GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The jury in the trial of Christopher Schurr went home without a verdict on Monday after hours of deliberation.
The former Grand Rapids police officer is charged with second-degree murder in the death of Patrick Lyoya.
Per Judge Christina Mims' instructions to the jury, Schurr may also be convicted of manslaughter, a lesser offense.
On Monday, May 5, jurors listened to closing arguments from the prosecution and defense before deliberating over whether Schurr is guilty of murder. The case went into their hands around 12:45 p.m.
The jury's decision will conclude a trial that spanned two weeks, starting with jury selection on Monday, April 21.
Shooting death of Patrick Lyoya
Jury seated after two days of questioning from prosecution, defense
While the facts of the case have never been in dispute — Schurr shot Lyoya in the back of the head as the two struggled over his taser during an April 2022 traffic stop — it's the jury's duty to decide whether Schurr acted within his role as a police officer when he fired the fatal shot.
The Prosecution's Case
Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker argued Schurr's use of force was not necessary. To this end, he called to the stand a pair of expert witnesses on police use of force who claimed Schurr's actions — according to generally accepted police practices — were not reasonable as both of the cartridges on his taser had already been discharged when he fired the fatal shot from his gun.
Watch the prosecutor's closing arguments in full below
"Second-degree murder. That's what this case is about," Becker said during his closing argument. "Murder. Somebody died."
Becker said Lyoya was "not a saint," but did not deserve to die.
"Why are we here?" Becker asked. "Was the killing justified?"
Becker told the jury Schurr's decision to deploy the taser, according to his expert witnesses, was not a "good idea."
"In these certain, critical areas there are certain, critical mistakes that occurred," Becker said. "A reasonable officer wouldn't have made those decisions."
Becker also referenced Schurr's written statement which the former officer provided to Michigan State Police shortly after the shooting as part of the agency's investigation into the incident.
"Patrick's trying to get away," Becker said. "You don't get to shoot somebody because they're trying to get away."
"How does a reasonable officer in this situation think [they're] going to die?" Becker added.
Video of the shooting was once again played for the jury.
"It's a shot in the back of the head for a guy who was trying to do nothing more than get away. There is no threat there," Becker said.
Concluding his argument, Becker said, "If it's not reasonable, then it's not lawful self-defense."
"The defendant's guilty."
Becker's closing argument mirrored the testimony one of his experts gave last week.
"In order to justify a use of deadly force, it's generally accepted in policing that there has to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm," testified Seth Stoughton, a law professor and former police officer.
"In my opinion, that was lacking in this case," he said.
The Defense's Case
Defense attorney Matthew Borgula argued Schurr rightly feared for his life in the struggle with Lyoya, especially as they fought over control of the taser.
"No one is suggesting that someone should be executed because they were drinking and driving," Borgula argued. "The issue is whether or not [Schurr] was in fear."
Borgula said Schurr had a "valid reason" to initiate the traffic stop.
"The prosecutor is trying to make this case something it's not," Borgula claimed.
"You are not here to judge the GRPD policy. You are not here to judge whether it was reasonable for [Schurr] to chase Patrick Lyoya," he added.
Continuing to describe the events of the traffic stop, Borgula said Becker "failed miserably" to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Mr. Lyoya grabs [the taser] and moves it to the side," Borgula said. "He grabbed it and he never let go."
"Officer Schurr has a right to the taser and Mr. Lyoya does not," Borgula added. "The fight is on."
The defense attorney also claimed the prosecution's expert witnesses disagreed with each other, referencing the testimonies of Bryan Chiles and Seth Stoughton, an expert witness on tasers and an expert witness on use of force, respectively.
"That's reasonable doubt," Borgula said.
"The issue is reasonable fear," Borgula added. "[Schurr's] entire life is on the line. We put on substantial evidence that the prosecutor cannot show his fear is unreasonable."
The decision the jury had to judge, Borgula said, was a decision Schurr "never wanted" to make — the decision to pull the trigger.
"Christopher Schurr was at work and he was faced with the toughest decision of his life," Borgula said. "That's what you're judging, whether it was reasonable in that split-second for an officer to be in fear of that taser."
"I guarantee Christopher Schurr wishes, in hindsight, he let him go," Borgula added. "He did everything he could to avoid using deadly force."
A number of witnesses called by the defense, including two GRPD captains, claimed Schurr acted in accordance with his training.
"We don't expect perfection," said Capt. David Siver. "[Police officers] don't have the luxury of having all the time in the world to make a decision."
“A reasonable officer could perform the same way in that situation,” Siver said about the shooting.
Schurr himself took the stand Friday morning, recounting his training and what happened the morning of April 4, 2022.
Whatever decision the jury comes to will be made more than three years after the shooting.
For FOX 17's previous coverage of the trial of Christopher Schurr and the death of Patrick Lyoya, click here.