梁彼得案件庭審紀實（中文簡介 + 英文原版）

梁彼得案件庭審紀實

（中文簡介+英文原版）

 

        我用關鍵字Peter Liang Trial/ Perter Liang Court Record等等方式google了很久，迄今（2016年3月1日）尚未發現法院公布的有關梁的庭審詳細記錄，也未發現權威媒體對此的有關詳細到天、詳細到公訴人/辯護人/各位證人以及法官間對話的報道。網絡上權威媒體的新聞基本都是有關這次庭審的概要而不是詳細記錄。

        還好，我發現了一位博主的博客，其部分係列博文是有關梁案庭審的詳細流水信息，此文的原作者是積極支持將梁投入監獄的，她旁聽了梁每天的庭審，並做了詳細記錄。由於立場的原因，她在這些有關庭審的博文中或多或少地忽略了辯護方（梁彼得一方）的某些發言內容。另外，博主博文略去了梁的搭檔Shaun Landua的一部分證言（公訴人對Shaun Landua進行當庭詢問的部分)，隻提把這部分內容鏈接到了華爾街日報的一篇相關報道上。這部分內容用手機無法全部打開，需要注冊才能看到，但用PC機可以打開。http://www.wsj.com/articles/former-partner-testifies-in-nypd-officer-peter-liangs-trial-1454464583?mod=rss_newyork_main

        我將此博主的有關庭審紀實與權威媒體提及的有關庭審的各個要點問題做了比較，發現沒有實質性出入。這說明她還是很詳盡地記錄了開庭若幹天的所有環節及各方辯論的內容的。而僅僅從這些內容就足以證明在社會上，尤其是華人圈子裏某些不明真相的人盛傳的梁彼得冷血不救助傷者，撒謊說手沒有放在扳機上等問題是不同程度的誤傳與誤解。我相信一個立場完全站在梁彼得反麵的博主，不會為了使梁脫罪而有意在庭審紀實中編造這些可以為梁澄清一些事實的內容的。

        另外，從這篇庭審詳細流水記錄看，梁的律師在庭上有很多次沒有敏銳地抓住機會提問或為梁有效辯解，有幾次交叉盤問控方證人時都是不得要領，不知所雲，比如在盤問梁的搭檔槍走火之後梁是怎麽說的時，問搭檔梁是說“I fired.(我開槍了)”還是說“I'm fired.(我被開除了。)”，結果，在此後梁出庭作證時自己都很清楚很爽快地承認他當時說的是“I fired.”。這麽重要的細節都沒有向自己的當事人問清楚就在庭上辯論，給人的印象隻能是狡辯，這會使陪審團懷疑律師所做的其它辯護內容。還有一次是質疑Gurley非正式女友Butler估計給Gurley作急救的時間，她在先前的證詞中說是大概兩三分鍾，在庭上作證說是大概五分鍾。從911記錄中也能聽出她確實是做了5分鍾左右，但梁的律師卻質疑她前後證詞的不一致，可能是希望以此引起陪審團對Butler其它證詞的懷疑。但是，一般人都會理解在那種驚慌緊張有沒有手表和手機的情況下，她做出估計相差幾分鍾，後來可能從網上的911錄音或檢方那裏的提示獲知了更準確的時間而在證詞中做了善意的改正，為了更準確地陳述事實。梁的律師利用寶貴的提問時間糾結於這件小事，不但毫無意義，而且可能會讓某些陪審員感覺辯方是在無理取鬧。最過分的一次是辯方律師竟然出現過情商過低的發言，說什麽無需為死者的幼女難過，因為她會得到天價賠償。這種沒有人性的發言真是為社會上關於梁冷血自私的傳聞加上了畫龍點睛的一筆。他本意肯定是想讓大家不要太過為Gurley孩子的未來擔憂，但那種低情商的表述方式完全可能造成陪審員們將不滿情緒轉移到對梁的判決上去。在美國的法庭上，特別是有陪審團在場的法庭上，如何有效帶動陪審員的情緒，使他們產生共鳴，這不是憑借各種證據材料就能實現的，這需要辯護律師有令人信服與尊敬的外表，有高超的演講能力以及情商，有敏銳的思辨力與現場控製力，這樣才能夠與陪審員們充分有效互動。可惜，從細節來看，梁的律師在這些方麵做得並不很給力。

        再有，辯護方還出現了嚴重的程序失誤，一位辯護方證人是槍械專家，當庭希望宣讀一份證據文件，但由於梁的律師沒有事先將這份文件提交給法院作為有效證據資料，在公訴人的反對之下，法官禁止證人當庭宣讀這份資料，而從證人提到這份證據的語氣上看，這份證據很可能是證明與梁同型號的手槍的技術缺陷的。我本人也在YouTube網站上看到過有人現場示範自己的Glock19的扳機問題，他的槍曾經走火過，稍後會將鏈接放在另一篇專題博文中。據我看到的有關資料，美國的庭審是遵循嚴格的程序的，在庭審前的某個時間點之前，控辯雙方都要把各自的證據匯總提交給法院，此時間點之後的新證據材料的提交需要由法官決定是否予以采用。陪審團在最後討論是否應給梁定罪時也向法官要過這份證據資料，希望獲知裏麵的內容，但是法官拒絕提供。

        在庭審進行的過程中，發生了一件足以證明梁當時的工作性質有多麽危險的襲警事件 —— 2016年2月4日晚，在紐約Bronx區（一個治安比梁案發生地要好的區）的一棟政府援租房建築中，三名警察執行與梁曾經進行的任務一樣的巡樓工作，兩名入職不久的實習警官遭槍擊受傷，一人被子彈擊中臉頰，一人擊中下腹部側麵。當時兩警員與另一同事一起巡樓，看到有兩人坐在樓梯間喝酒，於是讓他們出示身份證，其中一人站起身說要警官們與他一起上樓到家裏去拿身份證，沒走幾步便從包裏掏出手槍射擊，此後這名凶手回到自己的房間用槍爆頭自盡，從他的房間還搜出一支長槍。梁的律師希望提及此事引起陪審團對梁當時工作處境的理解與同情，但法官當庭予以拒絕，禁止梁的律師向陪審團提及一丁點與此案有關的信息。

        這篇庭審詳細記錄還提及了幾個大多數新聞媒體沒有提到的細節內容，比如——

        1. 法醫作證說死者當時的傷勢用CPR也無法挽回生命。

        2. 梁與搭檔當時是接到上級指示，說有槍擊和搶劫在事發建築發生才去進行巡樓的。

        3. 居博文中鏈接到的華爾街日報的報道，梁和搭檔事發前雖然已經進行了近千次巡邏，但任務各有不同，到事發建築進行這種從樓上到樓下一層層地垂直巡邏僅僅是第二次。

        4. 兩名前警官出庭作證說他們在職時接受的培訓以及實際工作中實行的也是在那種情況下可以拔槍在手。

        5. 從梁真正發現傷者到打電話匯報直至大批警察趕到，時間間隔隻有2分44秒。

        6. 警校給學員進行的急救科培訓流於形式，二三百人一起聽課，一起實踐，就一個教員，八個假人模型。梁的搭檔練了2分鍾，梁和另一位出庭作證的同學根本沒得到機會練習。考試時校方也是將考題與答案都提供給學員，形同幫助作弊。

        6. 警校教材中提到警察要給予傷者合理的救助，這種救助並不僅僅指生理上的搶救，梁在庭上解釋自己未參與搶救的原因其中一點是因為警校急救培訓流於形式，他自己（也包括他的搭檔）都不知對如此嚴重的傷情（當時看上去已經死了）用CPR是否有效甚至是否會造成進一步損害，所以他覺得盡快呼叫救護車前來進行專業急救是最好的選擇，而他認為這種叫救護車的行為在當時情況下是一種最合理的救助。雖然當時鄰居已經致電911，但根據實際經驗，如果有警察使用警用電台進一步呼叫，救護車往往會來得更快些。而梁的搭檔在梁頭腦混亂，屢次詢問鄰居等人地址而記不住時也沒有幫他呼叫總部匯報並叫救護車，也就是說梁當時在急救與匯報叫救護車這兩件事上隻能二選一，所以，他在發現傷者直到大批警察趕到的2分44秒時間內關注點是問清地址並呼叫總部匯報此事，有關詳細情況，我稍後在另一篇博文中會具體分析。

        7. 公訴人當庭播放了一段錄音，顯示了總部在接到鄰居911報案電話後，曾多次用警用電台呼叫梁和梁的搭檔，但沒有得到兩人及時回應；而梁及其搭檔都證實了他們前麵幾分鍾因為諸多原因不知有人受傷，但最終發現傷者後，梁向總部進行了匯報，匯報內容是槍擊發生、有人中彈、叫救護車這三點。對於為什麽警用電台當時的通話錄音裏麵沒有要救護車一點，梁說很可能是當時狹窄的樓梯間信號不好造成他的一部分話沒有被接受到。辯方另一位證人，一位2012年退休的前警官也作證說他以前執行任務需要增援時，也經常發現樓梯間信號不好甚至完全沒有信號的情況。結合這幾點一起看，梁的搭檔在發生如此大的事故後沒有理由不接聽總部呼叫，除非是真的沒收到信號；梁本人麵對倒地的傷者，救人的傷者朋友，正在與911通話的鄰居以及見證了事件全過程的搭檔，是沒有理由仍然希望掩蓋有人受傷這一事實的，他應該是最希望救護車趕快到來救傷者一命，這樣才能並使自己的闖下的禍不至於發展到最最糟糕的地步。

        8. 公訴方為了確保將梁刑事定罪，在最初的詢問證人階段著力渲染開槍後第一時間故意不救人，但他自己的證人，即梁的搭檔，在開庭前跟他的曆次交流中肯定向他解釋過當時兩人都不知子彈擊中了人。公訴方還說梁再次進入樓梯間不是尋找子彈下落，而是撿彈殼要銷毀自己的槍傷人的證據，但是媒體公布出來的現場痕跡檢驗錄像很清楚地顯示彈殼就在8層樓道門框邊，連台階都沒有滾下，如果梁想撿彈殼，不用下一級台階就撿到了。檢方還說梁對於倒地的Gurley，連仔細眼一看都沒有看，但是梁的搭檔事發後不久接受警方內部調查時曾明確說梁跪在Gurley身邊仔細查看過，這些資料辯護在反駁時當庭進行了宣讀。既然辯護方可以拿到這些資料，檢方同樣是可以拿到的，但他們卻視而不見地自說自話，這不能不使人懷疑關鍵證人梁的搭檔當庭試圖翻供陷梁於不易的嚐試也是檢方授意的，交換條件是對梁的搭檔不與起訴。最離譜的是在最後的總結陳詞階段，公訴方簡直到了危言聳聽，窮凶極惡的地步。他們說梁是認識Gurley的，因為以前執勤時搜查過他。是否瞬間他是可以借助從打開的樓道門裏的光線看到樓梯下端的Gurley的，他當時就是瞄準Gurley開槍的，隻是打偏了才打到牆。照他們的描述，梁簡直成了殺人不眨眼的劊子手。因為以前見過Gurley，知道他不是好人，於是瞄準他準備致他於死地，也不怕傷到旁邊另一個女人。然後拖延時間不匯報，妄圖尋找彈殼掩蓋證據，不參與CPR急救，不叫救護車以便確保Gurley死亡......雖然Gurley確實有24次被捕記錄，基本都是搶劫，販毒和暴力襲擊，但梁因此就要千方百計致他於死地?這裏麵的邏輯關係似乎不能用牽強來形容，而是應該說過於匪夷所思了，照這種邏輯繼續分析下去，恐怕即使梁當時實施了CPR，檢方也能說他是試圖從Gurley胸口裏挖走子彈。

        現將此博主的有關博文拷貝粘貼在這裏供大家閱讀。其中略去了幾段原博主主觀的評論並且修改了原博主明顯的筆誤部分，比如她有一處將2016年誤寫為2015年，有幾處將將February誤寫為January。另外，為了大家閱讀方便，對版麵進行了一些編輯，但有關庭審細節的內容，完全拷貝的原文，沒有任何刪改。

         原文鏈接是

       

http://ifightlikeagirl615.blogspot.ca/

 

—— 以下為原文部分 ——

 

What's Going On In That Courtroom?

 

  For the past week, the family of Akai Gurley has sat in a Brooklyn Courtroom as the Prosecution makes their case against Peter Liang, a rookie police officer, who shot and killed unarmed Akai in November of 2014.

 

Monday, February 1, 2016

Court was cancelled on Monday

   Court was cancelled on Monday because Juror 10, the only black person on the jury, called in sick. He advised the judge that he had woken up that morning with a swollen knee and was being treated at a local emergency room. The court was unable to confirm that with the hospital, and over the next 30 minutes, the juror also became unreachable by phone. The judge offered attorneys the option of having the juror dismissed and having an alternate seated. Both the State and the Defense objected to the juror's removal. The judge cancelled the morning and afternoon court sessions, but stated, "If the juror is still unavailable tomorrow, I may have to make the substitution."

   Even though court did not convene that day, there was no lack of drama in the courtroom. One particular court officer, who will be forthwith identified as Lt. Jenn, continued the pattern of bullying that has become associated with her due to her actions in the courtroom. It should be noted here that the lieutenant does not have properly displayed identification.  She has removed her nameplate from her uniform, although she is required by law to wear it. She is identified by her first name, which is written on her radio, and her rank, which is visible on her sleeve.

   The first incident involved Assemblyman Charles Barron, a black man, who has been a source of support for one of the key witnesses in the State's case. Melissa Butler, who was with Akai on the day that he was murdered, was scheduled to testify on Monday and Assemblyman Barron was in the courtroom to support her that morning. As the Assemblyman attempted to take his seat on the front row, Lt. Jenn began to yell at him and tell him that he was not permitted to sit there. The Assemblyman stood his ground, stating, "I have every right to be here!" He was permitted to remain in his seat.

    The second incident involved myself and several other activists who have been attending the trial as a show of solidarity for the Gurley family. In this incident, Lt. Jenn approached the middle section of the gallery, located directly behind the State's table, and began shouting. She demanded that we move to the far right section of the courtroom behind the Defense table. This occurred just prior to the jury being seated and after the judge had stepped down from the bench to attend to the matter of the sick juror. There was not a legitimate reason for the move as there were open seats on the State's side of the courtroom. I personally felt that it was an attempt by Lt. Jenn to sway the perception of the jury by making it appear that Peter Liang had more supporters on his side than he actually did.

   During this same time period, a supporter on Peter Liang's side of the courtroom brought out a newspaper with a visible headline about the court proceeding. Lt. Jenn's reaction in this incident was very different. She calmly walked up him, leaned against the end of the bench where he was sitting, smiled, and quietly said, "You know that you can't do that here."

   Seating has become a major point of contention in the courtroom. The press takes up a full one third of the courtroom. The Patrolman's Benevolence Association, who originally had two representatives in the court, now sends as many as twenty people to court each day. This takes up the majority of seating behind the Defense table. Announcements are often made that, if you get up from your seat during court breaks, you surrender your seat. This is not true, however, for the Patrolman's Benevolence Association. Their seats are reserved and they always get them back. As the court empties for noon recess and at the end of each court day, the gallery - including the family of Akai Gurley - is instructed to remain seated as members of the PBA file out of the courtroom. Only after they have been escorted out are the rest of us allowed to depart. Further, despite a strict ban on electronic devices, members of the PBA are allowed to keep their phones. The rest of us, including the family of Akai Gurley, must wait in line to surrender our phones to a court officer prior to court convening and stand in line to reclaim them once court is in recess.

   If you didn't know better, you might think that Peter Liang was the victim in this trial instead of the accused.

   This special treatment is not surprising. It is a part of a larger systematic injustice in our country known as "The Thin Blue Line." Police officers often circle the wagons to protect each other and cover up corruption. And, on the rare occasion that said corruption is uncovered and a police officer is indicted, the system protects them with specialized treatment that is not afforded to other people standing trial for manslaughter. The message is incredibly clear: Here is a special person deserving of your respect. And with sentiment like that, who can expect a fair trial?

 

 

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

The State Continues To Present Its Case Against Peter Liang

Tuesday morning noted the return of Juror 10. Court carried on without mention of his absence or return. The State continued to call witnesses.

Melissa Butler

On the day that he was shot, Akai Gurley was visiting Melissa Butler at the housing project where she lived. Melissa testified first and told the court about the last hours that she and Akai spent together.

Melissa Butler is tiny (5'1" and 99 lbs.) and somewhat soft-spoken. Her voice, for most of her testimony, was flat and matter-of-fact.

Melissa testified, under direct examination, that Akai arrived around 8:00 p.m. and took the elevator up to her seventh floor apartment. Melissa met Akai at the door and they spent the next three hours, "joking around and watching TV." Melissa also said that she braided Akai's hair during this time, something that she had a habit of doing every three weeks or so.

Akai decided to leave around 11:00 p.m. He had an appointment to get his license at the Department of Motor Vehicles the following morning. Melissa walked Akai to the elevator and pushed the button, but the elevator did not arrive. She said, "We decided to take the stairs."

Question: Was the stairwell normally lit?

Answer: Yes.

Question: But it was not lit that day?

Answer: Yes

Melissa recounted entering into total darkness and hearing the door to the stairwell open from the floor above. "I heard it bang against the wall," she said. Then a gunshot rang out. After the shot was fired, Melissa and Akai ran from the seventh floor to the fifth floor. Akai then collapsed on the landing.

Question: What did you see?

Answer: He was bleeding from his chest. There was a puddle of blood behind him.

Question: Did you see anything else?

Answer: Yes. Urine.

Question: Whose urine?

Answer: Akai's.

Melissa stated that she ran down one more half flight of stairs and knocked on the fourth floor door of a woman that worked for housing. She informed the neighbor that her boyfriend had been shot and asked her to call 911 before returning to Akai. Melissa said that she knelt down in a puddle of blood and urine and leaned over Akai. She said that she told him, "Stay with me. I'm getting you help."  Melissa testified that the neighbor, still on the phone with 911, was calling instructions up to her. Although she was not trained in CPR, Melissa attempted to render emergency aid to Akai in the form of chest compressions and rescue breathing. Officers Liang and Landau did not try to assist her.

Question: Did anyone help you as you performed compressions?

Answer: No.

Question: Did anyone help you...?

*Question trails off as Melissa starts to sob*

Question: How long did you do that for?

Answer: About five minutes.

  The State then played the 911 call as Melissa remained on the stand.

On cross-examination, Peter Liang's defense attorney questioned Melissa's use of Stairwell A, as opposed to Stairwell B. Melissa stated that she always used Stairwell A, as it was closest to the elevator, and that she never considered taking Stairwell B. The attorney also questioned how long Melissa performed CPR. She cited an earlier statement in which Melissa had estimated the time that she performed CPR to be about three minutes.

Question: Were you wearing a watch that night?

Answer: No.

Question: Did you have a cellphone with the time on it?

Answer: No.

Question: Would it then be fair to say that the time is an estimate?

Answer: Yes.

The implication, of course, is that Akai died from Melissa's negligence. This line of thinking completely disregards Liang's responsibility in shooting Akai and his duty to render aid to Akai - a duty that he neglected, as evidenced by the 911 call. After a brief redirect, in which the Prosecutor highlighted that neither officer helped Melissa attend to Akai, the State called its next witness.

 

Detective Pino

Badge Number 2715

Command: The Police Academy

Detective Pino testified that CPR and First Aid training is taught to all recruits and that students receive an extended version of the American Heart Association's Basic Life Support training. To put this in context, this is the same course that I was taught in nursing school, however, my course was the required five hours and Officers Liang and Landau, as well as every other NYPD officer, actually receives seven hours of instruction. Recruits must pass a practical, where they perform CPR on an infant and a child and an adult, as well as pass a written test with a score of 84% or higher. In order to graduate from the academy, recruits must be certified.

Additionally, all recruits receive an additional seven hours of First Aid training. According to Detective Pino, the Regional EMS Council has created a First Aid manual specifically for New York City's care providers. After the seven hours of lecture-based instruction is complete, students must take a written test (comprised of 50 questions) and pass with a score of 70% or higher. Again, in order to graduate from the academy, recruits must be certified.

   Detective Pino talked more about what is covered in those lectures. He stated that recruits have:

1.Specific training on how to handle trauma emergencies.

2.Specific training on penetrating trauma.

3.Specific training on gunshot wounds.

4.Specific training on gunshot wounds to the chest.

Detective Pino then testified about certain protocols that are listed in the Patrol Guide. He said, "When we respond to a scene, we are supposed to render 'reasonable aid.'" He then read the statue from the Patrol Guide. It states: "Render reasonable aid to a sick or injured person. Notify an ambulance. Do not leave the person." The detective expounded on this last bit by telling the court that recruits are trained "to stay with them."

Detective Pino also led us through the process for assessing a sick or injured person, as outlined by the Patrol Guide. There is a three-step process that includes assessing the area and assessing the individual, first by physical contact and then by verbal questioning.

On cross-examination, the defense asked about how closely police guidelines should be followed.

Question: Is the term "reasonable aid" ever defined precisely in any Patrol Guide?

Answer: Not precisely, no.

Question: Isn't discretion built into this procedures?

Answer: We train them on what steps to take.

  The defense then asks about the CPR and First Aid training that recruits receive..

Question: Isn't it true that instructors were feeding answers to the tests to the recruits?

Answer: I don't know that, ma'am.

The defense asked if it was possible that recruits could possibly memorize all of the information provided during the training. She noted that the practical and written test are given on the same day as the instruction, at the end of the classroom training. The detective replied, "They (recruits) get the book the third or fourth week of class and are tested between the eighth and tenth weeks of class. We don't just spring this on them."

(Side note: As the detective read from the Patrol Guide, he was reading along too fast for the court reporter to follow. The judge interjected with, "Do you talk that fast when you train?" This is absolutely unacceptable as it lends credence to the defense's position that Liang may not have understood his training.)

The State had just two questions on re-direct, spring-boarding from a defense comment that perhaps it would be better for an officer not to act if he felt ill-equipped or believed that he would violate the "do no harm" pledge.

Question: Do no harm. If a police officer does harm to another person, does he have a responsibility to mitigate that damage?

Answer: As police officers, we have to render some sort of aid.

Question: What if an untrained person was already rendering aid?

Answer: I would push that person out of the way and do it myself.

 

Detective Agusto

Badge number 5712

Command: Firearms and Tactics

The State called Detective Agusto, a firearms instructor, who outlined the firearms training that recruits receive while at the academy. The detective stated that there are 13 total days of instruction in this area, including eight days of Basics and five days of Practicals. The detective explained the curriculum for each section. Basics involves:

1.An introduction to the firearm.

2.Instruction on how to use the weapon.

3.Safety with regards to handling the weapon.

Following this training, students take a written test and must score 80% or better to pass. During practical training, students engage a pistol qualification course in which they fire 50 shots (from 25, 15 and 7 yards out) and they must score 35/50 in order to pass. The students also undergo tactical training including a stress inoculation excercise, simulations, and live fire courses.

The detective is provided with a copy of the written material that is distributed to all recruits and asked to turn his attention to Chapter 2: Firearms Safety. The detective explains that this portion of the curriculum is designed to teach the "proficient and prudent use of firearms." It outlines the many rules for the safe handling of firearms "none more important that the use of good judgement.

The detective then talked about the Glock 19, Peter Liang's weapon, one of three handguns used by the NYPD. Agusto stated that this weapon is the most often selected by law enforcement officers because of it's safety precautions against misfiring and it's reliability. The detective had brought a training weapon, a Glock with the firing pin removed, which is the weapon used by recruits in training, for demonstrative purposes. The defense objected to its use, so the detective moved through the remainder of his testimony using the actual weapon that Peter Liang used to kill Akai as his visual aid. When asked what was required in order to fire this particular weapon, the detective explained:

1.The weapon must be loaded.

2.The muzzle must be pointed at something or someone.

3.The finger must be on the trigger.

4.The trigger must be pulled with sufficient force to engage the firing pin.

He testified that, due to an internal trigger safety, the pad of the finger must be fully centered on the trigger, and pressure applied, in order to fire the weapon. He then demonstrated by placing his two pointer fingers on either side of the trigger guard, and saying, "I can pull with two fingers on either side of the trigger, and no matter how hard I pull, the gun will not go off." He continued, "In most cases of accidental fire, trigger failure was not the cause." After a short instruction on how to properly hold the weapon (with your finger alongside the barrel and never on the trigger) and sight the weapon, the detective concluded his testimony.

In a strange turn of events, the jury was then allowed to hold and fire the actual weapon that was used to kill Akai. I can only assume that this was suggested to not only reinforce Agusto's testimony about accidental fire, but also to reiterate the testimony of the NYPD ballistics expert who examined the gun after the shooting. In earlier testimony (given Thursday, January, 28, 2016) he stated that Peter Liang's weapon required 11.5 pounds of pressure in order to fire. This is due to a special trigger modification, known as the NY 2, which requires more force to be applied to the trigger in order to fire the weapon. The manufacturer's specification for the Glock 19 is 5.5 pounds of pressure. This means that Liang's gun required more than twice the force of an average Glock in order to fire. The ballistics examiner said that Liang's gun met the department requirements for a trigger pull between 9 and 12 pounds of pressure.

 

Officer Shaun Landau

Peter Liang's partner, Shaun Landau, was offered immunity in exchange for his testimony against Liang. Officer Landau had previously testified at the grand jury hearing. At that time, the Prosecution went on record as saying, "We could not have secured an indictment without Officer Landau's testimony."

The State called Officer Landau to the stand during the afternoon session of court. He both refuted his earlier grand jury testimony and denied that he had accepted an immunity agreement from the State. You can read a full and comprehensive report regarding Officer Landau's testimony here.

 

 

Thursday, February 4, 2016

The State Rests

Officer Shaun Landau

Continuation of Cross-Examination

The defense began today's questioning by asking Landau about prior statements that he made, specifically his December 2014 statement at the District Attorney's Office and his February 2015 grand jury testimony.

The defense then offered video playback of the moment that officers Liang and Landau entered the the Pink Houses on November 20, 2014. The video shows the time to be 11:11. Liang and Landau then summoned the elevator, which took about a minute, and exited on the eighth floor at 11:13pm.

Officer Landau was asked about their movements. He stated that he and Liang passed Stairwell B, which was brightly lit, without checking it. He contends that they moved straight to Stairwell A. He states that it was dark and that he shined his flashlight through the glass pane on the door, but still was unable to see anything. It was at this point that Officer Liang removed his gun from the holster.

Q: With regards to an officer taking a firearm out of its holster, it's up to each officer's discretion, correct?

A: Yes.

Landau went on to say that he had seen Liang remove his gun before and that he, himself, had also drawn his weapon. Landau told what happened next.

Q: Liang went through the door first? 

A: Yes.

Q: He pushed off the door with his right shoulder?

A: Yes. 

Q: He had trouble getting through the door that night, isn't that correct? 

A: I don't recall that. 

Q: His finger was outside the trigger, isn't that right?

A: I didn't see.

The defense pointed to previous administrative statements in which Landau stated that "something" brought Liang's attention to the left as he entered the stairwell. At this point, the judge interjected to ask some questions of his own.

Q: Where were you when the gun went off? 

A: Hallway. 

Q: Where was officer Liang when the gun went off? 

A: Stairway. 

Q: The stairwell door was opened or closed? 

A: Open.

Very little time was spent on the actual moment that the gun discharged. Landau stated that he heard the shot and that his ears began to ring. The pair retreated to the eighth floor hallway where Liang holstered his gun and flashlight. Landau recounted asking Liang, "What the fuck happened," to which he recalls Liang replying, "It just went off. I'm fired."

Q: Could he have said, "I fired," or "I just fired?" 

A: No. He said, "I'm fired."

Landau then stated that he had been trained to "call in" via cellphone, versus over the radio, and that his Sargent had provided his cell phone number specifically for this purpose. Over State's objection, he said, "This is just how it's done now." Landau also claimed that Liang tried to call their Sargent. He hit dial. Landau says that he then took the phone from his partner's hand, hung it up, and put it in his own pocket.

Q: So, in effect, you prevented him from making the call. 

A: Yes.

At this point, both Liang and Landau are standing in the eighth floor hallway, and according to testimony, neither cop knows that Akai has been shot. Landau says that became concerned that the bullet may have gone through the wall and into a neighboring apartment. He returned to the stairwell to inspect the wall. He said it was at this time that he heard someone in the stairwell below. He and Liang started down the staircase. Four minutes had elapsed since Liang fired his gun.

Q: As soon as you discover that Akai has been shot, Officer Liang immediately radioed, "There's been an accidental discharge. Someone is shot." Is that correct? 

A: I didn't hear that immediately.

But when the transcript of a previous statement was read aloud, Landau reversed his testimony.

Q: So, as soon as you got downstairs, Officer Liang called it in?

A: Yes.

Landau then led the jury through the next several minutes. He stated that when Liang was calling for help that he was not transmitting the address. Landau said he didn't know the address, either. He denied that either he or his partner stepped over Akai's body. He said that Liang did appear to kneel down beside Akai. When the Lt. arrived, he took Liang's gun and removed him to the hallway.

Q: You never gave any CPR? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Because you didn't know how to do it? 

A: Yes.

Q: Because you don't know what to do in that moment?

A: Yes. 

Q: You're not a healthcare professional, correct? 

A: Yes.

When asked about his CPR and First Aid exams, Landau said that instructors gave recruits both the questions that would be on the test, and the answers to those questions. Landau said that he does not recall being taught the fundamentals of CPR - Circulation, Airway, Breathing. He was also asked if he recalls being taught what to do when someone has a penetrating chest wound. He said he does not.

Q: How much time would you say that you had [to practice] on the mannequins? 

A: Not that much time - maybe a few minutes.

Landau indicated that his partner wasn't afraid to work in the projects. He said he never heard Liang say anything negative about working in the projects or about the residents who lived there.

The prosecutor's first question on re-direct was sharp and to the point.

Q: Did Officer Peter Liang shoot Akai Gurley that night? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Is there any doubt in your mind that what he said to you is, "I'm going to be fired."

A: No.

Over numerous objections by the defense, and several admonitions by the judge, the State's attorney also challenged Landau's assertion that he didn't feel qualified to perform CPR. He did, after all, have training. Landau was asked, "Did you feel less qualified than the young woman that was there?" Landau answered in the affirmative. The prosecutor ended with the following questions:

Q: Did you see a threat? 

A: No. 

Q: Did you sense a threat?

A: No.

Q: Did you take your gun out of your holster?

A: No.

The defense's re-cross was five questions, in its entirety.

Q: You didn't see him shoot Akai?

A: No. 

Q: You didn't witness it?

A: No. 

Q: You didn't perceive a threat? 

A: Yes. 

Q: You weren't the one walking into darkness? 

A: Yes. 

Q: You were standing in the hallway in the light? 

A: Yes.

Frankly, both of these lines of questioning seem counterproductive for her client. Asking whether or not Landau saw Liang shoot Akai is obtuse. We know beyond all medical and scientific doubt that the bullet that killed Akai was discharged from Liang's duty weapon. And, to ask whether or not Landau perceived a threat indicates to me that her client DID perceive a threat and acted intentionally and accordingly. The defense team, in general, is not doing their client a lot of favors.

 

Dr. Floriana Persechiano

Medical Examiner, City of New York

Dr. Persechiano is a forensic pathologist who works at the Medical Examiner's Office, which is independent of the police department, and under the umbrella of the Department of Health. She has performed over 3,000 autopsies, and on November 21, 2014, she performed an autopsy on Akai Gurley.

She explained Akai's injuries:

1.Bullet entered in the front left chest.

2.It dissected muscle.

3.It knicked his 4th rib on the left.

4.It broke his sternum.

5.It entered his chest cavity.

6.It punctured his pericardium (the fluid-filled sack around the heart).

7.It punctured his heart.

8.It punctured his diaphragm.

9.The bullet was ultimately found in his liver.

The State asked:

Q: Is this the injury that caused Akai Gurley's death? 

A: Yes.

The medical examiner showed photos of Akai that were taken at the time of autopsy as well as her diagram of his injuries. She also showed a photo of the bullet that was removed from Akai's body. She noted that the hollow point bullet had lateral shearing, extending from the tip to the base. This defect was consistent with the bullet hitting a hard surface prior to entering Akai's body, she said.

The medical examiner also told the jury that she visited the crime scene. She explained that she had done this in order to investigate her hypothesis that the bullet had first ricocheted and then hit Akai. She stated that she started her walk-through on the eighth floor landing, where she noted a ballistic impression on the cinder block wall, and continued walking downward in the stairwell. She exited on the sixth floor.

During cross examination she stared that CPR would not have saved Akai. She described his primary injury as a through-and-through gunshot wound to the heart. In his final moments, Akai would have been bleeding into the area surrounding his heart, and eventually, his heart would have stopped.

Q: How long could a person live with an injury like that?

A: My opinion? Minutes.

The State Rests

The prosecution called just one witness after lunch and then they rested their case. The defense then made a motion to dismiss all charges against Peter Liang. The judge denied their motion. The defense calls their first witness tomorrow morning.

Officer Peter Liang is expected to testify on Monday. The judge expects to hear closing arguments and charge the jury on Tuesday morning. They would then retire to deliberate.

 

 

 

Friday February 5, 2016 (Part 1)

The Defense Presents Gun Expert

 The defense team of Peter Liang, a rookie NYPD officer, began to present their case today. Liang faces six counts in the November 2014 shooting death of unarmed Akai Gurley.

Yesterday in New York City, two NYPD officers were shot, and a civilian killed, in a housing development in the Bronx. The defense has long contended that Officer Liang was right to be concerned about his safety, and to have his gun at the ready, as he patrolled the housing development in Brooklyn where he ultimately shot and killed Akai. Prior to the jury being seated this morning, counsel for both the state and the defense expressed concerns about the media coverage regarding last night's shooting.

The State asked that the defense not be allowed to ask questions that reference the Bronx shooting, but the defense argued that the shooting was "very similar." The judge agreed with the State and testimony regarding the Bronx shooting was not allowed. The State then asked that the judge give an instruction to the jury not to read anything about the Bronx case. The jury has already been instructed against reading news reports specific to Liang's trial or about Akai's murder. The judge ultimately ruled that he would give his standard instruction to the jury and would caution them that even articles that may appear to be about another topic may contain information, references, or parallels to the shooting of Akai. He will not, however, specifically offer any reference to the Bronx shooting. The defense then asks to have the jury sequestered and the judge declines. He notes that he will only consider this as an option if another incident should arise. And with that, the defense called their first witness.

 

Robert LaMonica

 Gun Expert

Robert LaMonica is a former police officer who rose to the rank of Sargent before retiring in 2012. During his time with the NYPD, LaMonica worked in the Forensic Investigation Division (Firearms Analysis Section). He testified that he still consults with the Bronx Criminal Court on firearms cases. LaMonica examined Liang's gun and testified about his findings specifically related to the trigger pull of the weapon.

Q: Are you familiar with the Glock 19?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: Do you know whether or not the Glock comes with a 5.5 trigger pull from the manufacturer?

A: A 5.5 pound trigger pull.

Q: Has the NYPD ever used a Glock without a trigger pull modification?

A: No, not to my knowledge.

LaMonica was asked about the origin and evolution of the modified trigger, often called the New York Trigger. He stated that the NYPD made a specific request to Glock to modify the trigger pull on the Glock, making it more difficult to fire. He stated that the first version of the trigger modification (NY1) was white in color, made exclusively of plastic, and had a trigger pull of 8-10 pounds. The second version was black in color and was comprised of plastic with a thin lining of metal on the inside. It offered a trigger pull of 10-12 pounds. The third version, olive drab in color, was completely redesigned and reshaped. It also offered a trigger pull of 10-12 pounds. The last modification, the one currently being used by NYPD officers, is known as NY2 and is bright orange in color. It was constructed of a harder plastic and fitted with a stiffer spring. According to LaMonica, it has a trigger pull of 12 pounds. LaMonica stated, "The permeations [sic] were made to prevent accidental discharge."

In this section of his testimony, LaMonica referenced a report that had been prepared from an outside agency. The State objected to the mention of this report because the report had not been entered into evidence. The defense then moved to submit the report into evidence. The prosecutor argued that this document should not be allowed as evidence in this case because it was not indicative of NYPD rules and regulations. The judge, after reviewing the exhibit, sustained the objection and the report was not allowed into evidence. LaMonica was instructed to testify on his "opinion" of the trigger pull instead of referencing the report.

LaMonica then told the jury that he had visited the scene of the shooting. He stated that he had visibly inspected the staircase and compared documents and diagrams. He noted a "defect" in the wall that had since been painted over. He offered his opinion regarding his findings.

Q: What ammunition does the NYPD use?

A: 124 grain jacket hollow point bullet manufactured by Spear.

Q: And what is the reason for using a hollow point?

A: The reason for using a hollow point bullet in an urban setting is - there's two reasons - the first is to reduce the risk of the bullet penetrating a solid surface like a wall and to minimize richochet.

LaMonica had asked if he had ever seen a bullet such as this ricochet. He stated that he had. He then added that he had never seen a death that resulted from a hollow point bullet that had ricocheted.

Q: Based on your review of the scene, documents, and diagrams, did you render an opinion?

A: That the bullet ricocheted off the wall and struck the victim.

LaMonica then discussed the trigger pull test that he performed on Liang's duty weapon. He was asked questions regarding the trigger pull test that had been performed by NYPD's forensics lab in which the examiner used a manual weighting system. LaMonica said that newer technology for trigger pull tests, a digital method, has existed since 2012. He used the digital test in his examination and tested the trigger in three different areas, he said. He found the following:

•The tip of the trigger required a trigger pull of 10.3 pounds to fire.

•The middle of the trigger required a trigger pull of 11.5 pounds to fire.

•The back of the trigger required a trigger pull of "12 pounds plus" to fire.

He said that in order to find the actual trigger pull of the weapon the examiner should take an average of all three readings. His finding was that the trigger pull of Liang's weapon was 11.5 pounds. This is the same finding as the State's expert.

The defense then asked a series that he has posed to every single witness thus far:

1.Are you familiar with a "startle response"?

2.Are you familiar with "loss of balance response"?

3.Are you familiar with "sympathetic response?"

Liang's attorneys ended their direct examination by asking LaMonica to once again look at the schematics. They were two separate sketches of the stairwell where Akai was shot. They showed the relative positions of Akai and Liang at the time of the shooting. LaMonica described Akai as "standing at the bottom of the stairs" in the first sketch and the attorney questioned, "standing?" The defense's purpose for this line of questioning only became evident when he produced the second sketch and asked, "Does this give you a better view of the scene? Does it look like Akai may have been walking up the stairs?" LaMonica answered in the affirmative. The point of this was, of course, to discredit Melissa Butler's testimony that she and Akai were walking down the stairs on their way out of the building that night because the elevator didn't arrive when summoned. This was also an effort to criminalize Akai and make it seem as if he moved towards the officer. The attempt fell flat, in my opinion.

The defense had one final question about the schematic:

Q: Do you know whether Officer Liang is left-handed or right-handed?

A: I do know that Officer Liang is left-handed.

The schematic shows a right-handed shooter. The prosecutor opened his cross-examination by pointing out that the schematics are not evidence of what happened. Rather, they are an approximation of the actions and events around the time of the shooting.

The prosecutor's next line of questioning involved the internal trigger safety on the Glock. The NYPD uses three types of guns as duty weapons. The other two options, Smith & Wesson and Sig Sauer, do not have a safety on the trigger. In regards to the Glock,

Q: In order for the gun to fire, even with a startle response, the shooter's finger would have to be on the trigger and press the safety.

A: Yes.

Q: In order for the gun to fire, even with a loss of balance response, the shooter's finger would have to be on the trigger and press the safety?

A: Yes.

Q: In order for the gun to fire, even with a sympathetic response, the shooter's finger would have to be on the trigger and press the safety?

A: Yes.

He then asked about LaMonica's time as a Sargent.

Q: Did you use cell phones as a Sargent [instead of calling in by radio]?

A: From time to time. (Clarifies that officers were not permitted to carry cell phones during the time that he was a Sargent.)

Q: If an officer fired his or her gun in service, would you expect that officer to radio you immediately?

A: Yes.

Q: Immediately? Right away? Is there discretion?

A: As soon as it is safe to do so.

The State revisited LaMonica's explanation about the etymology and evolution of the trigger modification on the Glock. The prosecutor reminded the witness that he had testified that the first version of the installation had a range of 8-10 pounds per inch, the second a range of 10-12 pounds per inch, the third a range of 10-12 pounds per inch, and yet no range had been provided for the fourth and final modification, NY2, which was being used by Peter Liang on the day that he shot Akai. State's witnesses previously testified that the acceptable trigger pull range on the NY2 is 9-12 pounds per inch, but the defense has contended that the proper measurement is 12 pounds per inch with no deviation. The prosecutor wondered why all three previous models of the New York trigger had an "acceptable range," but the defense is claiming that there is no "acceptable range" for the device on Liang's gun.

The State's final questions revolved around the digital trigger pull test that LaMonica administered. The prosecutor was present with the witness when he conducted the tests. He noted the presence of a vice in the lab. He was questioned on what that vice would typically be used for. LaMonica stated that the vice is often used to hold a gun while administering a trigger pull test. He noted that it can sometimes to be difficult to hold both the weapon and operate the trigger pull apparatus. The prosecutor asked if the vice is also used to stabilize the weapon during testing and the witness answered in the affirmative, but he admitted that he had not used the vice when conducting tests on Liang's gun.

On redirect, the defense also asked about the vice:

Q: You testified that you never used a vice. Why?

A: Officer Liang didn't have a vice when he fired the weapon.

LaMonica then talked a bit about the trigger safety that is found on the Glock 19. He used Liang's weapon to demonstrate for the jury how one would disengage the internal safety. He described it as a passive safety, meaning that the safety lever is part of the actual trigger mechanism, not an external safety located outside of the trigger guard. This corresponds with State witnesses who offered similar explanations and demonstrations earlier in the week.

On recross, the State had just two questions:

Q:You could put your finger on the side of the trigger and not engage the trigger safety?

A: The gun would not fire with your finger on the side of the trigger.

Q: Your finger has to be on the trigger itself in order to disengage that safety?

A: That's correct, sir.

 

Friday, February 5, 2016 (Part 2):

 

 The defense called Daniel Reefer, a licensed private investigator, to the stand. He was hired by the defense to monitor the traffic in and out of Stairwell A at the Pink House, specifically between the 7th and 8th floors, where Akai was shot. Reefer testified that he went to the location twice. His first visit was on January 20, 2016, and he returned the following day. He spent approximately one hour observing the stairwell each time. The defense played the beginning of a video, time-stamped 2/21/16 at 10:36pm, and informed the court that the video lasted a total of 24 minutes. In the video, the private investigator was standing where Peter Liang would have been standing when he shot Akai. The camera was pointed to the seventh floor landing where Akai would have been walking.

Q: Did you observe any pedestrian traffic in the stairwell?

A: Absolutely no one.

 Reefer is a former police officer for the NYPD. He testified that he was appointed to the NYPD after working as a patrol officer in the housing sector. His command was PH4. He stated that his supervisor in that command taught him to have his weapon out, especially when monitoring the rooftop or stairwells of buildings.

Cross-Examination:

Q: You're telling us about your training 25 years ago?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: You were hired by the defendant to go on two separate dates to go to 2724 Linden Blvd?

A: That's correct.

 The prosecutor then asked Reefer about his movements in the building. He stated that when he arrived he took the elevator up to the eighth floor and entered the stairwell. He stayed on the eighth floor landing the entire time that he was in the building and took the elevator down when he was finished with his work.

Q: Did you travel between the second and third floors?

A: No.

Q: Did you travel between the fourth and fifth floors?

A: No.

Q: Did you travel between the fifth and sixth floors?

A: No.

Q: Did you observe any illegal activity?

A: No.

Q: Did anyone bother you while you were in the building?

A: No.

Q: Did anyone ambush you?

A: No.

The prosecutor points out that Reefer did not monitor other floors, Stairwell B, or any other portion of the building. He also did not observe any other buildings in the Pink Houses. His investigation lasted a total of two hours and was conducted just a couple of days before the trail began.

Q: Why did you only record for 24 minutes of the time?

A: My battery died. I didn't charge it the night before.

Q: Even though you were going to do surveillance the following day?

A: That's correct.

The witness mentioned earlier in his testimony that he was conducting the surveillance two years after Akai was killed. (In truth, only a little over a year had elapsed.) The prosecutor asked him about the timing of his surveillance in relation to the timing of Akai's death and gave his own theory as to the lack of activity on the evenings that Reefer was in the stairwell.

Q: Did it cross your mind that people in that building may have changed their behavior because your client shot Akai Gurley through the heart in that very location?

The witness was not allowed to answer.

 

David Moskowitz

David Moskowitz is retired NYPD Captain. He was appointed the NYPD from Housing in 1995 and was assigned to Public Service Area 2, where Peter Liang worked at the time of the shooting, from 1985 to 1991.

 

 Moskowitz testified that he was taught to do vertical patrols on his very first day on the job. He says that he was instructed to have his weapon out of the holster in stairwells, landings, and rooftops. He testified that he subsequently trained new police officers after being promoted. "I taught them the same thing that I was taught many years ago," he said. He also commented, "Stairwells are inherently dangerous places." He then tried to testify about an incident that occurred in 1985 while he was on patrol. The prosecutor objected and the judge replied, "Sustained...if you were going to tell us about a specific case, don't."

On cross-examination, the prosecutor specifically asks about the radio calls from the night that Liang shot Akai. He noted that officers use a "specific language" when transmitting over the radio. He also mentioned that calls are recorded. He provided a transcript of the radio call to Moskowitz. The following are direct quotes from the transcript, time-stamped between 11:16 and 11:19 P.M. (The shot was fired at 11:14 P.M. per Officer Landau's testimony.)

1.Dispatch is trying to raise the unit on the scene.

2.Trying to find the unit.

3.Trying to communicate with the unit, if they're there.

The prosecutor asked the witness about the language "raise the unit," and he answered that that meant that the dispatcher was trying to find the unit. This, of course, corresponds with District Attorney Ken Thompson's earlier statement that, following the shooting, Officers Landau and Liang were "unaccounted for."

On re-direct, the defense attorney asked Moskowitz about his experience with radio communication in the Pink Houses. The witness stated that it can be "very difficult." He continued, "Sometimes you can be pressing the button and calling for assistance and no one hears."

Moskowitz was only on the stand for ten minutes.

The defense had no additional witnesses to call on that day. Court will reconvene tomorrow morning, Monday February 8, 2016, and the defense will present the remainder of their witnesses. Officer Peter Liang is expected to testify. The judge has scheduled closing arguments for Tuesday morning. Once summations have concluded, he will offer his instructions to the jury and send them into deliberations.

 

Peter Liang Testifies About the Day That He Shot Akai Gurley

"The defense calls Police Officer Peter Liang."

NYPD officer Peter Liang is standing trial in Brooklyn for shooting and killing unarmed Akai Gurley in 2014.

After listening to extensive testimony about Liang's academic achievements dating all the way back to grade school, we learned about his work history. He testified that he graduated college in the midst of a tough economy and worked odd jobs, including working for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), prior to being accepted into the police academy. He graduated from the academy with an "A" average - 93%.

Q: During your police academy training, were you trained in CPR? 

Q: What do you mean by that?

A: I didn't really get enough time with them. There were two to three hundred people in the class. During our test they gave us the answers.

A: Sort of.

He continued, "I never even had a chance to touch the dummy."

The defense asked if Liang was able to choose where he would be stationed after leaving the academy. He explained that the NYPD has recruits fill out a "Dream Sheet" that lists their top three choices.

Q: Where did you ask to go? 

A: Brooklyn North, Brooklyn South, Manhattan Transit. 

Q: Why did you chose those commands? 

A: Those are busier areas. I wanted to be proactive as a police officer. 

Q: Where you assigned? 

A: PSA2, Public Service Area 2.

Liang is asked about the kind of duties that he was asked to perform as an officer.

Q: Were there different kinds of patrol or was it all the same thing? 

A: There were a lot of different things. I patrolled housing developments by doing verticals, directeds, and other [inaudible].

Liang expanded on those duties under further questioning. Directeds, he told us, is standing in front of a building or in a lobby for a period of time to show a police presence to deter crime. He stated that vertical patrols (also referred to as floor checks) entail taking the elevator up to the roof, looking for any signs of criminality, and working one's way down. He also said that one of his duties was to monitor his radio. "Jobs that come over the radio, you go to where the call is and you handle it."

Q: How long were you with them? 

A: From January until the incident. 

Q: Can you estimate the number of floor checks you did during that time? 

A: A few hundred. Close to a thousand.

The defense attorney then asked Liang about taking his gun out of the holster. Liang said, "It really just depends on if I feel I need to take my weapon out." He went on to say that fearing for himself or his partner are reasons that he would take his gun out. He talked about the prevalence of drugs, rape, and other violent crime in the area.

Q: And what were your hours?

A: 6 P.M. to 2 A.M.

Q: What was your assignment that day?

A: I was assigned to the Pink Houses. 

Q: Was this regular hours or overtime? 

A: Ordered overtime. (Goes on to explain that the shift was mandatory.)

Q: What was the reason for the overtime? 

A: The shootings and robberies that were happening in the Pink Houses.

His attorney requested, "Tell the jury how the evening unfolded for you."

Liang stated that he and Landau had a shift meeting there at the Pink Houses and then they patrolled some of the buildings for awhile. According to Liang, around 9pm, Landau called the Sargent and asked if they could take a meal break. The Sargent drive them to and from dinner. Liang recalled "arriving back to post about 10:00 P.M."

Q: What do you do next?

A: More directeds building to building. And after that we decided to do some floor checks.

Liang then recounts that he and Landau went to a building and saw two guys playing cards and smoking in the hallway. Liang checked their ID, admonished them for smoking in a non-smoking building, issued a warning, and sent them on their way. (This hardly sounds like the terrifying criminal element that the defense has been referencing this whole trial.)

Q: What did you do after that? 

A: Went to the building known 2724 Linden Blvd. 

Q: How did you get in the building that night? 

A: I went in the back door. The lock was broken at the time.

Liang testified that he and Landau took the elevator to the eighth floor. He recalled that his weapon was holstered. Stairwell B was lit. He said that when he arrived at Stairwell A, he looked into the window in the door. "It was pitch black," he told the jury. He says that it was at this point that he took his gun and flashlight out of the holster.

Q: When you removed your weapon from the holster where was your trigger finger? 

A: It was on the side of the weapon along the frame. 

Q: How do you know?

A: I've done hundreds of verticals. That's how I've always done it.

Liang added, "Whenever we feel unsafe, it's our discretion for when to remove our firearms."

Q: Where was the gun pointed? 

A: It was pointed downward.

The defense attorney said, "Tell us now what happened next." Liang replied, "I tried to open the door with my right hand. I turned with my right hand. It wouldn't turn at first." Liang is left-handed and was holding his duty weapon in his left hand and his flashlight in his right hand. He continued, "I heard something on my left side. It startled me. [The gun] just went off. My whole body tensed up."

Liang then told the jury about the next minutes. He said that he holstered his weapon and used his flashlight to look down the stairwell, but that he didn't see anyone. (This is contradictory to Landau's testimony that Liang immediately came back into the hallway following the shot and that he holstered his weapon and flashlight in the hallway.) Liang says that he returned to the hallway with his ringing and that he began to pace back and forth in the hall. Liang recalls that he and his partner were arguing over who should call in the shooting. Liang testified that he said, "I'm fired. You call it in for me." He says that Landau said, "You should call it in," and handed Liang his cellphone. Liang testified that his partner then changed his mind, took his cell phone back, and put it in his pocket.

Q: Why did you want to call in by phone instead of by radio? 

A: Didn't want to alert everyone. I just wanted to deal with my Sargent. 

Q: After Shaun Landau put his phone back in his pocket, then what? 

A: I went back into the stairwell to look for the shot. Heard someone crying. I ran down the stairs and found Akai.

He testified that he said, "Oh my God, I can't believe I hit someone."

Q: What did you do next?

A: I put out over the radio: Male shot! Send a bus! 

Q: Can you estimate how much time you spent with Shaun Landau on the eighth floor before you returned to the stairwell? 

A: 35-40 seconds at most. *Starts to cry*

Q: You told us that when you saw Akai and Melissa, you said, "I can't believe I hit someone." What did you do? 

A: Put over the radio, "PH 1 Post. Male shot. Call a bus." But, I didn't know the address. I asked Miss Butler the address several times and she told me, and I asked Miss Lopez many times and she told me, but I was just panicking so much that I couldn't process it in my head. I leaned down to assess him. He looked like he was seriously injured. His eyes were rolled back (begins to cry) and he was just lying there very still. 

Q: Did you make any effort to perform CPR? 

A: I thought the best way to get emergency help for him was to put it over the radio. 

Q: How long between your last transmission [on the radio] and other help arrived? 

A: Once I was able to get the address over, I saw the Lieutenant there in 20-30 seconds.

Liang says that he told his Lieutenant that he accidentally shot Akai and that his weapon was taken. 

Q: Have you worked for the police department since this incident? 

A: Yes. Two months later. 

Q: What kind of work are you doing?

A: Administrative.

Q: And what's your official job description? 

A: Modified. (Liang is on modified duty, also referred to as desk duty, after having been stripped of his gun and shield pending the outcome of an investigation.)

Q: During the time that you were on patrol, did you ever intentionally put your finger on the trigger, other than at the [shooting] range? 

A: No. There's no reason to to put my finger on the trigger unless I intend to shoot.

The defense had no further questions. The judge ask Liang if he needed a brief recess before continuing. He said that he did and was led to a room in the back. He was gone for a whole of 60 seconds. When he returned, the prosecutor rose for cross-examination.

Q: You were trained at the police academy?

A: Briefly.

Q: How many instructors did you have?

A: Ten? Fifteen? 

Q: While you were at the academy you took tests? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Other than the CPR test can you think of any other test that the police department gave you the answers for? 

A: *Sits silently for a moment, stutters* No, I think that's the only one.

The attorney the directed Liang's attention to the firearms training manual that was previously entered into evidence. When he asks Liang if it looks familiar, Liang tells him, "Somewhat. We didn't really touch the book. They had PowerPoint slides." The State clarifies, "But you studied?" Liang answers in the affirmative. He also says yes when the attorney asks if the manual contains instruction about:

1.Using a gun

2.Cleaning a gun

3.Handling a gun

4.General info about guns

The State then asked about the threat recognition drills that police academy recruits undergo. We learned that the drills are held at a house in the Bronx. Inside the home, they come across various simulations of people. Recruits must identify the simulation that poses a threat to them and fire upon that person while also holding fire on the simulations that do not pose a danger. Each recruit gets one pass, according to Liang.

Q: [The image] could be a child?

A: Yes. 

Q: It could be an older person?

A: Yes. 

Q: Someone who had no weapon?

A: Someone without a weapon could still hurt you.

Q: Someone who has no intention of harming you? 

A: Yes. It could be anyone.

As he continued his cross-examination the defense read several quotes from the manual:

•Firearms are made dangerous and deadly by those who handle them carelessly.

•Rarely will a discharge be accidental. Accidents don't happen.

•Because drawing a weapon is provocative, it should only be drawn when expecting to use deadly force.

The judge interjected. He looked towards the defense table and asked, "Is there an objection to this line of questioning?" At that point the defense, of course, raised and objection. The judge sustained the objection. The prosecutor continued on with his questions.

Q: On November 20, were you responding to a violent crime in progress?

A: No.

Q: Were you searching for a fleeing suspect?

A: No.

Q: Violent Offender?

A: No.

Q: "Respect for human life requires firearms should be used as a last resort." Do you remember being taught that in the academy?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you taught to treat every round fired as a concise decision to use deadly force?

A: Yes.

Q: You were taught to check all equipment before going on patrol?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you inspect your equipment before going out on November 20th?

A: Yes.

Q: You didn't replace your flashlight, did you?

A: No.

Q: Your radio?

A: No.

Q: You were taught if assistance is needed, relay immediately. Weren't you taught that at the police academy?

A: Yes.

Q: In regards to specific training that you received regarding stairways, "Officer should consider not drawing weapon when climbing and running." Do you remember being taught that at the police academy?

A: Yes.

Q: You testified that you were startled?

A: Correct.

Q: You knew that was a person?

A: No. I didn't know.

Q: What was it that startled you?

A: It was a quick sound.

Q: The police academy trained you on reflexes responses, yes? On reflexes?

A: Yes.

Q: When were you supposed to call your superior?

A: Many different things. When we make arrests. For permission to go on meal. I guess any unusual occurrence. 

Q: And firing your weapon in an 8th floor stairwell is an unusual occurrence, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: You didn't call in right away?

A: Yes. Officer Shaun Landau took the phone.

Q: Was Shaun Landau's phone the only phone that you had to contact your superior?

A: No.

The State then asks Liang to repeat his movements once he and Landau arrived on the 8th floor. He mentions the dark window that looked into the stairwell.

Q: What were you looking for when you looked through it?

A: I was just looking in there.

Q: You were concerned that someone might be on the other side, right?

A: Yes.

Q: Because it was dark?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you listen at the door before you went in?

A: I just went in.

Q: Tell us as best you can what startled you.

A: A quick sound.

Q: What did you do then?

A: It just happened so fast.

Liang is asked to describe the sound. He says that he can't describe the sound. But he recalls turning towards the sound. He said, "And [the gun] just went off."

Q: That shot went down?

A: Yes.

Q: Towards the left?

A: Yes.

 

Q: Towards the sound?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you think that sound had been made by a person?

A: Anything is possible. That's why I shined my light down.

Liang told the court that he didn't hear anything after the shot, including footsteps, and that he also didn't see anything. He said that he retreated into the hallway. He once again recounted his conversation with Shaun Landau. He said that Landau asked him, What the fuck happened," to which he replied, "I don't know. It just went off." He remembers Landau asking him, "What are you going to do?" He says that he told him, "I don't know. You call it in for me." He said that he and Landau went back and forth saying, "You call it in," before Landau handed him a cell phone. Liang repeats that he dialed the phone and that Landau took the phone, hung it up, and put it back in his pocket.

Liang testified that he went back into the stairwell with his flashlight out, but that he did not have his gun out. He says that he was looking for the bullet casing. He says that it is at this time that he heard someone crying from below and began to run down the stairs towards the sound. He believed it to be woman's voice.

Liang's testimony here differs from that of Landau in two ways. While Landau said that Liang immediately retreated into the hallway and holstered both his gun and weapon while in the hallway, Liang contends that he holstered his gun in the stairwell and the "shined his light down" towards the sound. Liang said that he was was the one who went back into the stairwell and he reported hearing the crying that we now know was coming from Melissa Butler as she attended to the fallen Akai. Landau also said that he was the first to re-enter the stairwell and that he went into the stairwell because he thought that the bullet may have traveled into an apartment. He reports hearing crying and starting down the stairs to investigate.

Q: So you go to the fifth floor?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you see?

A: I saw Mr. Gurley laying down there. I saw his girlfriend next to him.

Q: What was his pulse?

A: I don't know.

Q: Was he breathing?

A: I don't know.

Q: You didn't check his pulse?

A: No.

Q: Did you check to see whether he was breathing?

A: No.

Liang testified that Ms. Lopez, the fourth floor tenant who called 911, was "screaming" CPR instructions to Melissa Butler. Liang says that he knew that Ms. Lopez was on the phone with 911.

Q: It was after Ms. Lopez called that the police came, right?

A: And also because of my call.

Q: But by the time that you got down the stairs Ms. Lopez was already on the phone with 911, right?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you have gloves that night?

A: Yes, I had winter gloves.

Q: But did you have latex gloves?

A: No.

Q: But you had gloves of some sort?

A: Yes.

Q: You said that you didn't perform CPR because you were waiting for professional help?

A: Yes.

Q: Between you and Ms. Butler, who do you think was in a better position to help?

A: I don't know what she does for a living. I can't tell.

Q: There was nothing stopping you from helping Melissa Butler?

A: Yes there was.

Q: What was stopping you?

A: Trying to get the address and put it out over the radio.

Q: Did you ask Shaun Landau to help Melissa Butler?

A: No.

The defense then began their redirect.

Q: In your experience, is there any difference in response in a civilian call to 911 and a police officer call to 911?

A: If there one call - if there's more than one call, police will come faster. If a police officer calls, they will come even faster.

Q: In your experience, did you notice a difference between stairways in daytime and in nighttime. 

 

A: At nighttime [traffic is] almost non-existent. When you push the elevator button it will come almost immediately so there's really no reason to take the stairs. 

Q: Was your discharge intentional or unintentional?

A: It was UNintentional.

Q: When you looked down to observe Mr. Gurley, did you believe that he was dead or alive?

A: He looked seriously injured so I thought he was likely...

Q: Likely?

A: Likely to die.

Q: Did you step over Mr. Gurley's body?

A: There was ample space to walk around.

Q: Just to be clear, you never walked across Mr. Gurley?

A: [Inaudible] walked around from the fifth to the fourth floor.

His defense attorney then asked him some questions about the speed with which police officers come.

Q: After you fired the shot you went back to the stairway to look for the bullet?

A: Right.

Q: Because you don't know where it went?

A: Right.

Q: It could have gone through the wall? 

A: Right.

Q: It could have hit someone?

A: Correct.

Liang was again asked why he didn't call out over the radio. He stated that he didn't think that it was necessary to call other officers to help look for the bullet. He said he thought that he could handle it on his own.

Liang spent less than two hours on the stand. The State informed the court that it does not intend to put on rebuttal witnesses. The defense rests their case. The judge dismissed the jury. The judge then heard motions from both sides.

 

Motions

The defense moved to dismiss the entire case against Peter Liang, on their belief that the State has not met the burden of proof, but specifically the three "reckless" counts, which includes the manslaughter charge. In relation to the two official misconduct charges, the defense argues that the charges assume the defendant was required to perform CPR. They say that it also assumes that he would benefit from denying someone else "reasonable aid" and they assert that he did indeed call an ambulance, which was reasonable to him.

The State answers that the motion to dismiss was ruled on following the People resting on Thursday. They say that nothing new developed during the time that has elapsed since to change the People's position on the validity of the charges imposed.

The judge rules that he will reserve his decision. He said that he would give all counts to the jury. He will render his decision only after a verdict has been returned. A gasp went up in the audience and, "He can't do that," escaped from my mouth before I realized that I had said it aloud. The general sentiment of the supporters for Akai Gurley's family felt as if the judge was telling the defense, "If we don't like the verdict, I'll just set it aside."

Motions are then made regarding the judges instruction to the jury, following a sidebar, both sides went on the record and gave us a general idea of their requests. The judge states that he is going to give the jury the standard CJI charge as relates to official misconduct. The State asks the court to do more. They cite civil case law that they claim would explain exactly when a police officer is required by law to render aid. The defense team asks that the judge not allow for additional instructions to the jury. They ask that the judge adhere to policies provided by NYPD procedures regarding the responsibility to render "reasonable aid," and they assert that "reasonable aid" does not mean medical care.

The State says that there is clearly established case law. They also point out that Liang created the danger to the life of the victim. Liang therefore had an obligation to provide aid, the State says. The defense asks to see the case law and the State is unable to produce it. "I don't have it with me," the attorney says, but it is clearly outlined in documentation that had already been provided to the court. The defense then says that they were not made aware of this particular case law at the charging conference to which the judge replies, "That's not an issue."

The judge says that he will look to see if a trial jury was ever instructed using the case law that the State is referencing. And, if so, he wants to know whether or not the verdict that jury reached was upheld by a higher court. The people respond that most of the case law references that they are presenting relate to civil law. Liang faces criminal charges.

The defense team then had a request of their own regarding jury instructions. They feel that the current jury instruction on the Criminal Negligence charge is insufficient. They cite People V. Cabrerra (2008) in which the language reads, "Morally blameworthy conduct is the result of criminal neglect." The State opposes the addition. The judge rules: "CJI is sufficient. To add anything to its language is unnecessary."

 

 

Tuesday, January 9, 2016

Closing Arguments and Jury Charge

 

The Defense's Summation:

The defense told the jury, "Do not to check your common sense at the door." He urged them to imagine how intimating a stairwell in the dark in a public housing project might feel. This ridiculous imagery, which criminalizes blackness, does nothing more than propagate the irrational fear that police officers use to justify murdering unarmed black and brown people over and over again. By his own testimony, the most dangerous thing that Liang and Landau came across on the night that they shot Akai was two neighbors visiting with each other, playing a friendly game of cards. Is this an image of the terror that existed in the minds of these police officers as they worked in the projects? Despite the fact that people like these older men - and children - live in this building, Liang was patrolling inside the building that night with his weapon drawn. Egregious!

"Having your gun out," his defense said during closing arguments, "the way officer Liang did, was not a gross deviation from the training." Yes, that's true. Having your gun out, in and of itself, is not a crime. However, according to testimony at trial, there are many pieces of his training that Liang did violate. For instance, "Do not climb or run with your weapon out of the holster. This can lead to accidental discharge." And, "do not have your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to fire."

The defense alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of almost every witness. They seemed to have missed the fact that their own client did not give an account consistent to his partner, even though they were patrolling together that night and even though Liang was in the courtroom on the day that Landau testified.

The most low-down part of the defense's closing came when he told the jury, "Yes, Akai Gurley was innocent, but don't feel sorry for him." The attorney turned his attention to Akai's three-year-old daughter. He reminded the court that her mother has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in which she would be a beneficiary. He insinuated that there was something to gain from a guilty verdict in spite of all that Akai's daughter has lost. How cowardly do you have to be to go after a child?

 

 The State's Summation   

The prosecution asserted in their closing argument that Liang was a cop that was too reckless to hold a gun. The prosecutor told the jury, "Peter Liang faced no threat. It was Akai Gurley who was in danger." Akai was in danger from the very person who took an oath and swore to serve and protect him. If this is what Liang's "protection" looks like, I think I'll take my chances apart from him.

The prosecutor later said, "PeterLiang heard a noise and instead of pointing his flashlight, he pointed his gun and pulled the trigger." He told the jury, "An innocent man is dead because he heard a sound, a sound he said he couldn't describe." I don't know about you, but I do not buy for one moment that Liang was deep in the throes of panic that he could remember every detail except for the two that are most relevant: What did you hear that made you fire your gun, and what did you do once you realized that you had shot someone?

Throughout the trial, the prosecutor did not disagree with defense stance that the bullet that killed Akai was accidental. But in his closing argument, he said that Liang fired at him. Many consider this to be a misnomer, and this is one of the statements that was mentioned in a motion that the defense made the following day. However, as a person who was present for most of the testimony, I don't find this to be an inconsistent statement at all. The State established, during their cross-examination of Liang, that he was taught in the academy to "treat every round fired as a concious decision to use deadly force." Further, the prosecution's theory of the crime may or may not have been further illuminated by the fact that Liang testified that he heard a sound down and to the left and discharged a bullet that traveled down and to the left. 

The State told the jury, "Don't believe that Peter Liang didn't know someone was there! The only thing that could have startled him was Akai Gurley." This is a valid point. By Liang's own testimony, he initially drew his weapon because he thought that someone may be in the stairwell. To then be "startled" by sound in the stairwell, to the point that you "accidentally" discharge your weapon - well, those two things don't seem congruent. Either Liang thought that there was a person in the stairwell or he was caught off guard by the possibility that there may have been someone in the stairwell. Both things cannot be true.

The prosecution defended the actions of Melissa Butler, Akai's girlfriend, who tried to revive him. A Times reporter (insert eyeroll here at her tactics throughout trial) publically stated, "But I don't recall anyone impugning her." In that case, the reporter clearly was not paying attention to the cross-examination of Melissa Butler or to the defense's closing. During questioning, the defense tried to show that Melissa was inconsistent in the amount of time that she performed CPR. Melissa had once stated "3 minutes" but then estimated "5 minutes" at trial. This is not a gross disparity. Further, the insinuation, also during questioning, that Melissa had not done enough to help him was simply offensive. Melissa wasn't trained in CPR, and whether she tried to offer aid to Akai for 1 minute or 1 hour doesn't matter. This was simply an attempt, on the part of his attorney, to deflect blame from Liang. After all, he was trained in CPR, and by his own admission, did not even attempt to perform it in an effort to save Akai's life.

The one piece of the prosecutor's statement that I didn't particularly abide with was this: "Peter Liang is not the same as the officers who bravely patrol our city." With all due respect, I would staunchly disagree. I think Peter Liang is exactly the sort of police officer that we currently have patrolling our city. With a recorded 1,204 people killed by law enforcement in the United States this past year, the death of Akai Gurley does not stand as an isolated incident. Akai's murder is part of a systematic injustice and an epidemic of violence that is perpetrated on communities of color. The fact that Liang and Landau were patrolling the Pink Houses at all that night is an indictment on blackness. The NYPD does not do vertical patrols in the wealthy, predominately white, Upper West Side apartment buildings that I work in everyday. That is an excercise that is reserved for black and brown lower income communities. It is both racist and classist. And, when an officer kills a civillian, they will simply say what they have been saying since the beginning of time, "I feared for my life." Frankly, PO Liang, I don't doubt that you feared for your life. But my question is, what made you fear? What was it about an unarmed black man who was simply taking the stairs after visiting a legal tenant in that building that made you so scared that you had to take his life? What was there to fear other than his blackness and the racist presumptions about "dangerous black men"?

 

Jury Charge:

Prior to charging the jury, the judge reversed or amended his decision from the day before. When ruling on the defense's motion to dismiss, the judge stated that he would give all counts to the jury and would only render a decision on whether or not to dismiss any of the "reckless" charges after the jury returned a verdict. But the judge announced here that he was no longer intending to present all counts to the jury. One of the two counts of "official misconduct" (a misdemeanor) was dropped. The judge stated that the State had not met their burden of proof. This charge was related to Liang's duty to perform CPR once he discovered that Akai was wounded. The judge ruled that while he may have had a moral obligation, he had no such legal duty, and as such, it would be unconstitutional to charge him with this count.

That meant that the jury heard instructions on five charges. The judge used a PowerPoint presentation to give his instructions for each charge remaining. Liang is charged with Second Degree Manslaughter, Second-Degree Assault, Second-Degree Reckless Endangerment, Criminally Negligent Homicide and Official Misconduct.

The judge began charging the jury at 2:45 P.M. His instructions took close to an hour. The jury retired to deliberate and were able to deliberate about one hour before being dismissed for the day. They did send out one note to the court during that time, with a request for exhibits, and you can find the content of that request here.

 

Jury Watch

The jury received the case at approximately 3:45 P.M. The deliberated for about an hour. A note was sent from the jury room during that time, and at 4:45 P.M., the request was put on the record. The jury asked for the following:

• The PowerPoint presentation that the judge used during his jury instructions.

• The complete list of witnesses.

• Miscellaneous evidence from both parties, but particularly a report referenced by the defense.

• A copy of the Patrol Guide.

The judge informed the jury that he could not send the PowerPoint presentation back to them. They would have to come back into open court to review it. He refused to supply the witness lists. Those are not a matter of the public record, according to the judge. The report that the jury requested was never entered into evidence and cannot be provided. The Patrol Guide and other exhibits were sent back to the jury room.

 

Wednesday, Feb 10, 2016

 

The jury went straight into deliberations this morning without making an appearance in the courtroom. Around 11 A.M. those of us waiting at the courthouse were informed that court was coming back in to session. After a mad scramble to turn in our phones and an incident involving a Liang supporter being nasty to Akai's auntie, we entered the courtroom at 11:20.

By 11:25 all parties were present. We waited more than 90 minutes for the judge to make an appearance. It was after 1:00 P.M. when he finally took the bench. The judge stated that two notes had been sent out from the jury room this morning. But first he would hear a motion from the defense.

Peter Liang's defense stood up and moved for a mistrial. This is the third time that the defense has asked the judge to declare a mistrial. This time, the defense claimed prosecutorial misconduct, stemming from the State's closing argument. The defense said that they had researched the law on the matter and were asking for all charges to be dropped based on "inflammatory and inappropriate comments" made by the State. The claimed that the following statements were unfairly prejudicial to their client:

* The prosecutor yesterday accused Akai of crimes for which he has not been charged.

* The prosecutor said that Lianf deliberately pointed the gun.

* The prosecutor said that Liang intended to shoot his gun.

* The prosecutor said that Liang was attempting a cover up.

* The prosecutor offered a transacted reading of Liang's testimony.

The judge denied the defense's motion for a mistrial. He said the following:

* The [defense] argument about the People accusing him of intentional crimes falls way short.

* In order to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the People have to show that the defendant knew of a risk and disregarded that risk, therefore the People's assertion that Liang should have known there were people when he unholstered his weapon was not improper.

* The reading of the transcript was not inaccurate. The people only read up to a certain point and then stopped. They are allowed to do that.

* The argument that the People told the jury that Liang committed an intentional crime, that he was hiding the bullet, etc., this is part of rebutting the defense testimony. It is not impossible that he was looking for a bullet or bullet casing.

The judge found nothing that would require that he declare a mistrial. The jury was allowed back into the courtroom and the testimony that they requested the day prior was read back to them, namely the testimony of Liang, Landau, and Melissa Butler that recounted the moments leading up to the shooting.

The jury asked for:

• Two foam boards used as visual aids during the trial.

• The transcript of the 911 call.

•The "division radio" transcript. (Police Radio).

•Officer Liang's testimony from the moment that Landau asked him, "what happened," until he reached Akai on the 5th floor landing.

•Officer Landau's testimony from the moment that he asked Liang what happened until he reached Akai on the 5th floor landing.

• Melissa Butler's testimony from the time she and Akai approached the stairwell until Akai collapsed on the 5th floor landing.

The visual displays and written documents were sent back to the jury. All parties reviewed the requested testimony and those pages were read aloud to the jury.

Later that afternoon, the jury requested more evidence:

* They once again requested a review of the jury instructions

* They asked to handle the gun again.

* They asked to hear the 911 call again.

* They asked to hear the audio of the radio dispatch.

Court ended at approximately 5:30. The judge reminded the jury that if they did not reach a verdict the following day that court would be in recess until Tuesday.

 

Thursday, Feb 11, 2016

 

 (7:17 P.M.) NYPD officer Peter Liang has been found GULITY on Second Degree Manslaughter and Official Misconduct. See the reading of the verdict here:

 (6:00 P.M.) The judge has told the jury that if they think they are close to a verdict tonight they can continue to deliberate. The jury has returned to deliberations.

 (5:23 P.M.) The judge received another note from the jurors. It read: "We would like to hear the charges once again and the definitions of the charges." Now more deliberating.

 (4:05 P.M.) The jury has requested evidence that was submitted by the prosecution. They want to see the NYPD Firearms and Tactics guide. They also want more notepads. They are still deliberating. (The latest they can meet today is 6:30 P.M. If no verdict is reached deliberations will continue next Tuesday after the holiday weekend.)

 (3:30 P.M.) The judge has reversed his own ruling. He earlier ruled that no cameras would be allowed in the courtroom during the publishing of the verdict. There are more than 100 vultures...er, I mean reporters, currently at the courthouse awaiting the jury's decision. Deliberations still ongoing.

 (2:30 P.M.) After lunch the jury requested a white board. There were no requests for evidence. Deliberations continue.

 (1:31 P.M.) The jury once again went directly to deliberations today. If the jury has asked questions or requested further evidence, it has not yet been published in open court. Court stands in recess until 2:15 P.M.