What’s happened in the Christopher Schurr murder trial so far
Before the jury reaches a verdict, here’s a summary of every big moment of the trial so far.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Warning: Some of the content below may not be suitable for all audiences. Reader discretion is advised.
As the jury begins their second day of deliberation, a verdict looms in one of the highest profile cases in recent Kent County history.
Let’s take a look at what’s transpired so far.
What happened
It’s been three years since the death of Patrick Lyoya at the hands of a Grand Rapids Police Officer during a traffic stop.
At 8:11 a.m. on April 4, 2022, a Grand Rapids Police officer pulled over a tan Nissan Altima near the intersection of Griggs and Nelson SE.
Christopher Schurr pulled Lyoya over, who was driving with a friend in the passenger seat. Lyoya was a 26-year-old refugee from the Congo.
Lyoya got out of his vehicle and disregarded the officer’s commands. Then began a brief physical struggle, lasting for 2 minutes and 38 seconds exactly, as the two fought over the officer’s taser.
The struggle ended with Schurr shooting Lyoya in the back of the head as he was pinned facedown in the grass.
Schurr was charged with second-degree murder in the death of Lyoya on June 9, 2022, and fired from the force one week later.
Schurr’s legal team tried to file multiple motions to dismiss the case. They argued Schurr was justified in using deadly force, citing that he was protected under the “fleeing felon rule.”
The Michigan Supreme Court denied all motions.
Schurr is now standing trial in Kent County.
Patrick Lyoya police shooting video from all angles:
More Videos
- Next up in 5REUNION: Georgia Tech Targets Former Coach Brian Jean-Mary, Can Brent Key DELIVER on Defense?
- PORTAL BALANCING ACT: Duce Robinson’s Retention Is MASSIVE–More DEFENSIVE Talent Needed
- COMPETITION: Tennessee Football’s QB Room to BATTLE – Faizon Brandon, George MacIntyre & Ryan Staub
- EXPOSED: Washington Capitals FALL Short Against NHL Elite, Nathan MacKinnon DOMINATES in Denver
- Seahawks Suffer BACKFIELD BLOW, Lose Zach Charbonnet to Torn ACL
The trial
Judge Christina Mims called the court into session on the morning of Monday, April 28. Everyone rose as 14 jurors, 12 members and two alternates entered minutes later.
The jury is 10 women and 4 men.
A few members are older, in their 50s to 70s. The youngest member is in her early 20s.
Ten of the jury members are white. Three of the jury members are Latino, one of whom is an immigrant. One of the jury members is Black. She was the only Black person questioned to be on the jury out of a randomly selected pool.
Many members of the jury work in some sort of healthcare field.
Credit: 13 ON YOUR SIDE
The demographics of the 12 jurors and two alternates in the trial of Christopher Schurr.
Judge Mims gave the jury instructions. The jury can ask questions during the trial, which is a rarity in the courtroom. Members can write them on a piece of paper and pass them to the judge, who will ask the attorneys or witnesses.
The judge explains the prosecutor must prove the following to find Schurr guilty: Schurr killed Lyoya, he intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to Lyoya and the killing was not justified or excused.
Credit: WZZM
Attorneys gave opening statements. Both told their side’s narrative of that rainy April morning in 2022.
Eight of Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker’s witnesses and experts took the stand Monday. The court heard from the friends Lyoya was with the night before and morning of the shooting—one of whom was Lyoya’s passenger who was filming when he was killed.
Two neighbors told the story of hearing noises or seeing police lights inside their home that morning. They spoke on walking out of their house to see a police officer shoot a man in their front yard.
Two experts testified. One was a video analysis expert with the Michigan State Police, another the medical examiner who autopsied Lyoya’s body.
A coworker who logged evidence from the shooting spoke on the stand about how Schurr’s demeanor changed after that morning. The detective in charge of the investigation testified about Schurr’s various trainings in de-escalation tactics. The prosecution played a video from Schurr’s time in the police academy, which showed him getting tased.
Attorneys quarreled over whether Lyoya’s previous domestic violence charges could play a role in the case. The defense argued it could prove Lyoya had a “propensity for violence.”
Credit: WZZM
The prosecution says previous charges can be brought up if the charges are known to the defendant, but the charges were not known to Schurr because he did not know who Lyoya was when he shot him. The judge agreed with the prosecutor.
Tuesday was turbulent day in court.
The prosecution called three experts to the stand.
One was a taser expert who spoke on the type of taser Schurr and Lyoya fought over. Both attorneys called on this expert to argue Schurr’s use of deadly force over the taser was justified or unwarranted. The prosecution argued that tasers are generally considered “safer” weapons. The defense argued they can cause serious injury or death.
Two other witnesses were use-of-force experts. The defense immediately moved to get these witnesses dismissed but were ultimately unsuccessful. Both argued Schurr’s actions were “unreasonable, excessive and contrary to generally accepted police practices.”
Credit: WZZM
Wednesday began with a continuation of testimony from the prosecution’s second use-of-force expert. After, the defense moved for a mistrial. The judge denied these motions.
The defense brought in their first witness, a forensic video analyst, who introduced a multi-view video of the shooting to the court.
Credit: WZZM
The defense then called in three Grand Rapids Police officers who were there the day Schurr shot Lyoya. They testified he looked “pale,” “exhaust[ed],” “out of breath” and like he just ran a marathon.
David Siver, a GRPD captain, is called in as a GRPD policy expert. He testifies Schurr was justified in using deadly force on Lyoya after becoming disarmed of his taser and being in a “vulnerable” position during their struggle.
Credit: WZZM
Day four of the murder trial brought about the term “totality of the circumstance.” The defense tries to prove Schurr was fearing for his life and was exhausted during the struggle, which justified the deadly shooting.
During cross examination, the prosecution asks Siver to point out the policy about when it’s reasonable to transition from a taser to using deadly force. There isn’t one. He asks him to read a portion of the handbook, which says officers should exhaust all alternatives before using deadly force.
Another GRPD captain is called to the stand. Chad McKersie is deemed an expert on GRPD taser training and policies. McKersie attempts to refute the prosecution’s use-of-force experts testimonies, saying their research is based on an older taser model.
McKersie argues Schurr’s use of force was justified.
Credit: WZZM
Jason Gady with GRPD takes the stand as an expert on the department’s firearms training policies and practices.
He testifies officers are not trained to use warning shots or to aim for extremities before using deadly force because there’s a high likelihood of missing.
He says Schurr’s actions that April 4 morning were “reasonable.”
Credit: WZZM
Lon Bartel, who works on training modules for the military and police agencies, testifies as an expert on exertion and exhaustion.
The defense plays the footage of the traffic stop as Bartel points out each area where Schurr is exerting, all leading up to his ultimate exhaustion, Bartel explains.
Bartel believes Schurr could no longer “effectively fight” due to that exhaustion and that Lyoya had the upper hand throughout the entirety of the struggle. He says the fatal shot was justified.
Cross examination was lively. Becker brought Bartel’s expertise into question, ultimately questioning his research sources, educational background and biases.
Credit: WZZM
Mark William Kroll was the last on the stand for the day. Based on his experience, he’s deemed an expert on the effects of weapons in the case. He argued that tasers are dangerous weapons.
During Becker’s cross examination, he clarifies some points in Kroll’s research. He says out of 1.4 million uses of tasers, 12 caused death. He also read from Kroll’s research about how tasers actually reduced injury in officer-involved incidents.
Credit: WZZM
Day five—Friday, May 2—brought a surprising witness to the stand. Christopher Schurr testified in his own murder trial. This is the first time he’s spoken in public about the case.
The defense plays the video of Schurr getting tased in police academy. Schurr says it was “excruciating,” and he was completely incapacitated.
He also argues exhaustion played a factor in the deadly shooting. Schurr says he “can’t even describe how tired” he was.
The video is played again. As body camera footage of Schurr post-shooting appears on the screen, Schurr wipes his eyes in the courtroom.
Credit: WZZM
The defense questions him on his fears that April morning. Schurr says he thought Lyoya was going to use the taser on him, incapacitate him, then steal his gun and shoot him.
“I believe if I didn’t do what I did when I did it, I wouldn’t be here today,” Schurr said.
During cross examination, Becker confirms Lyoya never pointed the taser at Schurr. Schurr also says he does not know anyone who has been seriously hurt or killed by a taser.
“I believe if I didn’t do what I did, I wouldn’t be here,” Schurr reiterates.
“But he’s not here, is he?” asks Becker.
“No,” says Schurr.
Becker sits.
David Blake is called to the stand next. He is a police practices and human consultant. He analyzes police use of force and human factors. He was previously a law enforcement officer.
He brings up auditory distortions, describing it as a failure to hear under extreme stress. He says Schurr may have experienced this during the struggle, which caused him not to hear that the taser was already deployed.
During cross examination, Becker brings his educational history into question.
Credit: WZZM
Lewis Von Kliem takes the stand. He works at Force Science, a company that trains civilians and police on use-of-force situations. He is deemed a use-of-force expert in the case.
Kliem attempts to refute the testimonies of the prosecution’s use-of-force experts, saying the totality of circumstances were not considered.
Credit: WZZM
He says he believes deadly force was justified. He says officers are “specifically trained” to believe that they should use deadly force in that situation.
During cross examination, Becker brings Kliem’s business into question. He says no matter the situation, Kliem and his team give police “the benefit of the doubt” and that in nearly every case, they find the police officer is justified in their actions. Kliem says it’s true.
The defense rests their case the morning of May 5.
Closing arguments
Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker walks up to the podium to give his closing statement.
He speaks on Patrick Lyoya’s life.
“He was real man, a human being, shot in the back of the head on April 4, 2022,” says Becker.
He says his family is here, watching him die over and over again on video.
Credit: WZZM
“Patrick died because of a gunshot wound to his head that the defendant gave to him,” Becker says, speaking on the facts of the case.
He brings up Lyoya’s crimes, too.
“I’m not going to sit here and argue Patrick was a saint,” says Becker. “But none of those are executable offenses.”
Becker speaks on the three things he had to prove in this case, which he spoke on in his opening statement: Schurr killed Lyoya, he intended to kill or cause great bodily harm to Lyoya and the killing was not justified or excused.
The first two, he says, are already fact. The third, he believes, he’s shown them by proving the threat was not great enough to warrant that fatal shot.
“You have a duty not to kill someone unless it’s a really darn good reason,” says Becker.
Becker says Lyoya never pointed the taser at Schurr, nor threatened to use it on him.
He speaks on the defense’s claim Schurr was too exhausted to fight Lyoya anymore. Becker says he was one of the “best, fit officers” in the police department, but was “exhausted” within one minute of his struggle with Lyoya.
Becker argues Schurr did not know if Lyoya had a weapon or not. He spoke on the numerous GRPD officials who testified there are many traffic stops where weapons are discovered. He says Schurr, who was outnumbered, shouldn’t have chased Lyoya down in the first place because he didn’t know if there were weapons in the car.
“That’s troubling,” Becker says.
Becker then speaks on the struggle over the taser. He says Schurr tried to grab onto Lyoya, who was bigger than him, with one hand while also trying to deploy the taser at close-range. These mistakes, he says, are no reason to kill someone.
“Patrick did some dumb, bad things,” says Becker, “but the defendant did some things too.”
Next, he brings up the defense’s arguments of an imminent threat justifying the shooting.
“‘He began to walk away, to turn away, continually moving his arms and legs to get away,'” Becker quotes from Schurr’s Michigan State Police report.
He says Lyoya was “trying not to get tased,” which he says he’s proved through the neighbors’ testimony.
“You don’t get to shoot somebody who’s trying to get away,” says Becker.
Becker argues Schurr could’ve used other methods to control Lyoya rather than use deadly force.
“How does a reasonable officer get that out of this?” Becker questions.
Becker shows a photo from the scene. Lyoya is seen flat on his back, with the taser by his side. He says this shows Lyoya was not threatening him with the taser.
Becker says Lyoya “didn’t point, didn’t threaten, didn’t say anything else” to Schurr.
He shows the footage of the struggle again. He plays the few seconds where the taser is heard being deployed. This means the taser is spent and would need to be reloaded before being used again.
Becker says Schurr heard the neighbors coming outside and screaming at them during the struggle. He says Schurr saw the red light on the taser. Becker argues, with everything Schurr noticed during the struggle, how is it possible he didn’t hear the taser being deployed?
Schurr wrote in his Michigan State Police report that he was worried about being tased—not being killed by a gun or other uses of force. Becker says this was not a true threat if he heard the taser being deployed.
Becker also argues Schurr was trained in many other ways to detain a suspect. He says it’s GRPD policy to try various forms of de-escalation before resorting to deadly force. He also says Schurr did not warn Lyoya before using that deadly force.
“There was no warning. It was a shot in the back of the head to someone who was just trying to get away,” says Becker.
He brings up the testimony of Wayne Butler, a neighbor who watched the struggle. Butler says it appeared Lyoya was just trying to get away, calling it a “wrestling match.”
Becker tells the jury to “watch the video” to look for Lyoya getting up multiple times to try to walk away, not to threaten Schurr.
Becker ends his closing argument by saying no reasonable officer would act this way.
Matt Borgula, the defense attorney, walks up to the podium next.
Credit: WZZM
“You are not here to judge the GRPD policy. You are not here to judge if he was reasonable to chase Patrick Lyoya,” he says.
Borgula says the jury is present to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Schurr did not have “a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death – that is the issue,” he says.
Borgula says Becker has not proved that.
“The prosecutor has failed miserably,” he says.
Borgula reminds the jury of the night before and morning of the shooting. He speaks on Lyoya’s drinking, saying that’s no reason for the shooting, but it is the reason for the traffic stop.
He brings up Schurr’s perspective on the traffic stop, when Lyoya got out of his car at the same time Schurr was walking up to speak to him, saying he could perceive a threat immediately.
“Did you hear Lyoya say anything about ‘hey, my car’s not working?'” asks Borgula.
He tells the jury to “watch [Schurr’s] body language” in the interaction with Lyoya. He says he acted calmly and respectfully.
He says it was Schurr’s job to arrest Lyoya that morning, not let him get away.
Borgula says Lyoya “balled up his fist and threw them back” and “shoved” Schurr. He says this is good cause to pursue someone for arrest.
“He’s doing exactly what we expect him to do,” says Borgula.
Borgula argues Lyoya continually proved his threat to Schurr. He brings up Lyoya saying “get the keys” to his passenger.
“It sure looks like he’s developing a plan to get out of there,” Borgula says.
He says Schurr’s next step was to pull out the taser. He did not pull out his gun, Borgula notes.
“They both want the taser. That’s what they’re fighting over,” he says.
He presents still images from the video of the struggle. He shows one of the struggle, then the next shows Lyoya with the taser in his left hand. He says these images are a half-second apart.
“Christopher Schurr was at work and he was faced with the toughest decision of his life in half a second. That’s what you’re judging,” says Borgula.
Borgula says Schurr did not have the luxury of time to debate over this decision like the court does.
Borgula begins speaking on the experts the prosecution brought in for the case. He says they’ve proved the taser is weapon and is something to fear, that probes can be reactivated and even the spent wires can cause incapacitation.
He shows some statements from the experts on the screen. He speaks on each one, attempting to refute them. He says they contradict each other and spoke on the wrong issues.
“Why are we talking about GRPD policy? Because they’re trying to distract you from the actual issue,” says Borgula.
Borgula says Lyoya did not run away when he has the taser and switched hands he was holding it in, showing he intended to use it.
“Why would any reasonable officer think he’s going to walk away from that?” asks Borgula.
He says the jury was continually shown the video of Schurr being tased at the police academy to show what was in his head during the struggle with Lyoya.
“Any doubt the training puts the fear of god into these guys? They’re weapons,” says Borgula.
He also says there’s a reason the prosecution never called a single GRPD officer to the stand.
Borgula uses his experts’ testimony to argue Schurr was trained to escalate to deadly force in this situation. He was also trained tasers can be deadly weapons.
“That’s it,” Borgula says, snapping his fingers. “That’s how much time he’s got to decide.”
Borgula speaks on the totality of circumstances, a phrase that’s become commonplace in the trial. He says all of these—Lyoya’s size, Schurr’s exhaustion, their positions in the struggle, Lyoya getting the taser and more—all point to a justified use of force.
He says using hindsight in this case to find his decision unjustified is wrong.
“It’s a sort of woulda, coulda, shoulda thing. I guarantee that Christopher Schurr thinks, in hindsight, he didn’t have to make this decision,” says Borgula.
He brings up Schurr choosing to testify in the trial. Borgula says Becker used cross examination as a chance to bring up irrelevant issues, like why Schurr chose to chase him and his fitness level (of which, Borgula says struggling with Lyoya is not comparable to “running on a treadmill”).
“View the actual evidence, the testimony,” Borgula says to the jury. “He didn’t have to testify and he did, and [Becker] didn’t ask him any questions!”
Borgula speaks on the point that Schurr put himself in danger. He says yes, because it’s his job. He says if Schurr wasn’t in fear of the taser, why did he try so hard to get in back?
Despite speaking on the prosecution’s witnesses at length, Borgula says it doesn’t matter what they think. He says it only matters what Schurr believed in that moment.
He brings up the prosecution’s introduction of a lesser charge during the last recess.
“This is the prosecution recognizing this case is weak,” says Borgula. “You must acquit to both of them.”
Borgula equates the jury’s decision like choosing to take a friend off life support. He says, even if they have sliver of reasonable doubt, they must acquit Schurr.
“This isn’t murder. It’s not manslaughter. What an impossible decision,” he says, gesturing to Schurr in the front of the court. “He did not commit a crime.”
The defense sits.
Becker is given the chance to make a rebuttal to the defense’s closing statements.
Credit: WZZM
He speaks on Force Science, a company the defense relied on for use-of-force research. He says they find officers are justified in 98% of cases.
“You want to talk about bias in experts, how bout yours?” questions Becker.
He brings up the product warning on tasers that says they could cause serious injuries or death. He compares this to the side effects listed in drug commercials. He says the risk is small, but they have to state these factors by law.
Becker speaks on GRPD not having a policy on when to escalate from a taser to deadly force. He says, when previously asked in the Michigan State Police investigation, GRPD officers said there was no policy. Now, on the stand, GRPD officers say it is justified per policy.
Becker argues there’s a conflict of interest in questioning GRPD officers.
He also says Schurr already went against GRPD policy in that traffic stop by running after Lyoya in front of a car whose passenger could have a weapon.
He argues that anytime the defense brings up that Schurr was following policy, that’s false because there isn’t one for this situation.
Becker says voluntary manslaughter, the lesser charge the prosecution just introduced, fits this case because it shows “emotional excitement” caused a murder.
He speaks on the defense’s claim “GRPD puts the fear of God in officers about tasers.” He questions how serious is it if the edited training video of officers getting tased plays under “Top Gun” music as officers are seen smiling nearby.
He brings up Schurr’s statements about Lyoya’s stance being “dangerous” when he first stepped out of the car.
“If it was dangerous from the get-go, why are you chasing him?” asks Becker. “That’s the totality of the circumstances.”
Becker says many of the people brought forward by the defense have been tased. None of them were seriously hurt or killed nor knew someone personally who had been.
Becker speaks softly as he ends his rebuttal. He tells the jury it’s their duty to find Schurr guilty. He sits. Closing arguments are over.
The jury began deliberations at 12:41 p.m. on Monday, May 5.
Scottish cop mercilessly mocked over ‘Rab C Nesbitt’ style arrest of two thieves
The officer caught the young men trying to sell a stolen phone but it is the arrest video police posted on Facebook that has grabbed social media users’ attention.
One user quipped: “Have Northants Police hired PC Rab Nesbitt as their newest community beat officer?”(Image: Northamptonshire Police)
A Scottish cop has been mocked for his hilarious ‘Rab C Nesbitt’-style attempt at reading two robbers their rights.
The officer, who has not been named, caught Damaris McBeth and Rhys Antwi, both 21, red-handed as they tried to sell a stolen phone.
The pair followed a 17-year-old boy into flats in Northampton on April 19, 2023 before stealing his iPhone at knifepoint.
They fled the scene but were seen shortly afterwards at an electronics’ store in Abington Street trying to sell the phone. Police were alerted and an officer rushed to the shop.
UK passport warning as you may not realise yours is invalid
Scots mum went from size 16 to six after coming off Mounjaro by adopting one simple habit
Bodycam captured the moment he entered and asked the shopkeeper if two men had been trying to sell a phone.
Two men have been sentenced for robbery and drugs offences(Image: Northamptonshire Police)
Get the latest Daily Record breaking news on WhatsApp
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
The situation quickly escalated when the cop realised the robbers were standing in front of him.
The officer screamed at one of them “Stand over there!” but as the suspect started to walk, the cop shouted “Do not move!”
Footage shows the cop take out a Taser and bellow “Do not move! Move away now, move back.”
If the robbers were not confused before, they are soon when the officer begins to read out the police caution.
He begins: “You’re under arrest on suspicion of robbery.”
The cop then quickly stumbles through the remainder of the caution before shouting: “You understand!”
Remarkably, the suspect replies: “Yes.”
Both men are then arrested and are found to be in possession of drugs including crack cocaine and heroin.
McBeth and Antwi, both of Lambeth in London, were charged with robbery and possession with intent to supply Class A drugs.
They both pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court and were jailed for five years and three months each.
Northamptonshire Police posted the video of the arrest on Facebook, which has been mocked mercilessly by social media users.
One wrote: “Okay, you’re under arrest on suspicion of robby don’t say anything yhowsettswahurhennerskewehersegsekkehbe DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!”
Another said: “Sounds like he swallowed his bagpipes before nicking them! Could do with subtitles for his next arrest.”
One user quipped: “Have Northants Police hired PC Rab Nesbitt as their newest community beat officer?”
Another user said: “Move over there! Don’t move! Move! Don’t move! Taser!”
Meanwhile another user said: “I was just waiting for him to end his arrest with ‘See you Jimmy!'”
Detective Constable James Oxford said: “I am pleased with these sentences as it demonstrates the consequences of thinking you can steal people’s hard-earned possessions in Northamptonshire and get away with it.”
