AUSTIN, Texas — A Travis County judge is deciding the punishment for Austin police officer Christopher Taylor, who was convicted of deadly conduct.
In October, a jury found Taylor guilty of deadly conduct for the 2019 death of Mauris DeSilva. DeSilva was experiencing a mental health crisis and was holding a knife when police were called to his Downtown Austin condo building.
Last month, the prosecution started the sentencing phase, getting two days to bring in their witnesses. Now Taylor’s attorneys have the chance to do the same for the next two days.
District attorney paid expert for report they didn’t use. Now he’s testifying for defense
The most controversial witness of the day was Dr. Howard Williams, a criminal justice professor at Texas State University, who was also an Austin police officer for 25 years and the San Marcos Chief of Police for 11 years.
The District Attorney’s office paid Williams to write a review of the case, but then they never used it or brought him in to testify during the jury trial. In his report, Williams writes that Taylor was reasonable in his use of deadly conduct as self-defense and was not criminally negligent.
A major point of discussion during this trial has been about whether the officers should have taken the elevator instead of the stairs to confront DeSilva, who was on the fifth floor of the high-rise condo building.
The state argues that by taking the elevator, officers put themselves in immediate danger by being just mere feet away from DeSilva who was holding a knife, giving officers nowhere to retreat to. Prosecution claims had they taken the stairs, the shooting might have been avoided.
Williams agreed with part of the state’s argument that taking the elevator was a “questionable” tactic. He also called a few other actions the officers took “questionable,” like not waiting for additional assets like a shield or other officers, and not giving DeSilva enough time to recognize that they were officers.
“The officers knew DeSilva was standing near the elevator and trying to get on it, so they should have taken the stairs so they would not have to confront DeSilva immediately when the elevator doors opened,” Williams said.
Ultimately, Williams came to the conclusion that while the stairs may have been a better option, because of the urgency of the situation, it was reasonable for Taylor and the other officers to take the elevator to get to DeSilva as soon as possible.
Williams also testified about officers’ decision-making process during tactical situations. He said officers have to weigh all of their options to make the best decision to protect the most amount of life.
Since DeSilva was on the fifth floor of the condo where the gym and other common amenities are, Williams said it was reasonable for officers to respond as soon as possible, so DeSilva didn’t have a chance to hurt anyone else.
During testimony, the defense played part of Taylor’s body camera footage where the officers walk into the lobby of the condo before they get into the elevator. At this point, the condo management told officers that DeSilva was still in his apartment. During this time, the officers are management more questions to learn more about the situation, but then once they see on a security camera that DeSilva moved locations, they go straight to the elevator.
“When they believed him to be in his apartment, they were exploring other options that they could use to try to talk to him or approach him in such a way that there wouldn’t be any immediate danger,” Williams said. “But when they saw him on the fifth floor, they knew then that he was in a public area where other people would be around, that’s when the urgency set in.”
The defense also asked Williams if officers should have relied on a different use of force, like a Taser to stop DeSilva, who turned toward them with a knife in his hand. Williams testified that Tasers are far more effective at longer distances, closer to about 12 feet. So, with just a few feet between the officers and DeSilva, he said it was “too close for it to be really effective.” He also claims Tasers don’t always have a high success rate.
“Field study reports from police departments from across the country show ineffective rates of up to 45%,” Williams said. “That makes it really problematic to try to defend yourself with a Taser from an immediate deadly force.”
Before Williams, the defense started off the day by bringing in Bruce Mills, a former assistant city manager who also has decades of experience in law enforcement.
Testimony about what’s next for Austin police?
Mills also testified about the officers’ decision to take the elevator instead of the stairs, saying that it was the most reasonable considering the urgency of the situation.
“The longer it would take officers to get up there, anything could happen,” Mills said. “Obviously taking stairs is going to add to the delay.”
Taylor’s defense also asked Mills about the dilemma officers would face if they didn’t make contact with the suspect as soon as possible. He testified that according to police training, they could be considered “derelict” if they are not doing their duties right away.
“What do officers do now, because it sounds like what you’re saying is officers can follow their training and potentially be indicted, or they can loiter, linger, delay responding to emergencies and possibly be sanctioned for dereliction?” said Doug O’Connell, Taylor’s defense attorney. “What are they supposed to do?”
Mills responded saying he doesn’t know how they move forward with this no-win situation. He was also asked about what the future of APD will look like now that Taylor has been convicted.
He expressed concern about the impact this could have on how officers approach their job if they feel they’ll be prosecuted for on-duty actions.
“They feel completely at the whim of the prosecutor that prosecutes their cases when they feel like they’ve done their job and done it legally,” Mills said.
The prosecution asked Mills if any police training or policies would be changed as a result of this verdict. He said that training would be reviewed and have the possibility of being changed, but it was not the jury’s intention, nor was it a mandate to change the training based on the verdict.
Throughout the trial, the questions about changing APD’s training and policies have come up, but Taylor’s defense says what’s on trial in this case, is if Taylor acted reasonably in self-defense when faced with DeSilva.
“If you’re within 3 feet of an armed suspect, someone with a knife and you can’t back up, there’s not any training in the world that can be altered to do anything other than to allow that officer to use self-defense?” O’Connell asked.
“None that I’m aware of,” Mills responded.
The defense ended the day bringing in Rich Daugherty, a real estate investor who Taylor and his family rented a home from. His testimony was about Taylor’s character, and he described him as an “excellent husband and father.”
Tuesday, the defense will continue bringing in more witnesses, but the judge won’t be giving her sentence until Dec. 3. On that day, the defense plans to bring in more witnesses who couldn’t be here this week. After that, the defense will give their closing arguments.
Taylor is facing up to 10 years in prison.