Judge offers support to jury who acquitted Yanez

The judge who presided over the trial of a St. Anthony police officer charged with manslaughter in the death of Philando Castile defended jurors’ decision to acquit him in a letter he wrote them after the case concluded.

Ramsey County District Judge William H. Leary III penned the letter late last month about a week after the jury’s verdict was delivered in a tense courtroom crowded with Castile’s and officer Jeronimo Yanez’s family and friends after five days of deliberation.

As the jurors’ findings were read aloud in court, Castile’s mother, Valerie Castile, swore and walked out. Several others followed. Yanez’s loved ones hugged in relief. A rally was held later that night at the state Capitol, and a subsequent march temporarily shut down light-rail service and concluded with arrests on Interstate 94.

“I want to reassure you that the criticism of the verdict some have expressed is likely due to a failure to understand what you were asked to do and that you faithfully fulfilled the difficult task you were asked to undertake,” Leary wrote.

He went on to say that while he could not disclose his own opinion about the legality of Yanez’s conduct, he said jurors could rest assured that their assessment was grounded in the law.

“Your verdict was fully supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and the law you were obligated to apply,” Leary told jurors in his June 23 letter.

Leary also addressed the backlash jurors have faced in the wake of their verdict, writing it likely stemmed from some people’s “failure to understand what you were asked to undertake.”

He went on to break down the task placed in front of jurors, emphasizing that the state’s burden to prove the elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt was “as always, high.”

Specifically, he said the state had to prove Yanez’s decision to fatally shoot Castile during a traffic stop last July “created an unreasonable, substantial and unjustifiable risk of creating death or great bodily harm, of which he was aware, then disregarded.”

And further: “that a reasonable and prudent police officer (in Yanez’s same situation) would have realized that, in those few seconds and under circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving,” that the “words he was choosing, his tone of voice, and his failure to create ‘time and space’ were creating an unreasonable, substantial and unjustifiable risk.”

“I have no doubt that you fulfilled this commitment,” Leary wrote.

HIGH-PROFILE CASE

Yanez was the first police officer in modern Minnesota history to be charged in an officer-involved shooting. 

The Latino officer was found not guilty of charges of second-degree manslaughter in Castile’s death as well as two counts of dangerous discharge of a firearm in connection with the fatal shooting of the 32-year-old black man.

Yanez pulled Castile over July 6 because he had a broken taillight, and because Yanez believed he looked like a suspect in a recent armed robbery in the area.

After asking to see Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance, Castile told Yanez, “Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me.”

Just after telling him not to reach for it, Yanez fired his gun seven times, as Castile’s girlfriend and her 4-year-old daughter sat near him in the car.

Yanez testified that Castile ignored his orders and was gripping his gun when the officer shot. The state as well as Castile’s girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, maintained at trial that Castile was trying to get his wallet so he could hand over the driver’s license the officer had just requested to see when Yanez recklessly shot him.

Protests broke out locally and nationally after his death over what many saw as another example of excessive use of force by police against black men.

The outcry was partially sparked by a video Reynolds live-streamed on Facebook shortly after the shooting. It showed Castile slumped over in a blood-soaked white T-shirt as Yanez yells, “I told him not to reach for it!” and Reynolds insists that Castile hadn’t been reaching for his gun.

Dash-cam video of the incident was released to the public after the trial, further inflaming public anger over what some denounced as an unjust verdict.

Leary said in his letter that it was the dash-cam video, coupled with anger over issues “jurors were never asked to address” that appeared to be behind public criticism of the verdict.

“You were never asked to decide whether racism continues to exist, whether certain members of our community are disproportionately affected by police tactics, or whether police training is ineffective,” Leary wrote. “You were simply asked to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether a crime had been committed.”

He ended his letter with a quote from Malcolm X that reads:

“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or is against. I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”

To that end, Leary told jurors he hopes their vital work in the judicial system “will soon be understood … and respected.”

The Ramsey County attorney’s office declined to comment on the letter and pointed people to a recently uploaded page on its website that provides answers to frequently asked questions about the Yanez case.

Neither Yanez’s defense attorneys nor Leary could be immediately reached for comment.

While Ramsey County District Chief Judge John Guthmann said he’d never written a letter to jurors after a verdict, he said it’s not uncommon for there to be some form of communication.

“I have been asked by jurors in many cases whether they did the right thing or whether their verdict was right,” Guthmann said. “That is a very common sentiment for jurors to have because they are being asked to make a big decision and it’s not something they are used to doing every day.”

He said he typically addresses such concerns in open court after a verdict is delivered but said each judge uses his or her discretion about how best to tackle such matters. He added that he had not read Leary’s letter.

OTHERS REACT

John Riemer, a public defender in Ramsey County, said he wasn’t aware of other cases prompting similar letters from judges but said he suspected the unusual circumstances of the Yanez case motivated Leary.

“The charging in and of itself was historic, let alone the case proceeding to trial,” Riemer said. “It seems clear that Judge Leary wanted to recognize the extraordinary circumstances that these jurors deliberated under and the public scrutiny on their verdict.”

In her 26 years of practicing law in Ramsey County, 16 of which she served as county attorney, Susan Gaertner said she never heard of another instance of a judge writing such a letter. But, similar to Riemer, she said she believes the unique circumstances compelled Leary to take a unique step.

“Very commonly, judges sit down with a jury after a verdict to answer questions and talk through a case,” Gaertner said. “In this instance, the judge, I think, very appropriately went a step beyond that.

“His letter does does two things,” she continued. “It reassures the jurors in a very public way that criticism of them is unfair, and second, it tells the public that in this case, in this courtroom, the system worked.”