Oscar Grant: Reasonable Doubt Creeps In

Cephus Johnson, Oscar Grant's uncle, is not pleased with the way testimony is gong in the criminal trial of the BART officer who shot and killed his nephew. Photo Credit: Denns J. Freeman
Cephus Johnson, Oscar Grant’s uncle, is not pleased with the way testimony is gong in the criminal trial of the BART officer who shot and killed his nephew. Photo Credit: Denns J. Freeman

(Editor’s note: This is the second installment of a series of stories re-capturing the criminal trial of the BART police officer who shot and killed an unarmed Oscar Grant in the back. The movie “Fruitvale Station” details the last days of Grant and that fateful night in the early morning New Year’s Day-2009. As a freelance reporter, Dennis J. Freeman, sat in on the trial of Johannes Mehserle.)

By Dennis J. Freeman

Los Angeles-The defense attorney for former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle tried his best to present a case of contradiction to jurors in the high-profile, racially-tinged criminal case that could plant a seed of reasonable doubt amid murder charges against his client.

Prominent trial and criminal defense lawyer Michael Raines, who has successfully defended peace officers accused of misconduct, including the “Oakland Riders,” a group of cops who were acquitted from allegations of corruption and terrorizing black folks in Oakland’s community, gave jurors an earful in part of his closing argument.

Raines worked hard to present an argument for jurors that Mehsrele’s shooting Oscar Grant III in the back in the early morning hours on New Year Day, 2009, was not with deadly intent. Nor was it a matter of negligence, Raines said. In making that argument, Raines told jurors that they could not come away with first-degree and second-degree murder charges against Mehserle.

With Grant’s mother, Wanda Johnson and other family members sitting in the courtroom, Raines also made it clear to jurors that voluntary manslaughter charges should not be up for consideration as well.

“He did not intend to shoot his firearm, Raines said. “That’s why there is no murder (charge). That’s why there is no manslaughter (charge). There has to be an intent or intent to kill. This is an accident, folks-plain and simple. This is what the evidence shows. We don’t have here evidence of criminal negligence.”

Raines’ entire argument centered on the motives of Mehserle, whom he described as “being in a good mood” after arriving on the scene at the Fruitvale BART Station, where a fight had taken place minutes earlier.  Raines’ outline of Mehserle’s actions is what happened on that fateful night was a result of a fellow police officer who acted like a deer in headlight after the shooting.

He also called into question Grant’s character, noting an altercation with police in 2006, which resulted in the dead man being tasered into submission.

“Oscar Grant resisted from the moment he jumped on the train,” Raines said. “Oscar Grant was involved in the fight on the train. We don’t know what happened in the fight. We haven’t been told the truth. This is a search for the truth.  The People of California has an obligation to search for the truth. You are here- we are here, to get to the truth.”

 


Discover more from

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading