Posted
The jury has retired to consider its verdict in the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor over the death of Australian woman Justine Damond Ruszczyk.
Key points:
- Prosecutors and defence lawyers have relied heavily on use-of-force experts
- Mr Noor’s version of events has been questioned by prosecutors
- The defence team has argued Mr Noor had no other option but to act to save his partner’s life
Mr Noor has been on trial for murder and manslaughter over the death of Ms Damond Ruszczyk, a dual citizen of the US and Australia who had called 911 to report a possible rape in the alley behind her home.
His decision to shoot her in July 2017 was “a tragic event of his own making”, prosecutor Amy Sweasy argued as she closed her case.
Jurors were told by prosecutors that Ms Damond Ruszczyk’s death was murder.
They recalled their use-of-force experts, both senior police, who said Mr Noor’s decision to fire his weapon was unreasonable and showed a lack of regard for human life.
Ms Sweasy used her closing argument to again question a key claim by Mr Noor that he and his partner had been startled by a loud noise and feared an ambush just before Ms Damond Ruszczyk was shot.
Ms Sweasy reminded jurors of the chaotic aftermath of the shooting, with responding officers trying to figure out what had happened.
She said that was when the loud bang emerged, calling it a theory that took on a life of its own.
She noted that neither Mr Noor nor partner Matthew Harrity mentioned it at the scene, with Mr Harrity first talking about it three days later in an interview with a state investigator, and pointed out that Ms Damond Ruszczyk’s fingerprints were not found on the squad car.
“There is no conclusive proof she ever touched that car,” Ms Sweasy said.
She also sought to knock down Mr Noor’s testimony that he saw fear in Mr Harrity’s eyes as he appeared at the window, that Mr Harrity said “Oh Jesus!” and that he was struggling to pull his gun when Mr Noor fired.
“Whatever [Mr] Harrity said or did, it was not a command for the defendant to shoot and kill Ms Damond Ruszczyk,” Ms Sweasy said.
The defence rebuttal argued Mr Noor had no other option and was acting to save his partner’s life.
Both sides have focused heavily on their use-of-force experts, suggesting their testimony will be critical as the jury reaches a verdict.
Neither officer had a body camera running when Ms Damond Ruszczyk was shot, something Mr Harrity blamed on what he called a vague policy that did not require it.
Judge Kathyrn Quaintance told jurors that officers may use deadly force only if necessary to protect themselves or others from great bodily harm.
She said jurors must consider what a reasonable officer in the same situation would do without the benefit of hindsight.
ABC/AP
Topics:
from Trend Gossip Now http://bit.ly/2URFzWh
0 Comments