An Ohio
grand jury decided to not indict eight
Akron police officers
involved in the shooting death of Jaylen
Walker.
Walker died after being shot last June
during an attempted traffic stop.
Police say that Walker refused
to pull over and they fired a shot.
And then they say he fired a shot at them
from his car.
He then tried to run away,
leaving his gun in the car.
The Ohio attorney
general says police did not know
Walker was unarmed
when he ran Officers fired
94 shots at Walker.
His corpse had 46 gunshot wounds.
That's according to state officials.
Protests erupted
in Akron after officers bodycam footage
was released.
We're going to start our coverage
with CNN's Polo Sandoval,
who's been following this case
for months.
And Polo,
what do we know
about the grand jury's decision
to not bring charges against any of the
eight officers
Well, Jake, the likely
deciding factor was what Ohio
State investigators
were able to determine.
That is that the 25 year old
Jaylin Walker
reportedly shot
at least one time at officers
during the vehicle
pursuit portion of that night
back in June of last year.
And because of that, when the 25 year
old man bailed out of his vehicle
and then initiated that foot chase,
according to
the attorney general, officers
believe that he was still armed.
And that is why
authorities establish
that when he reached
towards his waistband,
they assumed that he had a weapon
and that's when they opened fire.
Of course,
we still have to find out
if that use of force
will actually be justified.
But this certainly
is going to raise a lot of questions
about a potential
about what might happen in the community
there in Akron.
I should tell you, Jake,
I've been speaking to people there
in the community.
They have prepared for this for weeks
for this announcement
that you're about to hear
from the state's attorney general.
And what is
very it
concluded that the officers
would legally justified
and their use of force.
The grand jury
just a little while ago issued
what is called a no bill,
meaning that there will be no state
criminal action,
no charges at the state level.
That does not resolve
any potential civil action
that might be brought for wrongful death.
The family of the Walker,
rather,
the attorney of the Walker family,
telling me, Jake,
that they had been briefed
on all potential outcomes,
and that includes exactly what we heard
from state investigators
or at least the state prosecutors,
that the grand jury decided not to indict
those eight police officers
for shooting and killing.
Jason Walker
of course,
not being indicted
doesn't mean
that, you know,
they did everything
according to proper procedure.
What's next for the police officers?
So this these no bills now
will initiate
an administrative investigation,
a use of force investigation.
That Akron PD
will now
be looking
into the actions
that each one of those eight officers
will have to account
for each one of the bullets
that left their weapons.
But we should stress, Jake,
that is an administrative investigation
separate from any potential
criminal proceedings
that would have happened,
which we now know after this grand jury
decision in Summit County today.
But that will not happen.
Charges will not be filed,
at least criminal charges will be filed
against those eight officers.
All right, Polo Sandoval, thanks.
I want to bring in criminal defense
attorney Joey Jackson now.
Joey, what's your reaction
to the grand jury
deciding to not indict
any of the eight officers in this case?
Yeah, Jake,
I think the measure of import
of really disappointment
stems from the fact
that I believe
that the community would have wanted
and everyone really who was assessing
this would have wanted
a jury determination.
What's the distinction
the distinction
as a grand jury is impaneled
and they don't decide guilt or innocence.
They merely decide
whether there's reason
to believe
that a crime occurred
and that any of these officers
committed that.
Of course,
we know that the prosecutor controls
the grand jury, instructs
the grand jury as to the law,
and it's done in secrecy.
And so I think if it were brought
to the forefront
than it were done, where
there were really a forum
where people would have been allowed
to see the evidence,
see the witnesses,
look at the questions, see the responses,
I think that there would be more
public trust.
But to the extent
that it did not get that far,
I think that there's great disappointment
within the community
with respect
to the grand jury's determination
So the grand jury
must have concluded that the officers
were legally justified
in their use of force.
What do you think
likely went into that decision?
There's always three things
that go into any decision
with respect to justification,
whether you are
engaging in defense of self.
And that goes to the issue
of where you in immediate fear of death
or serious bodily injury
by anyone who you were chasing. Right.
In this particular case,
the young man that died that had 46
wounds on his body,
were you in immediate fear?
The second analysis is, was
the threat
posed in your actions
to that threat proportionate
to whatever threat was posed?
One could question
whether the amount of shots
there was any proportionality
or disproportionality,
which I believe the community feels.
And the last thing, Jake, is
whether there was a degree
of reasonableness.
Did you act reasonably under
the circumstances
based upon all the evidence
the grand jury heard,
having been instructed
by the prosecutor
who controls the grand jury in secret?
Apparently, this grand jury determined
that there were those elements,
the immediacy,
the proportionality
and the reasonableness were present
in this case.
Many, many may disagree.
Do you think that if the
if the evidence was presented
suggesting that a shot was fired
against the police officers
and that the police officers did not know
that he left his gun in the car,
that that would be enough
to exonerate the police?
So I think the issue with that,
Jake, is that those are questions
for a trial. Right.
I think you can have people
the direct answer to your question
is that it depends
when the shot was fired.
If you shot
if you fired a shot at some earlier time
and then formed
the judgment of the police
as to whether or not there is a gun,
that's going to heighten your alertness,
that in and of itself
doesn't give you the right as an officer
or anyone to fire a shot
unless at the time
the shot was fired,
you had that immediacy of fear.
But the issues about whether or not
the actions were justified,
whether they were not, did
the police act properly,
appropriately, in accordance
with regulations and rules, etc.
That's something I think, again,
that the public would have wanted
to see by virtue
of bringing the case to a jury.
And to the extent
that we've heard many times
that a jury would indict a ham sandwich,
you're left to wonder
what happened in this particular case.
And I think the community,
you know,
whether real imagined perception
or otherwise,
the perception is the reality.
They didn't indict.
Why didn't they?
Why wasn't the public allowed to see
what would have occurred?
And I think this goes to the notion
of whether people really trust a system.
Who is that system working for?
Should it not have gone to trial?
And if it did,
the public
would have had every right
to see, evaluate, review the evidence
and make and draw their own conclusions.
Grand juries a secret.
You don't have that ability in this case.
Joey Jackson, thanks so much.