Listen to Our Podcasts
Shop Our Store

Breakdown of the judge’s ruling in Jason Stockley murder case

Posted on by The Notorious FDE

Circuit Judge Timothy Wilson’s order finding ex-St. Louis patrolman Jason Stockley not guilty of first-degree murder in the 2011 shooting death of Anthony Smith focused on state laws for self-defense, police use of deadly force and evidence presented at trial.

STL today writes

The key issue in the case, Wilson said, was whether the killing was “an intentional killing following deliberation by Stockley, or whether the shooting of Smith was a lawful use of deadly force by a police officer who was reasonably acting in self-defense.”

Wilson’s major points include:

Self-defense • The state did not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the defense claim that Stockley acted in self-defense. “It does not matter which side presents the evidence that supports the issue of self-defense. If there is evidence to support self-defense, the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Deadly force • A police officer “is entitled to use deadly force where the officer reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary to effect the arrest and reasonably believes the person is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury.”

“We’re killing this (expletive).” • While prosecutors contended that Stockley’s statement during the pursuit was proof of deliberation, it is apparent from video and audio that the chase was stressful. “People say all kinds of things in the heat of the moment or while in stressful situations.”

Kill shot • Prosecutors contended Stockley fired four shots at Smith, then paused, then fired a fifth “kill shot” that produced “a puff of smoke.” No witness testified to hearing a shot separated in time from a first group of shots. “Antonio French, a fact witness for the State, testified that the gun shot were in rapid succession and that one shot was not separated in time from the other shots.”

Prior relationship • Wilson said he believes it is “significant” that Stockley and Smith did not know each other before Dec. 20, 2011. “…They had no prior history, there was no history between Stockley and members of Smith’s family and there was no basis in the evidence to suggest any pre-existing animosity by Stockley towards Smith. There was also no evidence that Stockley even knew who was being pursued.”

AK-47 pistol • There was no evidence that Stockley fired this weapon. Stockley’s decision to carry his personal Draco AK-47 pistol in violation of his department’s policy “might be a matter for department discipline” but “not relevant to the criminal charges here.”

Planting a gun • The evidence did not support prosecutors’ claim that Stockley planted the .38-caliber Taurus revolver in Smith’s car. “The gun was a full-size revolver and not a small gun, such as a derringer, that can fit in the palm of one’s hand or in the side pocket of a pair of pants without being obvious.” The gun was too large to fit entirely in any of the pants he was wearing and would have been visible if tucked into Stockley’s belt. No officers standing by testified to seeing Stockley plant a gun in the Buick.

 DNA on revolver • Prosecutors’ argument that the presence of Stockley’s DNA on the revolver and the absence of Smith’s proved it was planted “is refuted by the state’s own witnesses. Two DNA analysts testified that the absence of someone’s DNA on a gun doesn’t mean that person did not touch it. “Finally, the court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly.”
Partner’s actions • Brian Bianchi (pictured, right) was an inexperienced police officer with about 1 ½ years on the force. Trying to use Bianchi’s “actions or inactions” to prove Stockley didn’t act in self-defense “is not a reliable endeavor, and would amount to mere speculation.” In addition, Stockley did not immediately perceive Smith as a threat. “but only after 15 seconds had passed during which Smith was ordered to show his hands and open the door, and only when Stockley believed Smith had located the gun.”
Removal of gloves • The state’s contention that Stockley removed his gloves before entering his police SUV to retrieve what the state alleged was a revolver that he then planted in Smith’s car “makes no sense.” “The gloves he removed were winter gloves” and “it makes sense that a person would remove winter gloves when searching for something inside a personal bag.”
Smith’s wounds • The state did not answer “how Smith could have been shot in the left lower abdomen by a person standing outside the car if Smith was simply sitting in the driver’s seat.” A pathologist testified at trial that the wounds in Smith’s left flank “could indicate Smith was reaching for something to his right at the time the wounds occurred,” which “would be consistent with Stockley’s testimony.”
Wilson concluded that he was “not firmly convinced” of Stockley’s guilt, which is required to convict: “Agonizingly, this court has pored over the evidence again and again. This court has viewed the video evidence from the restaurant’s surveillance camera, cameras in the police video, and the cell phone video by the lay witness, over and over again — innumerable times.”Wilson said he did not consider convictions on lesser charges because the state only asked him to rule on first-degree murder and armed criminal action, and not lesser charges such as second-degree murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

Check out the full verdict here

js.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js">