This op-ed originally appeared in The Detroit Free Press 05/23/25
After a deadlocked jury forced a mistrial in the recent second-degree murder trial of former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr, the prosecutor’s decision to forgo a do-over of the trial leaves the family of the victim Patrick Lyoya to grieve without a verdict that might have brought them closure.
Lyoya, a Congolese immigrant was stopped by Schurr in 2022 because his vehicle had bad plates. Schurr gave chase when Lyoya exited the vehicle and attempted to flee on foot. The two engaged in a furious grappling match, and while Lyoya was face-down on the ground, Schurr claims that he shot Lyoya in the head because he feared for his life after Lyoya reached for the officer’s taser.
While many are frustrated by the mistrial, and subsequent decision to not retry the case, some have expressed satisfaction and appreciation for the jury’s presumably thorough, careful deliberations.
In a system established to administer criminal justice we can’t ask for more, right? Wrong.
There are many people of color and other people of good will who in the wake of this mistrial are speculating about whether there would have been a hung jury, or even whether the jury deliberations would have been careful and considered if the situation had been reversed. If an African immigrant had placed a pistol against the skull of a white police officer and pulled the trigger, would there have been a rush to conviction, or instead would a jury presume the defendant’s innocence as the law requires and carefully consider all evidence and exculpatory defenses?