BillHudson

I just recall going home that night feeling the state had a "slam dunk." Boy, was I wrong... but that had a huge impact on everyone in the courtroom that day. It would be eventually played over and over multiple times by the state. But in the end as powerful as it was it could not convince jurors because it doesn't show what Yanez was seeing. Jurors have said that as well, the state did not prove that Yanez did not see that gun coming out of Castile's pocket. Thanks Max!

Remember, jurors were instructed to follow the law regarding "culpable negligence" in order to find guilty on the manslaughter. The requirement of that is what another reasonable officer would do to respond to that specific circumstance. When jurors could not determine that Yanez did NOT see a firearm in Castile's right hand, they could not according to the law, find him guilty. That's really what this case came down to. On the stand he described what the gun looked like and the shape that Castile's hand was in when reaching in his pocket.

The requirement is for the jurors to find if he acted "reasonably." What would another reasonable officer do facing the same situation. If the officer feels harm coming to another or himself he or she can use deadly source to stop that threat.

That's a great question and one many are asking. It became a point of contention at the closing of the trial as the state again requested Judge Leary to allow it. The state apparently was holding on to that in hopes they could get Yanez to impeach himself after he had taken the stand and told jurors he saw a gun. The state could have introduced that BCA interview during its phase of the trial but chose not to. By the time the defense had begun its case, the judge ruled it too late. This appears a bit of strategy on the state's part that appears to have backfired. The state was allowed to use portions of the Yanez interview but not enough to reveal what he told BCA interviewer.

I think it was the defense expert witness, Emanuel Kapelsohn who was the use of force witness. Highly respected and educated, he was persuasive in his re-enactments and time measurements of how long it would have taken for Castile to have pulled and shot, .28 seconds versus the reaction time of Yanez, .50 of a second. He also described reenacting the gun in the exact shorts pocket and how the back top of the receiver would have shown since it was not a deep pocket. So in jurors minds, conceivably Yanez could have seen the gun, despite prosecution contrary opinion to jurors.