An Austin police officer goes
on trial for murder this week,
accused of shooting and killing
Michael Ramos back in 2020.
I'm K View senior reporter Tony
Plaheski here to get you prepard
for the trial of a PD officer,
Christopher Taylor.
Taylor was on duty in April 2020
and responded to an apartment
complex to a call of people doig
drugs and a man with a gun.
No gun was ever found.
But the call led to this
interaction between officers and
Michael Ramos and the parking l.
Officers first used a beanbag
shotgun to stun Ramos,
but he jumped in his car and started driving.
And you'll see that here,
in just a second you can hear
officers giving him those comma,
and as he pulls out,
that is when Officer Christopher
Taylor fired, killing Ramos.
Joining me today to break down s
case as it heads to the jury are Austin
attorneys Jason Ortega and Sandra Risks.
I want to thank you both for tag
the time to join us today to hep
us navigate what is ahead probay
over the next couple of weeks.
Of course,
this is the first time in decad,
if ever we've gone back in the history books.
That an Austin police officer hs
ever stood trial on a murder ch.
So I just want to talk about ley
why that is so significant and how that
is so significant in our commun.
Jason, I'll start with you.
Sure.
I think that our political climate has
changed since 2020 since George Floyd.
And although this incident
was prior to that incident,
the indictment was after that incident.
And I think we've seen a lot of changes
not just in Austin but across the nation.
Regarding police officers and tr
use of deadly force in their job duties
and Sandra, of course.
During the social justice protest of 2020,
we saw thousands of people in
Austin actually carrying signs
with Michael Ramos's name on th.
A lot of that passion is still
existent three years later.
It is, it is definitely still
existent in addition to the fact
that our District Attorney,
Jose Garza when he ran for Distt
Attorney ran on a platform of holding
officers more accountable for for some
of these officer involved incidences.
And I think that that is another primary
reason that we're seeing this happen.
It is monumental. Is historical.
It's but it also carries with
it the the political climate
that we have going on here.
And it's important to note thate
grand jury that indicted this ce
indicted it on a murder charge,
so not a lesser offense.
Of course, murder is the highest
level of offense on on the book,
Jason, what does the state have
to prove in order to convict?
Chris Taylor on a murder charge On a murder
charge. The tape The state has to prove
that he intentionally and knowiy
caused the death of another per.
But Sandra, as a defense attorney, I know
you have a veteran defense attorney here.
What will likely be the defenset
Christopher Taylor's team brings forward?
Well, obviously it's going
to be a selfdefense.
And more importantly, when talkg
about the State's burden of pro,
once the defense raises A selfdefense,
it's going to be on the state to
disprove beyond a reasonable do.
That that was not selfdefense.
That is what he's that is what e
state is going to also have to prove.
That is, is basically to disprove the
defense's argument of selfdefen.
So the state's going to have qua
high burden in this particular situation.
And when we, you know,
break this down a little bit moe
and get into it a little bit mo,
of course we're talking about selfdefense.
But it is also likely that the defense
may also argue that Christopher Taylor
shot in defense of other peoples
well in defense of other office.
That is part of of the self-defe
statute as well or self-defense
argument as well, right? You are
correct. Somebody can use lethal
force in defense of others if
they believe that it the danger
is imminent that it's immediate.
And of course we're talking abo.
Christopher Taylor's belief at that time,
not anybody else's.
What did Christopher Taylor reasonably
believe the decedent was capabl?
Or what was he defending agains?
But it's complicated too, right?
Because there were a number of
officers on the scene that day,
and Christopher Taylor,
as far as we know, is the only
person who who fired a shot.
Does that matter?
I'll ask both of you.
I think it matters.
Absolutely it does. More importantly,
I think the defense is going to
raise whether or not he was actg
under appropriate police protoc.
So I think the defense is is probably
going to bring out the fact that what
he did was in fact and and whatl
of those officers did at the tie
and the decision that Christophr
Taylor made at that moment was
all in line with police protoco.
And we were talking earlier that
jury selection, which of course
will start on Monday, is such a
critical part of this whole pro.
Jury selection may take,
as we understand it, a full day on Monday,
possibly two days into Tuesday,
who knows, even even longer.
But, Jason, how critical is getg
the jury right for both sides in
this case? I think it's absoluty
critical and there's some beliee
in our industry that cases are
won or lost in jury selection.
Why? Why is that? Because when
you're picking a jury, they're
going to, they're going to be te
sole decision maker when it coms
to credibility of the witnesses,
the weight that they give to eah
piece of evidence and ultimately what
whether or not the defendant haa
reasonable belief to use deadly force.
So Sandra, if you are the state,
who do you want in the jury box?
If you were the defense,
who do you want in the jury box?
Well, obviously I mean the the,
the obvious answer to that is
if I'm the state, then I want,
I want those individuals that fl
that officers have the right to
use deadly force on the defense.
I want the jurors that feel that they have.
Crossed that line and that they should not
have the ability to use this deadly force.
So as frequently as they have bn
using deadly force and we've seen that.
I think that it's just importano
to note as, as Jason pointed ou,
that cases are won or lost at jury selection.
I think that the temperament right now
in in the public is very black and white
on the use of deadly force and the use
of guns and I think that some people are.
Adamantly in support of the use of guns
and deadly force when it's necessary.
And there are others that
just don't feel that way.
So weeding through those strong minded
jurors and finding the jurors that will
be able to follow the law is going to be
crucial to both sides of of the team here.
And Jason, we were talking earlier too.
You know, going back over over e
decades that I've covered law enforcement,
some of whom have gone to
trial for uses of force,
not lethal force here in our community.
But the standard, or at least te
mindset has always been and what experts
have frequently said is it's re,
really difficult to convict a police officer,
that there is a deference that is frequently
given by jurors to police offic.
But it sounds like you agree that that
that standard or or that deferee
has truly shifted in recent yea.
I do that. I do believe for the
layperson that it's completely shifted.
And I think in the past it was always,
you know, with police officers,
we don't necessarily know
what they're thinking going
into a high crisis situation.
So it becomes very difficult to
understand what what a person
reasonably believed at that tim.
However, as.
Miss Ritz mentioned the politicl
climate or one of the most polad
issues is the fact whether we
should be carrying guns at all.
And we've seen this be put to at
in this community just in recent weeks.
Jason, I'll ask both of you,
but I'll start with you.
We're several weeks now past the Daniel.
Daniel Perry verdict,
which was a huge case in our community,
obviously received national attention.
Does what happened in that case portend
anything possibly about this ca?
You know, it's difficult to say
because that wasn't necessarily
an officer involved shooting.
And so I think that it,
I think it's it's all relevant.
I think it's something that's gg
to be certainly fresh on the jus
mind if they're watching the ne.
But I don't think that they're
necessarily similar in fact,
in fact, in fact pattern,
I do believe that the police wal
on duty is a little bit differet
and is going to require a diffet
mindset when the jury looks at
this versus Daniel Perry's case.
Couple of more questions.
Let's say for the sake of
discussion that you are on
Officer Taylor's defense team.
Do you put him on the stand
and what is that calculation?
Now that's always the toughest decision
for the defense team to make and
and often a decision that is mae
at the closing of the state's c.
In a prior murder trial that
I tried with Joe Turner,
we had every intention of puttig
our client on the stand in a
selfdefense case and at the
closing of the state's evidence,
we made a strategic decision
not to have our client testify.
In that particular situation,
it it was favorable to the defee
and it was a not guilty verdict.
But generally speaking,
a jury wants to hear from the
defendant in a self-defense cas.
That is generally the rule.
That's a decision that the defee
team will have to make it the
closing of the state's case.
What do you think about that possibility?
I think that it's definitely a possibility.
That's one of those decisions ts
ultimately left up to the defen.
To make for themselves.
Of course, that comes with some
admonishments from the judge,
you know informing the defendant that he's
got rights and he does not have to testify,
nor is the jury supposed to conr
whether or not the the defendant testifies.
In the most the most recent murr
case that I had we did put our
defendant on the stand and he dd
testify and interviewing the jury after
they closed they found, we foun.
That jury members wanted to hear from
the defendant and they found him
to be the most credible witnessn
our trial that we had in Februa,
which resulted in the hung jury.
Couple of more questions I
want to just ask both of you.
Of course, not only is this case
significant because it is a murr
case against a police officer,
this is also a unique case And t
Christopher Taylor actually facs
two murder charges, one in and.
This case in the death of Michael Ramos,
but one a year earlier in in the
shooting death of a man in downn
Austin whose family says he was
suffering from from a mental br.
Does that case have any bearing
on what is going to be happening
in the courtroom in this case?
It's possible that that informan
comes in for limited purposes,
and I think it's going to depenn
whether or not Mr. Taylor testi.
Sandra, what do you think? Yeah,
I agree. I I if he testifies,
there's there's that possibility
that that door is going to open,
but more than likely that
information is not going to be
presented as evidence to the ju.
So I think that unfortunately in
the community people watch news
and so I think every single pern
on the jury probably knows that.
Again, this is where you look for the
juror that is going to follow the law
and not consider any evidence tt
is not admissed admissible in t.
So just as a point of education
to for for myself and others.
So yes, Christopher Taylor
is charged with murder.
It is possible that he if
the jury wants to convict.
That he could be convicted on se
other charge less than murder c.
Can you both explain how that w?
It's often called lesser
included offenses, Jason.
Right now I don't know if that they're
including any lesser included offenses.
However, because it is the state's case,
it's their burden.
They've got to prove each elemet
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Often times if they feel like they're
not going to meet that burden,
they will include lesser includ.
So it's kind of.
You know, it gives the jury and,
so to speak.
If you don't find that we met these elements,
perhaps we met these elements
of this letter included,
Sandra, could you see that
happening in this case?
I can see that happening, but In
also see the exact opposite happening.
I can see all or nothing, all or nothing.
I think that the DA has made a decision
to indict this case as a murder,
and I think that for all intents
and purposes that is what he was
to see if the jury's going to ce
back with a murder conviction or not.
I'm not asking you to predict either.
One of you but closing thoughts on on
this case as we go into it next week.
I think the state has a very
high burden to prove and and I ,
I as a defense lawyer I have a t
of respect for the defense team.
I do as well for the state the special
prosecutor Gary Cobb that was brought in.
I think that both sides are goio
have an incredible case to present and.
I'm just, I'm just not going to
crystal ball that right now,
but I will be watching very clo.
Yeah. Jason, they don't call it a trial for.
They call it a trial for a reason. Exactly.
And and what some would say is .
These are the facts that trials are made of.
And hats off to both defense
team and the prosecution.
Great attorneys on both sides,
difficult case coming up for both of them.
And I can't wait to see
how it turns out. Jason
Ortega, Sandra Ritz, thank you so much
for your knowledge and expertis.
Thank you. We appreciate your t.
Jury selection does start on Mo.
We anticipate opening statementd
testimony to start on Wednesday.
All throughout this trial,
we're going to have daily recaps
and analysis just like this to
keep you up to speed on this ca.
TuneIn every night at 7:00 PM on Kview Plus.
You can download that for free
on your Roku or Fire TV device.
And if you missed the live event at 7:00,
you can go back and watch anytie
on Kview Plus.