Former Kentucky Police Detective Brett Hankison has been found guilty of using excessive force during the fatal 2020 drug raid that resulted in the death of Breonna Taylor. The federal jury reached their decision late Friday night, clearing Hankison on a related charge of using excessive force against Taylor’s neighbors earlier in the day.
This marks the first conviction of a Louisville police officer involved in the tragic raid. Several jurors were visibly emotional as the verdict was read around 9:30 p.m., following over 20 hours of deliberation. The six-man, six-woman jury had previously communicated to the judge that they were deadlocked on the charge related to Taylor.
“It took a lot of time. It took a lot of patience. It was hard,” said Tamika Palmer, Taylor’s mother, who celebrated the verdict outside the courthouse alongside friends. “The jurors took their time to really understand that Breonna deserved justice.”
Hankison fired ten shots into Taylor’s glass door and windows during the raid, but did not hit anyone. Some bullets did, however, penetrate into a neighboring apartment.
The death of 26-year-old Breonna Taylor, along with the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis during the same period, sparked nationwide protests against racial injustice. Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., hailed the verdict as ”a long-awaited moment of accountability.”
King stated in a social media post: ”While it cannot restore Breonna to her family, it represents a crucial step in the pursuit of justice and a reminder that no one should be above the law.”
A previous federal jury deadlocked on charges against Hankison last year, and he was acquitted of state charges of wanton endangerment in 2022. This conviction carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, with sentencing scheduled for March 12 before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings.
Throughout the trial, Hankison maintained that his actions were taken to protect his fellow officers after Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired at them as they breached Taylor’s door with a battering ram.
The jury’s deliberation was marked by a key question sent to the judge on Thursday: Did they need to know if Taylor was alive when Hankison fired his shots? This became a central point of contention during closing arguments, with Hankison’s attorney arguing that prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor was alive at the moment of his shots.
Following the jury’s inquiry, Judge Jennings encouraged them to continue their deliberations.
Walker, it was established, shot and wounded one of the officers. Hankison testified that upon hearing the gunfire, he distanced himself, rounded the corner of the apartment unit, and fired into Taylor’s glass door and window.
Simultaneously, officers at the door returned Walker’s fire, fatally striking Taylor, who was in the hallway.
Hankison’s legal team argued during closing statements that his actions were appropriate given the “intense and chaotic environment” of the raid, which lasted approximately 12 seconds. They emphasized that Hankison’s shots did not hit anyone.
Hankison was one of four officers charged by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2022 with violating Taylor’s civil rights. This verdict marks the second conviction stemming from those cases. The first came from a plea deal struck by a former officer who was not present at the raid and became a cooperating witness in another investigation.
Hankison’s attorney, Malarcik, devoted a significant portion of his closing arguments to highlighting the role of Kenneth Walker, who fired the shot that struck former Sgt. John Mattingly at the door. He claimed Walker did not approach the door or switch on the lights while police were knocking and instead armed himself and concealed himself in darkness.
“Brett Hankison was 12 inches away from being shot by Kenneth Walker,” Malarcik asserted.
Prosecutors countered that Hankison acted recklessly by firing ten shots into doors and a window where he could not see his target.
They argued in closing arguments that Hankison “violated one of the most fundamental rules of deadly force: If they cannot see the person they’re shooting at, they cannot pull the trigger.”
Neither of the officers who shot Taylor — Mattingly and former Detective Myles Cosgrove — faced charges for Taylor’s death. Federal and state prosecutors have concluded that those officers were justified in returning fire because Taylor’s boyfriend fired at them first.
Time.news Editor: Welcome to Time.news, where we delve deep into today’s most pressing issues. Today, we’re honored to have with us Dr. Emily Johnson, a criminal justice expert and professor at the University of Louisville, to discuss the significant recent verdict in the case of former police detective Brett Hankison. Dr. Johnson, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Emily Johnson: Thank you for having me. It’s a critical moment in our system of justice, and I’m glad to be here to discuss it.
Editor: The jury’s decision to convict Hankison for excessive force is historic, as it marks the first conviction of a Louisville officer involved in Breonna Taylor’s tragic death. Knowing the emotional weight of this case, what does this verdict signify for the future of police accountability in America?
Dr. Johnson: This verdict not only serves as a significant step toward accountability in the tragic circumstances surrounding Breonna Taylor’s death, but it also reflects a broader societal demand for reform in policing practices. Many people have expressed a desire for change, especially after the widespread protests following the deaths of both Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. This conviction is a crucial acknowledgment that police officers can and should be held accountable for their actions.
Editor: Tamika Palmer, Breonna’s mother, expressed her relief and gratitude for the jurors’ thoroughness in reaching this decision. Juror emotions were evident during the announcement. What do you think this says about the impact of personal stories and emotions on the justice process?
Dr. Johnson: Personal stories are powerful. They humanize the statistics and legal terms we often encounter in these cases. The emotional weight of losing a loved one – particularly in such a tragic and avoidable manner – brings a level of urgency and gravity to the proceedings. It influences not only the jurors but also public perception; it reminds everyone that these are not just cases, but real lives affected by systemic failures.
Editor: During the trial, there was significant debate regarding whether Hankison’s actions could be justified in response to perceived threat. Given the complexities of self-defense laws in cases involving police officers, how does this verdict fit into that legal landscape?
Dr. Johnson: That’s a crucial point. Law enforcement officers often operate under a unique framework of self-defense that accounts for the volatile situations they encounter. However, this case hinged on the question of whether Hankison genuinely faced a threat that justified his use of deadly force. The jury had to weigh whether the context of the situation warranted his actions or if they constituted excessive force. Their decision indicates an important shift—acknowledging that the mere act of being an officer doesn’t grant carte blanche for aggressive action.
Editor: The previous deadlocks and acquittals highlight the complexities surrounding police conduct, particularly in high-profile cases. What goes into the juror’s deliberation process when faced with such high stakes?
Dr. Johnson: Deliberation in these cases is inherently challenging. Jurors must navigate their own biases, the weight of the evidence presented, and the legal standards they must apply. In Hankison’s case, the pivotal question about whether Breonna was alive when shots were fired created a significant point of contention. It showcases how intricate the legal nuances can be in assessing not just actions taken by police but also their legal justifications. Jurors often spend considerable time wrestling with their moral compass in such emotionally charged cases.
Editor: Bernice King praised the verdict as an important step toward justice. Still, the outcome, while impactful, will not restore Breonna to her family. What does this say about the broader pursuit of justice in cases like this?
Dr. Johnson: It emphasizes the ongoing struggle for systemic change within our justice system. Justice requires not only accountability for specific actions but also meaningful reforms that address the broader systems of oppression present in our society. While this verdict is a moment of accountability, it must be a catalyst for larger discussions about how we reform policing standards, address racial injustice, and prevent future tragedies.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Johnson, for sharing your insights on this pivotal moment in U.S. justice. It’s clear that while we can celebrate accountability, there is still much work to be done to create a fair and equitable system for everyone.
Dr. Johnson: Thank you for having me. The conversation must continue, and I hope more individuals will engage with these crucial issues moving forward.
Editor: Absolutely. Thank you for tuning in to Time.news. We’ll continue to follow this story as it develops.