Llera v. LVMPD: DAY 4
Yesterday was a tense day in the courtroom with high emotions due to the sensitivity of the topics, the detail that the attorneys got into with witnesses, and the questionable and conflicting testimonies of the officers. The day consisted of a continuation of testimony from Andrew Locher as well as testimonies and cross-examination from Dan Emerton, Ryan Fryman, and Nicholas Silvia.
Andrew Locher’s Testimony
The court session began with a continuation of Locher’s testimony from the day prior. Locher had some wild things to say. He claimed he saw a “firefight”, which meant he saw Jorge shooting at other people. This is not the only bold claim he made despite saying he did not have tunnel vision during the events.
Some of the main points from his testimony include:
He claims he didn’t see Jorge fall, but instead saw him run northbound and point a rifle in the direction of the police, presenting from the left side.
During cross-examination with Dan McNutt, Locher said he couldn’t recall the time gap between Squeo firing bean bags and the initial gunshots.
Locher said he didn’t feel like the gunshots were sympathetic fire because he claimed the time should be closer together for this to be the case.
He claimed that running with a gun on a sling could cause the rifle to swing up vertically while running, even without touching it.
They were stopped and preparing to go to Circus Circus, but this shooting didn’t play a role in him using deadly force.
In the original statement, Locher said it appeared that Jorge was shooting at people while halfway up the steps, and he confirmed he said this.
The low lethal rounds sounded like a mix of low lethal rounds and lethal gun shots, despite saying he had a lot of experience distinguishing the two types of rounds.
He saw the muzzle flashing, even though he never saw Jorge’s gun, but claimed he was shooting.
The call was put out over the radio that they were involved in a shooting, although there was no call out for bean bag shots being fired.
Altogether, this testimony seemed completely out of touch with the events that actually took place, painting the entirely inaccurate picture that Jorge was firing at officers and creating an imagery that none of the videos even came close to showing.
Jury Questions
The jury was given the chance to ask Locher follow-up questions, with the answers below:
“Can you show us where he took cover behind the planter?”
“He never took cover, but I assumed he was about to take cover in the middle circle.”
“Do you know if any officers take a rifle out at the same time?”
“Not at the time, but now I know one officer did
“To clarify your testimony, did the point of the gun at the officers make you shoot?
“Yes, not Jorge running with the gun.”
“Can skip rounds be as deadly as regular rounds?”
“Yes, absolutely.”
“Did you use skip rounds to incapacitate Jorge?”
“Yes, it was the safest option”.
“How come you didn’t hear Ferguson’s commands given the proximity?”
“Due to the stress and the situation.”
“Did you see Ferguson’s position in the street before shooting?”
“No.”
“Why shoot shots 4 and 5 if Jorge is falling?”
“Trying to stop the situation so he wasn’t a threat.”
“Did you believe Jorge pointed his gun directly at you?”
“He pointed the gun in my general direction, and I believe he would’ve hit someone.”
“You recognized the bean bag shotgun, how come you didn’t see it on the steps?”
“It was too far away and it wasn’t clear to me at the time.”
“If Jorge was running with a gun, could it have bounced up horizontally and pointed at officers?”
“No, that has not been my experience.”
“Did you see his arms pumping when running?”
“I saw an overall running motion, but can’t say which arm I saw.”
“When Jorge was running, was the gun fixed or moving?”
“There was motion with the gun.”
As the list shows, the jury asked a lot of questions. We’re hopeful this is a good sign, as the jury may be seeing the holes in the testimonies that our court support team has also been seeing very frequently.
Dan Emerton’s Testimony
During his testimony, Emerton confirmed that he reviewed testimony depositions and that he has attended 15-20 meetings in the department about the incident. He gave the context that at the time of the event, he had been a full-time firearms instructor for 3 years. He trained other officers in less lethal force, when and when not to use deadly force, accuracy training, and de-escalation.
During his testimony with the attorneys, he said:
Bean bags can be painful and cause injury, and should only be used from at least 5 yards away, and if someone is assaulting another person.
He was assigned to assist the protests, which was different from what he would normally do.
He was in a vehicle with other officers who pulled over after hearing of the Circus Circus shooting, but was the only one in the vehicle who used lethal force.
He was inside the back seat of the vehicle and heard numerous shots.
He knows how to distinguish between live rounds and bean bags.
He saw someone running and saw dark figures running, but didn’t see Jorge point a weapon or fire a gun
He believed he heard someone yell “weapon” or “gun,” but doesn’t know who, and heard it after seeing Jorge running
He admitted to using an AR-15 and firing four total shots, with two shots fired, a pause, and then two more.
He never saw Jorge’s hands and saw the rifle in the middle of Jorge’s body.
Nobody yelled “drop it” or gave any command, and he claimed he didn’t have time to make a command to Jorge.
During the first group of shots, Jorge was running, and during the second group of shots, he slowed down and collapsed to the ground.
Emerton was in the vehicle when the events began, saying he saw someone running through the windshield. He said he never heard any other shots and thought that Jorge was the only person shooting. He also claims that when he first saw the weapon, it was stationary and that the rifle didn’t swing. He also said he didn’t see Jorge’s hands.
During a large part of his testimony, Emerton’s face turned red. He was also the only officer to admit that he had tunnel vision during the events. However, he still claimed that Jorge appeared to point the gun at other officers, and his account of the events is very questionable and inaccurate as to what actually happened, much like the rest of the officers who gave testimony.
Cross-Examination with Attorneys
During cross-examination with the attorneys, Emerton claimed some of the following:
Squeo’s actions didn’t play a role in him choosing to use deadly force.
There was too much time between gunshots to be considered “sympathetic fire”.
He never noticed Jorge carrying a satchel.
Rounds sound different without ear protection.
4 different officers were shooting at the same time
When Jorge stumbled, Emerton stopped shooting
He put himself at risk by not seeking cover
He never saw Jorge look at him because he was focused on the weapon
Oddly, in his initial statement to the police department, Emerton said he thought Jorge shot officers at the courthouse, but he later said he doesn’t recall. He even pulled up his statement to read it because he claimed it was taken out of context. Ultimately, Emerton said he thought he saw an ambush from someone who shot a cop, and he saw someone running, so he shot. However, he said he never saw a finger on the trigger.
Jury Questions
The jury asked several questions of Emerton, with his answers below:
“Since Jorge wore body armor, would it be difficult for the bullets to penetrate it?”
“It depends on the body armor he was wearing.”
“Would the presence of body armor be a reason to shoot more?”
“It depends on whether a threat is stopping.”
“You were concerned about people in your unit. Why didn’t you confirm the position of other officers before shooting?”
“Time didn’t allow this, even though I was trained on this.”
“Did you think about preserving Jorge’s life when firing at him?”
“No, it was based on actions.”
“You indicated you couldn’t see his eyes. If Jorge was looking away, why did you think he would shoot?”
“He could still shoot without looking.”
“Why did you continue to shoot after the first series of shots?”
“Jorge’s gun was still pointed in his direction, and he wasn’t stopping.”
“Did you think about using any skip rounds?”
“No, I didn’t perceive him as a threat after the second series of shots.”
Ryan Fryman’s Testimony
Fryman’s testimony began with addressing context, explaining that he was working a special assignment for the protests, despite not normally working on this. He was in a truck driving the main vehicle in the convoy. He heard about the Circus Circus officer shooting while driving and pulled over shortly after hearing about it on the radio.
Fryman’s testimony was characterized by him overexplaining himself, appearing defensive and nervous. At one point, the judge even had to stop him from going too far off track from the question to get him to stick to the point.
During the testimony, he said the following:
He considered Jorge to be involved in the incident when Jorge “pointed the gun” at him.
He was outside the vehicle when he heard shots and was trying to get a vest out of the vehicle.
He saw a flash of someone running, but didn’t see a weapon.
He said Ferguson hit him on the back and said, “He’s got a gun and is running”.
He remembered a bunch of yelling and remembered hearing someone yell about a gun.
He couldn’t tell if the shots were low-lethal or lethal and who shot them.
He did not think the person running had shot them and said, “It was in the realm of possibilities”.
He reviewed his initial interview, saying that he saw 5-10 cops at the courthouse steps, who looked like they were trying to take cover.
In his initial statement, he said he saw a flash and saw someone running northbound, but in yesterday’s statement, he claims he didn’t see gun smoke.
When firing the first shot, he did not see Jorge’s face or hand.
He did not leave a position of cover because he “has a responsibility to go home because he has a child”.
He did not see a rifle before going to the back of the truck.
There was a quarter of a second between seeing the rifle and making the first shot.
He didn’t give any commands because he was too far behind.
It would be impossible to have seen Jorge’s hand.
He “figured” Jorge was involved with the shots.
He lost sight of Jorge and was unaware if Jorge was pointing the rifle at him for all seven shots he made.
He didn’t see Jorge’s backpack.
His testimony continued to be derailed by his tendency to give long answers. He was cut off by the judge multiple times for giving unnecessary information.
Cross-Examination and Jury Questions
Cross-examination with Fryman continued with him repeating a lot of the same information he had given during the initial testimony. However, despite saying that the Circus Circus shooting and other officers' actions did not influence his decision to shoot, he did admit that hearing the shots at the federal building made him change his tactics.
The jury then asked some of the following questions, with Fryman’s answers below:
If you knew the shots at the courthouse steps were low-lethal, would you have gone into the street?
“Probably not.”
“Did you have your gun out and ready because of shots or when an officer warned you someone had a gun?”
“Both.”
“What did you see specifically at the moment you decided to shoot?”
“I had no other choice; I didn’t want to die. Jorge raised his rifle towards us.”
“What was it that led you to unholster your weapon when moving?”
“Gunfire.”
Officer Silvia Testimony Cross-Examination and Jury Questions
Officer Silvia was present that day in one of the vehicles pulled over outside the courthouse. He said some of the following during his testimony and during the cross-examination:
He took out his gun after hearing the initial shots from the bean bags.
He didn’t know if the shots were low-lethal shots, but he did see officers shoot Jorge at the Federal Building.
He did not hear any verbal commands given to Jorge.
He attempted to maintain cover and keep a visual.
He did not recall Jorge touching his rifle at all.
He never saw Jorge’s rifle in his hand or saw him point the rifle.
He was aware that there were officers on his team who fired their weapons.
He did not fire his weapon at all that day.
He didn’t recall seeing Jorge fall.
He said the vehicle obstructed his view of Jorge.
He was aware that officers were on the steps of the federal building.
He was trying to stay behind cover and lost sight of Jorge.
He heard commands from the courthouse but could not make them out.
He didn’t see who was shooting lethal rounds.
He had no estimate of how many shots were fired.
The jury asked some of the following questions of Silvia with his answers below:
“Did any other officers in the vehicle get out?”
“Yes”
“Do you know the position of other officers at the time of shooting? Did they have a better view?”
“I do not know the position of the other officers.”
“Where was the gun slung on Jorge’s right arm?”
“It was slung on his right side.”
“Did you see Jorge turn and run from officers?”
“Yes”
“Did you see him while he was interacting with other officers? Did he stop?”
“No, I can’t recall. He was taking slow steps.”
Takeaways
Yesterday was a tense day with a lot of difficult information covered, and having to listen to more officers continue to skew what actually took place, as shown in the videos. However, there were some positive signs. A lot of the officers involved look a lot less confident today. Even the attorney, Anderson, seemed off his game and struggled to cover some important questions.
The jury also asked a lot of questions of each of the officers, which is a positive sign that they are trying to understand what happened and that they are seeing some of the holes and contradictions taking place. Across all four days so far, we’ve seen that the different officers’ accounts are all over the place. Although it’s impossible to know what they are thinking, it seems the jury is noticing this as well. Their reactions have also appeared sympathetic to the family, with nodding during some of the plaintiff attorney’s questions and some expressions of confusion while the officers are providing their side of the story.
Going Forward
The case is likely expected to continue into the beginning of next week, with a possible jury deliberation starting on Tuesday or Wednesday. The next witnesses to the stand will likely be the expert witnesses, like the forensic pathologist, and then the plaintiffs, Jorge’s family. If you are able to join in support, the case will continue to run from 8:30 am to 4pm each day. Be prepared to leave your phone and any electronics outside the courtroom if you are planning on joining.
