US Attorney Ed Stanton talks about the Darrius Stewart case

[transcript] Good afternoon and thanks everyone for coming out. Let me first introduce the individuals that are with me on this afternoon. And I know that Mr. Goggett has already explained this. There's someone who might have a pretty detailed statement that I want and plan to read and any additional questions that the state will address most of them. I feel free to follow up with Mr. Goggett. With me, to my left is of course the system is turning. Larry Lorenzing, to my right, a special agent in charge. As we see Michael Gavin, FBI, and to his right, a special agent, Tracy Harris Branch, also with the FBI. On the 9th of July 17, 2015, 19-year-old Gary Stewart was fatally shot by Memphis Police Department officer. The shooting was investigated by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. And the TBI prepared a report for consideration by the Shelby County District Attorney General's Office. In early November 2015, a state grand jury declined to indict officer Connor Schillman, on charges related to the death of Mr. Stewart. Following this decision, the Department of Justice launched an independent, comprehensive and careful review of the evidence collected relating to him. We recently concluded our independent federal review of Stewart's failure shooting. After a thorough review of the facts surrounding the matter, we found insufficient evidence to support federal criminal civilized charges against Connor Schillman. I, alone with prosecutors from my office, earlier today, we met and spoke with Mr. Stewart's family and their representatives to inform them of the findings of our review. And this decision. The US Attorney's Office, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the FBI conducted a complete, independent and thorough review of the events surrounding Mr. Stewart's death before making this decision. In conducting the review, we were tasked with determining whether the events that led to the death of Stewart gave rise to the federal criminal civil rights case across the community. Under the approval law, that is entitled, 18 United States Code of Section 242, also known as deprobation of rights under color of law. Under Section 242, it is a crime for our law enforcement officer, acting the willful to the private individual of their constitutional rights. To establish a violation of Section 242 in this case, the government would have to prove a younger reason will doubt that Officer Schill willfully deprived Stewart of his constitutional rights. We extensively reviewed information obtained by the MPD and the TDI during the investigation, which included interviews of all civilian witnesses and a video of portions of the incident taken by the witness. In addition, the federal prosecutors and investigators met and consulted with the Shelby County Medical Exam who performed the autopsy, Stewart and a TVI forensic scientist who conducted tests in the case. Schilling's statement to MPD was also review. For the Justice Department to file criminal civil rights charges against Schilling, the government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Schilling, acting under the color of law, willfully deprived Stewart of his constitutional rights. Now this test has two requirements. First, the officer had to violate the constitutional rights of an individual by using an unreasonable amount of force. And second, the officer had to act willful. That is, with a bad purpose to violate the law. Again, after a thorough review of the facts surrounding the death of Mr. Stewart, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Congress Schilling violated Section 242. Now assessing the reasonableness of the use of force, one must consider the totality of the circumstances, including in particular whether the suspect poses any need threat to the safety of officer or others. And whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The use of deadly force is justified when the officer has probable calls to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others. The deadly force can be reasonably employed where an officer believes that the suspect's actions place him or others in the immediate vicinity, an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Even if sufficient evidence of unreasonable force existed, the government must additionally show that the officer acted willfully. That is, with a bad purpose to violate the law. Willfulness is one of the highest standards to meet under the law. The totality of the available evidence indicates that, just prior to Schilling Fire and his weapon, Stewart was in control of officer Schilling's police handcuffs. According to Schilling, Stewart was actively resisting arrest and represented immediate threat to the safety. The presented evidence in this case does not contradict Schilling's assertion that Stewart was resisting arrest, in fact much of the evidence corroborates. Review of MP's radio recordings of the station B transmissions established that Schilling was advised that Stewart had outstanding warrants for his arrest. That the aisle authorities with extra height Stewart and that Schilling should transport Stewart to the police station. Mr. Stewart left aisle following allegations of criminal conduct there, which may have provided a motive to evade arrest. Additionally, the footprint on the rear door of Schilling's control car, though not forensically matched to Stewart's shoe, provides some corroboration of Schilling's claim that Stewart kicked the car door into Schilling and charged out at him. Stewart's active resistance to arrest weighs against a punting that Schilling's use of force, in this case, was my reason. The evidence also cannot prove that Schilling did not reasonably believe Stewart posed an immediate threat to Schilling's safety. It is uncontroverted that Schilling and Stewart engaged in a violent struggle in several minutes, moments before Schilling shot Stewart. Video evidence confirms that Schilling and Stewart struggled on the ground, and that at one point, Stewart was able to get on top of Schilling. Schilling's injuries further attested the violence of the stroke. The crime scene investigators observed in photograph bruises and abrasions on Schilling's face, arms, and legs. The evidence also does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Schilling's second shot was unreasoned. Much of the evidence stands to show that the second shot followed only a few seconds after the first. Additionally, since I was a county and physical evidence indicate that the second shot came very soon after Stewart stood up, and while he and Schilling were in very close proximity, the evidence cannot establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the second shot, the threat initially posed by Stewart had abated. In line with the uncontroverted evidence that Stewart and Schilling engaged in a prolonged and violent struggle before Schilling shot Stewart, the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Schilling violated Section 242. Finally, if Schilling's shooting were unreasonable, the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Schilling acted willfully. It should be noted that the law states that in the state or fear, misperception, or even poor judgment, do not constitute willful conduct, prosecutable under the law. Given the circumstances of violent struggle, Schilling's statement that he was exhausted and the weapons available to Stewart, the evidence cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Schilling shot Stewart knowing that the shooting was unreasonable. Nor does Schilling's demeanor as observed by others suggest any animosity, deception, or other attitude from which willfulness may be inferred. Nothing as Schilling's prior record or the tone or substance of Schilling's reported radio transmissions indicates the standard of willfulness. Ultimately, the evidence is not sufficient to meet the rigorous requirements of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of Section 242 in this case. Even if there was reliable evidence that indicated that Officer Schilling's actions were unreasonable, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted willfully. That is with a bad purpose to violate the law. Therefore, after a careful and thorough review, a team of experienced federal prosecutors and FBI agents determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Conor Schilling violated the federal criminal civil rights statute, accordingly the review into this incident has been closed without prosecution. I want to mention that we take very seriously all allegations of civil rights violations. In fact, as many of you all know, we have a very active and dedicated civil rights unit here in this Attorney's Office for the Western District of Tennessee. The Justice Department aggressively prosecutes criminal civil rights violations whenever there is sufficient evidence to do so. We will also add this that we are working to address the deep concerns that we have heard over the past months so that we can have a healthy and productive dialogue that can help prevent this tragedy and such tragedies in the future. We are looking at working with the Department of Justice's Office of Community Orient and Policing Services, also known as COPS, on a collaborative reform initiative that will exclusively benefit the Memphis Police Department. You will hear more about this initiative in the upcoming weeks. The Memphis Police Department is formally requested to participate in collaborative reform process with COPS. Collaborative reform is an independent and objective initiative to help the Department make organizational changes through examining its policies, practices, training rules and procedures around key issues. By going through this process, the Department of Justice can help police departments identify areas that need improvement and then recommend need of changes. Collaborative reform has been found to be productive, positive to produce rather positive change in police departments across the country, including Los Vegas, Philadelphia and Finn. And by connecting the MPD with COPS, we're hoping our city's police department will not only bolster his efforts to protect and serve the greater Memphis community, but also strengthen his relationships with those who reside within the Memphis community. Thank you.