Prosecutors in Christopher Taylor Trial Question Impartiality of APD Investigation

Prosecutor Gary Cobb (l) speaks with defense attorneys Ken Ervin and Doug O'Connell (photo by Jana Birchum)

Prosecutors in the trial of Christopher Taylor – the Austin police officer accused of murdering Michael Ramos in the line of duty in 2020 – were wrapping up their case as the Chronicle went to press Wednesday, Nov. 1. Taylor's defense was set to begin presenting their case, which could extend into next week.

A question hung in the air during the final days of the state's case against Taylor: Did the Austin Police Department have its thumb on the scale when it participated in a criminal investigation into his fatal shooting of Michael Ramos?

Testimony revealed that Taylor's uncle, Sheldon "Scott" Askew, was in the APD Special Investigations Unit (SIU) tasked with investigating Taylor, alongside the Texas Rangers. Immediately following the shooting, Taylor was left alone in an APD patrol vehicle for an unspecified amount of time with Askew, his "peer support officer."

When prosecutors first mentioned Askew's position in the SIU, defenders objected. District Judge Dayna Blazey ultimately ruled that jurors could be told about Taylor's relation to Askew but not that Askew worked at SIU.

Taylor's defense counsel said at trial Askew was "walled off" from the investigation, but during an evidentiary hearing while the jury was outside of the courtroom, Assistant D.A. Holly Taylor (no relation to the defendant) said the state has evidence that Askew "maintained a supervisory role over other officers in SIU" as the investigation was unfolding, and that shortly after it concluded, he conducted the performance review for Daniel Mireles – the lead SIU detective assigned to the case.

With the jury back in their seats, Mireles took the stand. His testimony revealed that SIU had agreed to an unusual request from Taylor's attorneys during their investigation. Two weeks after the shooting, Taylor was summoned to the SIU office to conduct an interview with detectives about the shooting. Typically, officers are permitted "two sleep cycles" and time to review video from the incident, with their defense counsel, before submitting to a verbal interview with detectives, also alongside counsel.

But Taylor's attorneys Doug O'Connell and Ken Ervin asked Mireles to break department protocol and allow the two attorneys to view video of the shooting without their client present. The request was granted. Mireles testified that he was "disappointed" with the decision. After reviewing the video, Taylor's attorneys handed the detective a typed statement from Taylor in lieu of having their client sit for an interview.

"Up to this point in your career at SIU," Assistant District Attorney Rob Drummond asked Mireles, "had you ever deviated" from the unit's standard procedure for suspect interviews? Mireles responded: "That was the first time."

The line of questioning prompted a striking concession from Ervin, who did not deny that SIU interview procedure was violated on behalf of his client. "Even if you felt disappointed," Ervin asked during cross-examination of Mireles, "wouldn't you want the same for yourself, even if that meant bending some procedures a little bit, but not breaking the law?"

"Yes," the detective responded.

One of the final witnesses called by the state was Seth Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina's School of Law who studies acceptable violence by law enforcement officials under "generally accepted police practices and principles." He also served as an expert witness in the trial involving former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who was convicted of second-degree murder for killing George Floyd in 2020. Prosecutors sought to elicit testimony from Stoughton that would convince the jury that Taylor's decision to shoot and kill Ramos as he drove away from officers was not reasonable – a key question that jurors will have to consider in rendering a verdict.

Stoughton distinguished between situations in which officers face risk and when they face threats. Risks of serious bodily harm, Stoughton said, do not justify the use of force, but threats do; a risk escalates to a threat when a person has the ability, opportunity, and intention to cause serious bodily harm.

"Looking at the facts," Stoughton said from the witness stand on Oct. 31, "Mr. Ramos may have presented a threat of escape ... but he did not present a threat of minor physical harm, serious bodily injury, or death to the officers or anyone else. He simply didn't have the opportunity or the intention to do so."

Taylor's defense attempted to establish through cross examination the irrelevance of Stoughton's expertise. Ervin told the witness Nov. 1 that Taylor is on trial for an alleged violation of the Texas Penal Code, not for violating Stoughton's understanding of generally accepted policing practices. "So the testimony you gave is weakly relevant and of limited value" to the jury, Ervin said. Stoughton responded: "I think the jury can determine for itself how much value or help it is."

Staff writer Brant Bingamon contributed to this report.