GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The mistrial of a former Grand Rapids police officer accused of fatally shooting a Black motorist in 2022 evoked mixed reactions on Thursday, with no one calling it a victory, even though the officer involved wasn't found criminally responsible.

Kent County Circuit Judge Christina Mims declared a mistrial Thursday morning after more than three and a half days of jury deliberations in the second-degree murder trial against Christopher Schurr. Jurors told Mims they were deadlocked on Tuesday afternoon, but she encouraged them to keep deliberating.

Schurr, 34, faced up to life in prison for the death of Patrick Lyoya, a Congolese immigrant. Schurr shot and killed Lyoya, 26, during a traffic stop in April 2022 after the two struggled over Schurr's Taser. The former officer shot Lyoya in the back of the head.

Lyoya's death, which occurred amid years of tense relations between city police and Black residents, drew national attention. Schurr was fired after the shooting.

Mims instructed the jury that they could've found Schurr guilty of second-degree murder or an alternate charge of voluntary manslaughter, which carries a penalty of 15 years in prison, a $7,500 fine or both.

Schurr's defense attorney Matt Borgula said the jury, in his conversations with them after the trial, indicated it was "overwhelmingly" in favor of acquittal, with some holdouts. Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker declined to comment on what the jury split was or where they were leaning.

"I think that they were deadlocked early and it wasn't really something where there was a lot of back and forth," Borgula said. "I do think they deliberated and thought about all the issues. It sounds like they listened closely."

Becker said he was disappointed by the outcome of the case but not surprised given the outcome of other similar cases.

"This happens," Becker told reporters Thursday. "This happens quite a bit in general cases. But especially, if we look across the country, there's a number of police-involved incidences where it ends up in a hung jury."

The prosecutor said he spoke to jurors and they were open, and had good discussions and good questions about the case. As to whether he’ll recharge Schurr, Becker said he’s unsure but should reach a decision in the coming weeks.

“Give me some time,” Becker said he told Lyoya’s family.

During the trial, protesters were a steady presence outside the 17th Circuit Court in Grand Rapids, with dozens gathered outside on Wednesday. Some carried "Black Lives Matter" flags and chanted criticism of Schurr and Grand Rapids police, while others carried flags in support of police. The protests have been mostly peaceful, with some verbal clashes between the two groups.

The mistrial comes just one day after another trial involving the fatal beating of a Black motorist, Tyre Nichols, in Memphis, Tennessee, ended in the acquittal of three police officers there.

“We are going to be faced with doing it all over again because I definitely know the family and the community are going to petition Becker to start it all over again" if a mistrial is declared, said Deedee Grier, a protester who was outside the courthouse on Wednesday in support of the Lyoya family. “Then we’re going from waiting on a decision to two, three more years of this process."

During the trial, Schurr's attorneys argued he was afraid for his life and acted in self-defense, but prosecutors have maintained there was no "imminent threat" when Schurr shot Lyoya.

Schurr never wanted to take a life, Borgula said, and that moment three years ago — "that decision in that split second" — was one of the most difficult he's had to deal with.

"We cannot declare victory because there really is no winning here," Borgula said. "A man died and that is a very serious thing. Christopher Schurr is happy that the jury didn't determine that he's criminally responsible for that death. But it's hard to say that we feel like this is a victory."

Becker said Lyoya's family was disappointed in the result.

"This has been a long trek for them," Becker said. "They're amazingly patient; they're amazingly understanding. But they're frustrated, obviously."

Mims, attorneys speak with jury

Before declaring the mistrial, Mims briefly addressed the jury.

“I did receive communication that you were unable to reach a verdict,” she said. “First, I want to verify that that’s true, that you're unable to reach a verdict as a panel?”

“Correct,” the jury foreperson said.

“OK. So what I’m going to do is declare a mistrial in this case,” Mims said. “That means that you’re all discharged.”

Schurr’s lawyer, Borgula, asked the judge to consider a court rule, MCR 6.420, that allows a judge, where more than one count is charged and a mistrial is declared, to inquire as to whether the jury was able to reach a unanimous verdict on at least one count.

Mims responded that the rule would not apply to Schurr’s case since the former officer was charged with just one count, second-degree murder, with a lesser count of voluntary manslaughter available to jurors as an alternate.

In comments to reporters after the trial, Borgula said he had sought such a ruling because he was unsure whether the jury had reached a unanimous decision in favor of acquittal on second-degree murder — in which case double jeopardy would kick in, preventing Becker from retrying on that count — and were hung on voluntary manslaughter. He said his conversations with the jury after leaving the courtroom indicated there was a majority in favor of acquittal on both charges.

"It was clear based on the evidence that there wasn't enough to establish a charge in this case," Borgula said.

Becker said the jury was stuck on valid questions, such as whether or not a Taser is considered a dangerous weapon or whether their decision should be based on Schurr's actions leading up to the shooting or the immediate threat he faced when he actually fired his weapon.

"They definitely knew what the issues were and sounds like they had a very thorough debate on those," Becker said. "...They were clearly engaged, clearly dedicated and I appreciate the work they did."

Becker denied the charges were motivated by public pressure and said he didn't regret bringing them.

"It's a difficult case. This is not an easy case," Becker said. "I've been involved in a number of officer-involved incidents where I've cleared them. If I clear them, that's because I believe it shouldn't go forward. This is one I felt, given all the facts and circumstances, that deserved to go forward."

The trial testimony

Testimony spanned more than five and a half days during the trial and included multiple experts who offered conflicting testimony on whether the use of force against Lyoya was justified. Testimony also focused heavily on Schurr's Taser, which the former police officer said he feared would be used on him.

The shooting happened April 4, 2022. Aime Tuyishme, a passenger in Lyoya’s car, testified that the two had been drinking throughout the previous day when Lyoya — who had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.29, more than three times the legal limit in Michigan, according to Kent County's medical examiner — pulled over to check a sound his car was making. Schurr pulled up behind the vehicle, Tuyishme said.

Schurr testified that he issued multiple verbal commands — 29, according to his attorneys — to Lyoya, including asking him for his license. Eventually, Lyoya fled from the scene and Schurr followed. That’s when the two got into a struggle over Schurr’s Taser.

At least two officers with the Grand Rapids Police Department testified that Schurr followed his training in his encounter with Lyoya and the use of force was justified.

“I think a reasonable officer would perform the same way in the same situation,” Captain David Siver testified.

For his part, Schurr took the stand to testify in his own defense on Friday, describing the encounter with Lyoya, how he initially gave him the "benefit of the doubt" when he couldn't find his license. After the foot chase, Schurr said he was "running on fumes" and feared for his life when Lyoya grabbed his Taser.

“I believed that if I hadn't done it at that time … then I wasn’t gonna go home,” he testified.

Seth Stoughton, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, largely focused on “officer-created jeopardy,” where an officer’s actions unnecessarily escalated a situation or created risk.

“If an imminent threat is present, then use of force is justified. But what level is justified? What is the nature and severity of the use of force? And what is the nature and severity of the threat posed by the subject, if any?” he said.

Stoughton said he and his colleague, fellow use-of-force expert Nicholas G. Bloomfield, reviewed the video footage of the incident and found that Schurr made some reasonable decisions during the incident, but erred once after he chose to chase Lyoya.

“In policing, the goal is not just to catch whoever runs away, it’s to do so safely. You don’t know what that person is doing in the car, what they’re doing with the evidence in the car. You also expose yourself to some unnecessary risk,” Stoughton said.

Should the case be retried, Borgula said he would attempt to block Stoughton's testimony on "officer-created jeopardy." He called the theory "absolutely wrong."

"If there is going to be another trial, we're going to be asking the Court of Appeals to decide whether officer-created jeopardy is something that should apply in a criminal case," Borgula said, "and whether officers, if they make any negligent act early on, they can no longer defend themselves if someone turns on them with a dangerous weapon."

_____

©2025 www.detroitnews.com. Visit at detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.