Patrick Lyoya during a traffic stop on April 4, 2022.
As the trial enters its third day, the prosecution has already rested its case, indicating a swifter progression than originally anticipated. Following this, Schurr’s defense team sought a brief recess before moving for a mistrial.
Defense attorney Mikayla Hamilton argued that the prosecution’s expert witnesses presented biased evidence that compromised the trial’s fairness. “And we believe that the evidence presented prejudice the defendant to the extent that the fundamental goals of accuracy and fairness are threatened,” Hamilton asserted.
The defense criticized the testimony of two police use of force experts, noting their reliance on standards unrelated to Michigan law and irrelevant taser information. Hamilton contended, “And at this point we believe that we’re too far along for the jury to simply strike the testimony because they have heard testimony from two of the People’s experts now that do not accurately – and are nowhere near based on what the law is in Michigan and what should be considered.”
Furthermore, Hamilton requested a “directed verdict,” urging Judge Christina Mims to find Schurr not guilty based on the evidence, as permitted by Michigan legal provisions.
Judge Mims quickly ruled on the motions, dismissing the request for a mistrial. “As far as the mistrial is concerned, I do not believe that the experts’ testimony rises to the level of requiring a mistrial,” Mims stated. She clarified that the experts were not representing themselves as authorities on Michigan law, but rather on generally accepted police practices.
The experts, Seth Stoughton and Nicholas Bloomfield, evaluated the incident using video evidence and records to assess whether Schurr’s actions aligned with standard police practices. Although they acknowledged some correct decisions by Schurr, they concluded that shooting Lyoya was not justified under general police guidelines.
Judge Mims emphasized that instructing jurors on Michigan law is her responsibility, not the experts’. She added, “And it was the experts’ job to provide opinions based on – based on how they applied the facts in this case as they have been presented thus far to reliable principles and methods. And I believe that they did that.”
The judge also denied the directed verdict motion, noting that the prosecution needed to prove three elements. While the death and Schurr’s intentional action were undisputed, the justification for the killing remained contested.
Mims noted, “It’s clear that Mr. Lyoya appears to have possession of the defendant’s taser at the time that this shooting occurs,” recognizing a critical argument from the defense. However, she pointed out that Lyoya may not have been in a position to use the taser when he was shot.
After ruling on the motions, the defense began presenting their case, starting with testimony from Bob McFarlane, a video forensics expert. His analysis included a detailed video showing Lyoya’s hands moments before the shooting, indicating that Lyoya held Schurr’s taser.
—
Read More Michigan News
