Here’s What You Missed in the First Three Days of Officer Christopher Taylor’s Murder Trial

Christopher Taylor (r) and defense attorney Doug O’Connell enter the courtroom on Oct. 24 (photos by Jana Birchum)

Possibly the most politically important murder trial in Austin history is in its third day of evidence as the Chronicle goes to press Wednesday, Oct. 25. For prosecutors to secure a guilty verdict, they must convince the jury that when Austin Police Officer Christopher Taylor shot Michael Ramos, neither Taylor nor any other individual at the scene faced an imminent threat that justified the use of lethal force.

During the first day of testimony, Oct. 23, prosecutors emphasized that officers had access to a citywide "Be on the Lookout" (BOLO) bulletin, written by an officer who responded to a suspected auto theft call the previous night involving Ramos. That BOLO did not include any information indicating that Ramos was armed or dangerous.

During the second day of testimony, Oct. 24, the 911 caller who prompted the fatal encounter between Taylor and Ramos took the witness stand. "If I could take that day back I would," testified Meko Scott, who called 911 on April 24, 2020, and falsely told dispatch that Ramos was armed. "I feel like I killed him."

Scott testified that before making the call, she saw Ramos and his girlfriend doing drugs in the Prius. APD detectives did not find a gun in the vehicle or at the scene during their search, which went on for two days following the shooting.

"I never saw a gun," Scott repeated from the stand, pausing at several moments to wipe tears from her eyes or to let emotions recede. "I've been dealing with this," she said at one point. "I'm having anxiety attacks." Though Scott never saw a gun, she testified that a number of people in the parking lot at the time were speaking critically of Ramos' presence at the apartment complex and that one – "a Hispanic lady," according to Scott – said that he had a gun. Through the course of their investigation, detectives with APD's Special Investiga­tions Unit interviewed several witnesses to the shooting but were not able to track down the woman Scott referenced.

On day two, jurors also heard from Rebeca Garcia, who had been dating Ramos at the time of his death and was sitting next to him in the Prius moments before he was fatally shot. Taylor's defense attorneys, Doug O'Connell and Ken Ervin, opted to reserve delivery of their opening arguments until after prosecutors rest their case, but questions focused on Ramos' history of drug use and engaging in criminal activity signal where their strategy is headed. O'Connell asked Garcia, "When you were driving around in [the Prius], did you happen to notice things like credit cards with random people's names on them?" Garcia said she was aware of the credit cards in the Prius, "but not in a suspicious way." She didn't think about it, Garcia said, because "during the whole relationship I felt safe and [Ramos] was my best friend."

When prosecutors questioned her, Garcia testified to the fear she felt during the encounter, as saw eight officers draw their weapons at the couple and shout orders at them. "Everything was going so fast," Garcia said. "We're looking back at each officer and they're just yelling." Garcia said she was looking for an officer who would help her and finally made eye contact with one who appeared to signal her with a head nod that she could exit the vehicle. She did and lied face down on the ground. Moments later, she heard Ramos drive off. Then, the three rifle shots that killed him.

Judge Dayna Blazey on Oct. 24

From the stand, Garcia said that she was detained by APD for hours, during which she was barefoot and handcuffed after losing her shoes at the scene of the shooting. She described her mental state as "desperate." In his cross-examination, O'Connell asked Garcia why she jumped out of the car before Ramos attempted to flee. "It was a dangerous situation and you knew it was about to get more dangerous," O'Connell said, "because the only way out of that parking lot was through or around those police officers."

Video of the shooting from the perspective of the police officers and from civilian bystanders has already been widespread. But in court Tuesday, prosecutors presented a digital re-creation of what Ramos saw, produced by the digital forensics company Visual Law Group. Using video footage captured by the body-worn cameras on each responding officer, the dashboard cameras in their patrol vehicles, and bystander cellphones, Visual Law CEO Mark Johnson explained from the stand, his team was able to produce an "animated version of the crime scene" able to show the shooting from new vantage points.

Using a process called "photogram­metry" – which can be used to extract measurements in three dimensions from two-dimensional photos – Johnson's team was able to determine that Ramos was traveling at a speed of about 8½ mph the first time Taylor shot him. The digital rendering viewed by jurors also showed that as Ramos fled and was shot, he was moving away from Taylor and the other officers.

On the third day of testimony, an officer who participated in the encounter that led to Ramos' death took the stand for the first time in the trial – Darrell Cantu-Harkless.

Through questioning from Dexter Gil­ford, who leads the Civil Rights Unit in the Travis County District Attorney's Office, and through footage from the officer's body-worn camera, prosecutors attempted to portray Cantu-Harkless as one of the only officers on scene who tried to de-escalate the confrontation. But due to the chaotic nature of the encounter, it was difficult for Ramos to remain focused on the officer.

"After some point," Gil­ford asked Cantu-Harkless, "was [Ramos'] attention distracted from you completely?"

"Yeah, he was focused on the rest of the officers," Cantu-Harkless responded. Footage from Cantu-Harkless' body camera showed that after Ramos was shot with a lead-pellet round and started driving away, Cantu-Harkless entered his patrol vehicle. He said he was prepared to use his vehicle as a shield to defend himself, as Austin Police Department officers are trained to do.

In their questioning, prosecutors tried to solicit testimony indicating that Cantu-Harkless did not feel he was facing an imminent threat. Gilford asked the officer – who was positioned closest to Ramos when he began to drive away – if he would ever hesitate to use lethal force if he felt himself or his fellow officers were facing a deadly threat. "No, I wouldn't hesitate," Cantu-Harkless said.

Gilford also asked the officer about the statement he gave to a detective in APD's Special Investigations Unit, which is tasked with investigating officers accused of criminal conduct. In that interview, Cantu-Hark­less said that when Ramos began to drive off, his fear was that the man – who was believed to be armed but was actually unarmed – would fire a gun as he drove away from officers. Cantu-Harkless did not say, however, that he feared Ramos might use the Prius as a deadly weapon – which is a critical component of Taylor's defense strategy. (Even if Ramos wasn't armed, they can argue that the car itself was a threat.) The SIU detective interviewing Cantu-Hark­less did suggest the possibility that the Prius could have been a deadly weapon, though, prompting Cantu-Harkless to give that answer.

Prosecutors are expected to continue presenting evidence the rest of this week, with Taylor's defense beginning their case next week.