Deputy Found Not Guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter

PAUL Q. GOYETTE
Founder
Goyette, Ruano & Thompson, Inc.

After almost five weeks of trial, a San Joaquin jury acquitted Stanislaus County Deputy Justin Wall of voluntary manslaughter, a case that arose from an officer-involved shooting in 2017. If convicted, Deputy Wall could have faced up to 11 years in state prison.

This case started on February 26, 2017, when the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department received a call of assault and battery at a local hotel in Salida, California. The deputies were informed that a woman had assaulted security personnel at the hotel and that the suspect fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, a deputy spotted her vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. The suspect failed to yield and started what would turn out to be a 20-minute pursuit ending in the city of Ripon in San Joaquin County. Deputy Wall and other deputies joined the pursuit. At one point, the suspect drove through spike strips that flattened all four tires of her vehicle. Nevertheless, the suspect continued to flee. After almost 20 minutes, the suspect finally stopped her car in a residential neighborhood.

Deputies and officers from the Ripon Police Department surrounded the suspect’s vehicle. A Ripon officer captured a portion of the pursuit and the officer-involved shooting on his dashboard camera. Deputy Wall pulled his K-9 SUV patrol vehicle in front of the suspect’s vehicle while other deputies stopped and exited their vehicles. Deputy Wall provided lethal cover for deputies as they began the process of attempting to extract the suspect from her vehicle. One deputy broke out the driver’s side window and deputies attempted to open the door. Another deputy had a K-9 ready to deploy if the circumstances warranted it. Two other deputies and an officer were positioned behind the suspect’s vehicle.

Deputies and officers gave the suspect numerous and repeated commands to exit the vehicle. Then, without warning, the suspect reversed her vehicle toward the deputies and officers behind her. Deputy Wall, fearing that the suspect was going to hit the deputies and officers, fired four rounds into the vehicle at the driver’s compartment. The suspect was able to maneuver her vehicle around Deputy Wall and drove out into the residential neighborhood. She eventually crashed into the front of a nearby residence. The suspect later was pronounced dead at the scene, having been hit twice by Deputy Wall’s shots.

The Dashcam Video
The criminal filing, in this case, was motivated by one factor: The video taken from the officer’s dashboard camera shows that Deputy Wall shot the suspect while she was driving forward and not in reverse, as he perceived. Initial viewing of the video seems to indicate that Deputy Wall should have easily seen that the suspect was no longer a threat to deputies and officers but was rather driving away. However, like most video cases, the initial viewing and reaction to the video are often misleading.

Human Perception and Change Blindness
This case turned on the established principles of human factors and specifically “change blindness.” “Change blindness” is the inability to see objects or events that would otherwise seem obvious. In this case, expert witness Jeffrey Martin did a detailed analysis of the numerous human perception factors that were at play on this police call. From the start, Deputy Wall stated that the reason he shot at the suspect vehicle was that it was backing up toward his fellow deputies and officers. Deputy Wall never perceived the vehicle moving forward while he shot. Deputy Wall stated that had he seen the vehicle moving forward, he would not have shot at the suspect because the vehicle did not pose a threat to anyone in front of the vehicle. Martin also did a detailed video analysis where he broke down the dashboard camera video to 29.97 frames per second and carefully analyzed the video on a frame-by-frame basis. Deputy Wall experienced several factors that made it impossible for him to perceive the vehicle moving forward at that moment.

First, the general stressful nature of the call. The incident was dangerous, unpredictable and rapidly changing. Also, the noise (barking dogs and officers yelling commands) and the flashing lights contributed to the confusion. The biggest factor affecting Deputy Wall was the specific process he followed just before the shooting. Deputy Wall initially exited his patrol vehicle and set up in a front position as the lethal cover deputy. However, Deputy Wall transitioned for a brief period from his handgun to his Taser. Deputy Wall believed that once the window was broken out, he might be able to use the Taser on the suspect to disable her long enough for deputies to extract her from the vehicle. He quickly realized that the Taser would be ineffective based on the thick jacket the suspect was wearing. Accordingly, he transitioned back to lethal cover from his Taser.

It was during this transition that the suspect vehicle began backing up toward the deputies and officers. A close examination of the video shows that Deputy Wall attempted unsuccessfully to stow his Taser with his left hand. At the same time, he was attempting to redraw his handgun. While this was going on, he was forced to change his focus from the suspect vehicle driving compartment to his vest holster. He quickly reacquired his focus on the vehicle driver compartment and shot four times as he saw the vehicle backing up toward fellow deputies and officers.

All these events took 2.7 seconds. So, in a short time, Deputy Wall attempted to stow his Taser, redraw his handgun and reacquire focus on the suspect vehicle. Based on the well-established principles of “change blindness,” Martin testified at trial that it would have been very difficult for Deputy Wall to have perceived the suspect vehicle moving forward at the time he shot.

All Witnesses Had Various Misperceptions
Every witness to the incident testified about various events that were shown to have not happened in the videotape, supporting Deputy Wall’s arguments of “change blindness” and human perception failure. For example, one officer testified that at the time the suspect reversed her vehicle, he ran completely behind his patrol vehicle. However, the video only shows that the officer sidestepped back and to his right. Another deputy testified that as the suspect reversed her vehicle, she turned in such a way as to move the back of her vehicle out toward the center of the street in a further effort to hit him. The video, however, only shows the suspect vehicle reversing directly backward. Every witness, including civilian witnesses on the scene, experienced the same perception failures that did not match up with the video evidence.

Five-Year Ordeal Comes to an End
For Justin Wall, the jury’s verdict of “not guilty” ended an almost five-year ordeal where Deputy Wall and his family were forced to live with incredible uncertainty about what the future held. Now, Deputy Wall and his family can move ahead with their lives.

When asked for comment post-trial, Deputy Wall said, “My family and I are very grateful for the outcome of my case. It has been an extremely difficult and stressful last few years while facing so much uncertainty. In early 2021, Paul Goyette and his team graciously took over my case as lead defense counsel and provided me a sense of confidence I needed to survive the hardship. Paul, Brett and their colleagues rolled up their sleeves, went to work and brought a new level of calm and comfort to a challenging time. With the help of human factors expert Jeffrey Martin, we were able to finally bring an end to this challenge on December 13, shortly after 1:30 p.m. I am also very grateful for the continued support from the Legal Defense Fund team throughout the course of my case. To say this was a team effort would be a severe understatement. I would also like to add a special thank-you to my amazing wife, Sheridan, who stood by my side throughout all of this.”

The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Vigorously Supported Deputy Wall
Another unique component of this case was that Deputy Wall had strong support from his department. Retired Sheriff Adam Christianson, current Sheriff Jeff Dirkse and Undersheriff Micky LaBarbera conducted an independent investigation and evaluation of the shooting and concluded that Deputy Wall’s shooting was a justified use of force.

More importantly, when the San Joaquin County district attorney filed voluntary manslaughter charges against Deputy Wall, Sheriff Christianson and Sheriff Dirkse refused to be bullied by outside political pressures. They kept Deputy Wall employed, working in an investigator’s assignment. This type of departmental courage and support is rare. Most police chiefs and sheriffs will choose to terminate the officer or deputy once there has been a serious criminal filing. Commendably, Sheriff Christianson, Sheriff Dirkse and the entire Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department supported Deputy Wall throughout this difficult period. Unfortunately, in today’s social climate, most police administrators would not want to endure the political and media criticism for keeping a deputy employed while serious felony criminal charges were pending.
Our firm is hopeful that other sheriffs, chiefs and police administrators will be inspired by the strength and courage demonstrated by the leaders of the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department.

About the Author
Paul Goyette has been practicing law since 1988, and in 1992 he founded Goyette, Ruano & Thompson (GRT) with a goal of using the law to get the best possible results and business outcomes for his clients. GRT, formerly Goyette & Associates, has been representing peace officers and their families across California for over 30 years. The firm has a proven track record of success representing 5,000-plus clients on both the defense and plaintiff sides of a wide range of issues including union formation and management, collective bargaining, wage and hour disputes, industrial disability retirement, pensions, fitness for duty, disability and leave review, and more. Outside of its Labor and Employment Practice, the GRT team also includes expert attorneys who handle estate planning, professional license defense, business law, writs and appeals, and civil litigation.