Llera v. LVMPD: DAY 5
Yesterday was the first day of testimony and cross-examination of witnesses who were not the officers. Testimony included a few witnesses who were there that night attending the protest, as well as expert testimony from Dr. Omalu, who conducted a separate autopsy from the one conducted by the medical examiner to reveal important facts.
Beginning of The Day
At the beginning of the day, the defense tried to have the testimony of the expert witnesses thrown out, again, as well as the photos from the autopsy. The sides reached an agreement to show only 10 to 20 of the photos from the autopsy, and the witness would stand. Three officers were present in the courtroom, and there were 11 total people in the courtroom for the first part of the day.
Witness 1 Testimony
Witness 1 was a witness brought forward by Jorge’s family. They were another protester who was at the protest with two friends that same night and saw Jorge, but did not know him prior. They began to walk towards the courthouse around the time of Jorge’s murder and were seen in one video walking behind him.
Witness 1 shared their observations from the night, saying some of the following things:
They were ordered by officers to “Turn the f*** around”
They had a shotgun pointed at them while holding a skateboard
They didn’t respond to the officer, instead raising their hands and turning around to walk northbound.
Officers pointed a gun at Jorge as well, while Jorge told officers he needed to walk past the courthouse to get to his car.
They never felt threatened by Jorge.
After hearing the second set of shots, they turned around and saw Jorge’s arms were pumping back and forth as he was running.
They can’t recall the gun being held or pointed by Jorge while he was running when they were looking at him.
They can’t recall who shot bean bags at Jorge, as there were two officers who pointed their weapons at them.
They overheard an officer tell Jorge, “Find another way”.
They only communicated with Jorge’s mom and talked on the phone or via text message a few times.
They did not remember mentioning Jorge’s expression in their original deposition, but they could see his face and expression.
The defense tried to paint Witness 1 as too far away from the events to make an accurate judgment of events and appeared to try to convince the jury that Witness 1 was coached, calling out that Jorge’s mother had thanked them for helping her son get justice. However, Witness 1 said this wasn’t true and that their interactions did not change their testimony. Witness 1 was there at the time of the murder and was able to provide key observations that emphasize Jorge was not a threat to the officers or anyone around them.
Jury Questions
The jury asked Witness 1 these questions, with their answers underneath:
“Do you recall how many feet you were away from Jorge when you observed his expression?”
“100 feet away when he fell, but he got closer and I saw his face.”
“How did you meet Jorge’s mom?”
“My friend was contacted by an Instagram account that aims to hold law enforcement accountable. And I met Jorge’s mom at a shop.”
“Did you find it suspicious that Jorge stopped?”
“No, it was just a tense situation that I wanted to see how it played out.”
“Why did you follow the officers’ commands?”
“They had guns pointed at me.”
“Did you see the gun on Jorge near the steps? Where was it?”
“Yes, it was on his back, but I did not see it while he was running.”
“Did you see the gun when he was on the ground?”
“Yes, I saw a dark object on the ground.”
“How far away were you when you heard the commands?”
“50 feet.”
“What direction were you ordered to leave in?”
“Northbound”
“How was he running? In a zig-zag?”
“I don’t remember.”
Witness 2 Testimony
Witness 2 is friends with Witness 1 and was also attending the protest while riding their skateboard. They saw the officers at the federal steps, saying they made them and Witness 1 turn around despite unclear commands. During their testimony, they made some of the following observations:
They don’t recall hearing anything from Jorge.
They heard two sets of gunshots but did not hear the bean bag weapon.
They did not hear “Stop, Metro police!”
They saw Jorge running, but did not see him fall down.
They did not feel threatened by Jorge running in their direction.
They did not have eyes on Jorge the moment he was shot.
They didn’t hear the federal building officers talking to Jorge.
They and their friend were told to turn around at the federal building.
They didn’t see Jorge point his rifle at the officers, and their memory was not hazy about this.
They didn’t see Jorge go to the ground, and they didn’t know what he was doing with his hands.
They were contacted through Instagram by an organization and met Jeanne.
Again, the defense tried to make it sound like the witness was coached or told to lie, but Witness 2 urged that this wasn’t true and was honest about the fact that they had met with Jeanne and the family’s attorney before. They said it was difficult to talk about what happened and to see videos of the murder, but this testimony was important for providing a retelling of events that did not come from the murderers themselves.
Witness 3 Guest Testimony
Witness 3 was another witness who was part of the protest on June 1st, near Las Vegas Blvd. and Bridger. They heard two sets of shots, saying the first set of shots sounded like an airsoft gun and weren’t loud, and said they were able to distinguish between real gunshots and the low lethals.
Witness 3 shared the following in their testimony:
They were aware of police officers on the steps, but never saw who fired the first set of shots, thinking they came from the courthouse.
Jorge was running towards their direction.
They never saw his gun or saw him pointing his gun.
They did not feel threatened by Jorge but felt threatened by the police presence.
They observed Jorge for a few seconds and saw the front of him.
They were looking in Jorge’s direction, and never looked left (contradicting what the officers were trying to say a few days ago).
They didn’t hear “Stop, Metro police!”
They were turning around as soon as they heard the shots and were running across the street to avoid getting shot, since they thought the shots were coming from the courthouse.
They never saw officers get out of the vehicle.
They never saw Jorge fall to the ground.
They returned to the incident, but officers told them to leave since they “were in the line of fire.”
They went live on social media to document the events, based on it being a protest.
They did not feel that the officers protected them by shooting Jorge.
They had talked to Jorge’s family and attorneys, but clarified that the family never asked them to lie.
They had never met or seen Jorge before these events.
They never saw anything in his hands and never saw the rifle, but saw his arms pumping as he ran.
They heard the dispersal order but never saw the shots.
Jury Questions
The jury asked Witness 3 the following questions:
“It appears you were far from the steps; do you think being far away altered your hearing of the bean bags?”
“I heard bean bags earlier that night at the protest and thought both volleys came from the courthouse.”
“Did you see police cars on the right?”
“I wasn’t paying attention to that side of the street. I saw cars everywhere.”
“After the last shot happened, did you feel unsafe going back to film live?”
“I felt unsafe, but I went anyway to document.”
“Did you think the live video would do justice?”
“I don’t know how to answer that.”
Dr. Bennet Omalu Testimony
Dr. Omalu has been performing autopsies for 25 years and is a pathologist who investigates the cause of death. He has five board certifications and has testified before in many states for both state and federal cases. Dr. Omalu was recognized by the court as an expert on the matter, and he reviewed medical records, videos, police reports, and autopsies to be able to contribute his perspective.
His testimony involved showing graphic images of the wounds from the gunshots. The judge warned the jury to let him know if they needed to step out at any time due to the graphic nature of the evidence.
His testimony covered the following:
Jorge was shot in the back of the head with a high-velocity bullet that fragmented in the right and upper brain, which was a fatal wound.
He had another wound from the left cheek and juncture of the nose that traveled through the nostrils and septum and exited on the right side.
These shots were consistent with being shot while falling to the ground or already on the ground.
All gunshot wounds were located on the left side of the body.
Another shot hit him in the left abdomen, which he described as a shot that would cause a very high level of pain for a human to experience.
The shots show that Jorge was not facing the person shooting, and his left side and back side were facing the shooter, showing that Jorge was in flight mode.
Another shot hit closer to the pelvis at an angle that hit the abdominal cavity, kidney, stomach, and right lung, which was consistent with falling.
Another shot hit Jorge in the left hand in a manner that was not consistent with someone holding a gun because the inner surface of the hand was exposed.
He appeared to have blunt force trauma from running and falling.
He had abrasions from bean bag rounds that did not break skin.
The bean bag rounds were likely highly painful and caused a fight or flight response that prevented Jorge from having full control over his actions.
He disagreed with the medical examiner about the cause of death, saying that the examiner considered a wound to be fatal when it was likely a bean bag round.
He said that Jorge did not die immediately but died over time, while experiencing a high level of pain from the injuries.
He disagreed with the coroner’s report and found it inconsistent.
He conducted his autopsy via photos, as he does for most autopsies.
The key part of Dr. Omalu’s testimony was that his findings were consistent with Jorge falling or being on the ground. He disagreed with the medical examiner, saying that the medical examiner said that a bean bag wound on the right side was a real bullet. Dr. Omalu’s testimony was very important for providing clear and factual evidence that Jorge was, in fact, running away from officers when he was murdered by the police and was not facing the police in any way.
Jury Questions
Dr. Omalu was asked these questions by the jury:
“How can you tell what organs are damaged by photos?”
“Pictures showed the trajectory of the damage, and bullets have a linear trajectory.”
“Why were the back and head shots lethal?”
“If not for the head wound, he could have survived with medical treatment, but the combination of wounds was lethal.”
“Why was there a shot on the knee cap if Jorge wasn’t facing the officers?”
“This was a non-lethal bean bag shot.”
“Would the dissection of the brain provide more accurate info for cause of death?”
“No, it wouldn’t have made any difference.”
Key Takeaways
During much of the witnesses' testimonies yesterday, the officers looked fidgety and uncomfortable, especially during the presentation of difficult evidence like the description of Jorge’s wounds and the suffering he experienced. Others looked unsurprisingly unremorseful with dead eyes, sociopathic reactions, and shaking their heads at some discussions of evidence.
Going Forward
The trial will continue on Monday and will likely continue through Tuesday, with the jury deliberation taking place on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning. Court support remains important for expressing support for Jorge’s family and his cause. If you can make it, sessions will take place from 8:30 am to 4 pm each day.
Wednesday will also be the fact-finding session for Percy Lee Hawkins III. Although we hope that the jury deliberation and the fact-finding do not take place at the same time, we will be prepared to split supporters between both if needed, so it’s important to have as many people as possible.
