DA Announces Charges in Atlanta Rayshard Brooks Killing by Police Officer: Press Conference Transcript

District Attorney Paul Howard: (00:25)
Before we started today, I wanted to acknowledge, Mrs. Miller, who is the husband of Rayshard Brooks. She is here today with our attorney and after we make our presentation, she is going to make some remarks or Mr. Stewart. We also have with us today, three witnesses from West Memphis, Tennessee, and they are here with their lawyer, Sean Williams. We are also going to ask Mr. Williams to address you as well.

So we have decided to issue warrants in this case today. I have with me copies of the warrants and after my presentation, we will let you know how you can get copies of the warrants, today. So the question is ask, why were we able to charge this case now? So I want to explain that we have already had an opportunity to speak with three of the witnesses in this case and those are the three witnesses who were from West Memphis, Tennessee. We have had an opportunity to conduct the interviews with seven other witnesses, other than the three witnesses from Tennessee. We’ve also had an opportunity to view.

Let’s see if you can turn it on. [inaudible 00:02:33]. So Tracy, that’s backwards. So we have had an opportunity to review eight videotapes, two Atlanta body cam tapes, two Atlanta police department dash cam tapes. We have also had an opportunity to review a Wendy’s surveillance tape. We have also viewed three citizens cell phone videos. With many of the videos we have the opportunity to enhance the videos so that we could get a better look.

The other thing that we have had an opportunity to do is to view some of the physical evidence. The Chevrolet trailblazer was a vehicle that was in the line at a Wendy’s on the night of this incident and it received a shot from officer Ralph’s gun. We’ve had an opportunity along with the GBI now to view that trailblazer. My office has had an opportunity to inspect the crime scene. We have conducted a canvass of the area. We started our investigation at about 1:15 AM on Saturday morning, and we have been working on this case around the clock since that time.

Go to the next slide. We have spent some time examining the taser evidence in this case, we’ve actually examined and possess the two tasers that we used. We have also had an opportunity to examine the taser logs that are prepared as the tasers are use. We have also consulted with a taser expert from the company that manufacturers the tasers. We received a preliminary medical autopsy. We’ve received the preliminary ballistics report and in reaching our conclusions today, we have worked with both the Georgia Bureau of investigation, as well as the Atlanta police department.

This will be the fourth time that we have asked that arrest warrants or issued in a case before an indictment, this list, the other three cases that we were involved with where an arrest warrant was issued prior to indictment. Unfortunately, this marks the 40th prosecution of police officers for misconduct here in our county. This is the ninth time that we’ve prosecuted a homicide case committed by a police officer, eight of those cases involved black males. One of those cases involved a black female. So in reaching our decision, there were some considerations that we considered important. One of the things that we noted from our evaluation was that Mr. Brooks on the night of this incident was calm. He was cordial and really displayed a cooperative nature. Secondly, even though Mr. Brooks was slightly impaired, his demeanor during this incident was almost jovial. Also, we noted that he received many instructions from the Atlanta officers and he was asked many questions. Some of the questions he was asked repeatedly, but for 41 minutes and 17 seconds, he followed every instruction. He answered the questions.

The fourth thing we noted is that Mr. Brooks was never informed that he was under arrest for driving under the influence and this is a requirement of the Atlanta police department. When one is charged with DUI, the Atlanta police department’s own procedures require that that person is informed immediately that they are under arrest. And then he was grabbed from the rear by officer Rolfe, who made an attempt to physically restrain him after the 41 minute and 17 second discussion. We concluded in considered it as one of our important considerations that Mr. Brooks never presented himself as a threat.

At the very beginning, he was peacefully sleeping in his car after he was awakened by the officer, he was cooperative and he was directed to move his car to another location. He calmly moved his car. Mr. Brooks was asked whether or not he had a weapon. He indicated that he did not, without any resistance. He passed his driver’s license to the officers and the officers then asked Mr. Brooks whether or not he would consent to a pat down or a body search. Mr. Brooks’ allowed them to search him and the search yielded no weapon. We found that it was of interest that when the officers patted Mr. Brooks down, they noticed there was a bulge in his pants. They did not pull that item out of his pocket. They took Mr. Brooks’s word that that bulge represented a number of dollar bills, but Mr. Brooks never displayed any aggressive behavior during the 41 minutes and 17 seconds.

Now, this is another important consideration that we discovered as we evaluated this case. Once Mr. Brooks was shot there isn’t Atlanta policy that requires that the officers have to provide timely medical attention to Mr. Brooks or to anyone who is injured. But after Mr. Brooks was shot for some period of two minutes and 12 seconds, there was no medical attention applied to Mr. Brooks. But when we examine the video tape and in our discussions with witnesses, what we discovered is during the two minutes and 12 seconds, that officer Rolfe actually kicked Mr. Brooks, while he laid on the ground, while he was there fighting for his life. Secondly, from the video tape, we were able to see that the other officer, officer Brosnan actually stood on Mr. Brooks’ shoulders while he was there struggling for his life.

We were able to conclude that based on the way that these officers conducted themselves while Mr. Brooks was lying there, that the demeanor of the officers immediately after the shooting did not reflect any fear or danger of Mr. Brooks. But their actions really reflected other kinds of emotions. So as we are drawing our legal conclusion in this case, we were led by the two foundational cases in this matter one being Tennessee versus Garner. And what that case point side is when an officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect that the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or of serious physical injury to that officer. The next foundational case that we used in our analysis is Graham versus Connor, which says that this test is based upon that of a reasonable officer on the scene and not the individual officer, but a reasonable officer on the scene. We’ve concluded at the time Mr. Brooks was shot that he did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical…

Not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or officers. If you would get the photograph. Yeah, the tape. That’s good right there. This is the first photograph that we were able to… It’s leaning kind of crooked. See if you can get a straight one. [inaudible 00:12:52] What this photograph illustrates is the point that Officer Rolfe, at this point, was firing a taser. And this was Mr. Brooks, who was firing a taser as well. But I don’t know if you can see it clearly. The prongs from the taser were actually fired above Officer Rolfe here. I’d like you to also also look at the position of Officer Rolfe and Mr. Brooks, that they are here next to this red automobile. If we look at the next photograph… It’s fine. If we look at the next photograph, we’ll see that the positions of both parties, they’ve changed. Mr. Brooks has now moved away from his original position, and we estimate the distance is probably about 12 feet.

And officer Rolfe has moved about 10 feet from the position in what is our exhibit number one. This second video, our second still, shows the very instance that the shot was fired into the back of Mr. Brooks. And we have also calculated the distance. And the distance that they are part at that time was 18 feet three inches, at the time that this shot was fired. So based upon that information, we have concluded that Mr. Brooks was running away at the time that the shot was fired. Mr. Brooks was shot twice in the back. One of the shots was the center shot to the back that penetrated his heart. And it was done by a nine millimeter Glock. Now, one of the things that we also relied upon in our conclusion is something that is called under the law, or referred to as an excited utterance.

And that’s when someone makes an immediate statement. And because it is made without the ability to consult with counsel or to think about it, under the law, an excited utterance is considered as highly reliable. And at the time that the shot was fired, the utterance made by Officer Rolfe was, ” I got him.” That was the statement that was made at that time. We also noted that Officer Rolfe was firing a taser at Mr. Brooks. The City of Atlanta SOPs, in fact, prohibit officers from firing tasers at someone who is running away. So the City of Atlanta says you cannot even fire a taser at someone who’s running away. So you certainly can’t fire a hand gun at someone who is running away.

So in addition to our findings, as many of you all already know, that the Atlanta mayor, Mayor Keisha Bottoms and the police department concluded that Officer Rolfe’s actions were excessive and in violation of APD’s SOP. As an SOP, I believe it’s 4.1.1. And after their analysis that the actions were excessive, Officer Rolfe was fired. We have also concluded that Rolfe was aware that the taser in Brooks’s possession, that it was fired twice. And once it’s fired twice, it presented no danger to him or to any other persons. Now we have had something quite remarkable that happened in this case, and it involves the testimony of the other officer Devin Brosnan because Officer Brosnan has now become a state’s witness. He has decided to testify on behalf of the state in this case. What he has said to us that is within a matter of days, he plans to make a statement regarding the culpability of Officer Rolfe, but he indicated that he is not psychologically willing to give that statement today.

Officer Brosnan, however, has admitted that he was in fact, standing on Mr. Brooks’s body immediately after the shooting. So these are the charges that we have had filed a day, signed by one of our superior court judges. These are the 11 charges against Officer Rolfe. The first charge is felony murder. This is the death that is as a result of a underlying felony. And in this case, the underlying felony is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And the possible sentences for a felony murder conviction would be life, life without parole, or the death penalty. Now he’s also charged in the arrest warrant with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. And this is a count charging him for the shooting of Mr. Brooks. And the possible sentence for aggravated assault is 1 to 20 years. The third aggravated assault account is for the shooting towards or in the direction of Mr. Melvin Evans. Mr. Evans was the person who was seated in the car. Do we have a picture of it? And if you would point out this automobile is the place that Mr. Evans and his two companions were driving. And the shot was fired, and I believe we’ve also got a photo of the shot that ended up in the vehicle. Think you got it. Stand it up. And so with counts against officer Rolfe, it charges him with aggravated assault for firing the weapon in or in the direction of Danielle Killians, who was in the passenger side of the front seat of the car. Next slide. Count five is an aggravated assault charge. And this was a charge for shooting towards or in the direction of Michael Perkins. Mr. Perkins was seated in the rear of this same vehicle at that time. There’s a charge for criminal damage for shooting into that vehicle. Also, Officer Rolfe is charged with seven violations of office. Each one of those carries a one to five sentence. These are violations of his oath of office for the City of Atlanta.

Arresting Mr. Brooks for the DUI without immediately informing him of the arrest, shooting a taser at Mr. Brooks while he was running away, which again is a violation of Atlanta’s own SOP. Thirdly, excessive force when shooting a firearm at Mr. Brooks. And number four is the failure to render timely medical aid. Those are the four violations of oath. The eighth is for kicking Mr. Brooks. And the possible sentence for kicking Mr. Brooks is from 1 to 20 years. And we actually have a photograph of the… And can you go to the next one? These are the charges for Officer Brosnan, and there are a total of three charges. The first charge is for aggravated assault. And this is for standing or stepping on Mr. Brooks’s shoulder. And the possible sentence for this crime is 1 to 20 years. And this is a photograph of Officer Brosnan, who you can see to the right. And at the time of the photograph, he is standing on the body of Mr. Brooks. And as I’d indicated earlier in our conversations with Officer Brosnan, he has admitted that he stood on the body of Mr. Brooks.

… on the body of Mr. Brooks. He said he believes that he was standing on Mr. Brooks’s arm, but that is what the photograph shows. We’ve also charged him with additionally, two violations of oath. One is far the standing on the shoulder that is an unauthorized weapon list control technique, which the city of Atlanta prohibits. And the second violation of oath was for their failure to render to timely medical aid to Mr. Brooks. Let’s see. So the arrest warrants have already been signed, we are asking Officer Rolfe and Officer Brosnan to surrender themselves by 6:00 PM on the morrow, because Officer Brosnan is now becoming a cooperating witness for the state. We are asking the court to grant a bond of $50,000 and to allow Officer Brosnan to sign that bond, as I indicated that he would become one of the first police officers to actually indicate that he is willing to testify or get someone in his own department.

As for Officer Rolfe, the person who fired the two bullets, we are recommending no bond for Officer Rolfe. If he is given a bond, that would be done by one of our superior court judges. But because of the severity of his act, and then following up that act with kicking Mr. Brooks, we’re asking that he not be granted a bond. I do want to ask Mr. Shawn Williams, Mr. Williams represents Melvin Evans who was driving the vehicle from Memphis. I have already apologized to Mr. Evans on behalf of the people of Fulton County in the city of Atlanta. He was only down here for a short while, and it’s really unfortunate that his vehicle was fired upon that night. Shawn.

Shawn Williams: (26:42)
Thank you, Mr. Howard. I first want to, on behalf of all three of my clients who not only witnessed this horrific and tragic killing of this young man, I want to offer the condolences from them to the Rayshard Brooks’ and particularly his daughter. It has been very difficult for each one of my clients because they witnessed it and they themselves have a lot of emotion on what they saw and what they was a part of involuntarily. I want to thank Paul Howard personally and commend him. I’ve been doing these types of cases across this nation and Mr. Howard’s one of the few prosecutors who will actually go on the line to even investigate something like this, as serious as this, and to do it in a way that I believe makes the city proud as I’m a resident of this great city. And as he said, with greatness come responsibility.

The city of Atlanta is a great city and I wanted to apologize to my clients themselves, but they came from Memphis and witnessed this. They’re not going to give statements here today, but I will confirm to you that they have met with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, provided them statements as well as information to support what you saw presented today by Paul Howard. It confirms that at no time was Mr. Brooks ever a threat to anyone, including the officers in that Wendy’s parking lot. My client’s statements confirmed that Mr. Brooks was running, his back was turned, and was never a threat to anybody. The only threat that arose is when officer pulled out a gun. Two of those bullets entered Mr. Rayshard Brooks’ body killing him. One of those bullets entered my client’s vehicle, almost killing them. We could be here talking about four murders. And for that, my clients have suffered a lot, but nothing compared to what this family has.

And with that said, my clients are here to join the fight of justice, to provide any assistance to this family, as well as to the Fulton County district attorney’s office, as well as the GBI. And they look forward to an opportunity where they have justice is served. And I want you to know that they were fearful for their lives. That bullet came very close to them and Mr. Brooks’s body laid less than 10 feet from their vehicle. And keep in mind, this was in a crowded Wendy’s drive through parking lot.

And when you take the actions of reasonableness, as Mr. Howard said, reasonableness never has a deadly weapon being fired when you have innocent bystanders like my clients standing. All of those things as well as the fact that Mr. Brooks was not a threat to any officer that night should have gone into play, but it didn’t. And I hope and pray that with this action by Fulton County district attorney’s office, as well as the actions by Mayor Bottoms and the task force that we don’t have to have any more press conferences like this anytime soon. Thank you, Mr. Howard. I appreciate it.

And the ladies and gentlemen, Mrs. Miller, who is the wife of Rayshard Brooks is here today. I think her attorney Chris Steward is going to speak in her stead.

Chris Stewart: (30:43)
Good evening. I’m Chris Stewart and my law partner, Justin Miller. Tamika is not in a position to speak right now. She wasn’t aware of all of this information, just like we weren’t aware, just like I don’t believe the nation was aware of all of this, that the shot happened after the deployment of the taser, where he started running again, that you would kick another human being after you just put two bullets in his back. But even in dark times like this, you have to try and see the light. And the positivity of this situation is the courageousness of Officer Brosnan to step forward and say, “What happened was wrong.” It is officers like that who change policing.

Chris Stewart: (31:34)
And I know he’ll probably catch all kinds of problems and hate and things like that. But it’s the courageousness of those type of officers that we love and support. It’s the courageousness of district attorneys that are going to do their job. And we were willing to accept whatever the findings were, but that’s why people elect you. Do your job. That’s why you become a police officer. Do what’s right. So it’s not a day of joy watching the charges and what’s going to happen to this officer because it shouldn’t happen. So it’s heartbreaking, but it is an attempt to redefine justice. Because like I said before, we don’t have any idea what it is anymore in this world. And if this is what justice is going to start looking like, officers stepping forward to stop other officers coming forward and helping try and get a family who now has their father gone justice, then we support it. I thank everybody out there who supporting this family and trying to change the world of policing for the better for everybody.

All right. I am going to try to take a few questions. I wanted to… I promised Mrs. Miller that I would get a chance to spend a little time with her before they had to leave. It is a very unfortunate situation for her. And so I’ll take a few questions at this time.

Speaker 1: (33:15)
Mr. Howard, could you elaborate please on this being the first time a law enforcement officer here in Atlanta has decided to come forward and say, they’re willing to speak against a partner is the department, sir?

As I indicated earlier, we’ve had about 40 of these cases that we prosecuted. And I don’t remember a circumstance where we’ve had an officer, particularly in a case this important, to step forward and to say that they would cooperate with the state. So we are really appreciative of Officer Brosnan. Hopefully, that will mean that this matter can be resolved in a much quicker manner, but we certainly appreciate his courage in standing up and taking that step.

Speaker 2: (34:02)
Mr. Howard, say you’re applying for reelection. Is this decision much quicker than the previous cases and how can we have a political statement. What’s your response to that?

I don’t think I understood your question, but if it has something to do with the election, this is what I’d say. Let’s deal with Mr. Brooks today. We can deal with the elections tomorrow. Is that all right?

Speaker 3: (34:30)
At what point did Officer Brosnan decide to [inaudible 00:34:24]?

We spoke with him on last night and we spoke to him again today. And sometime in the day he made the decision that he would serve as a cooperating witness.

Speaker 4: (34:42)
Howard, can you give us more information about what Officer Brosnan said about that night? Any more details about his mindset or any more details or any other details on that matter?

Well, he initially told us that he thought that the situation was well in hand and the situation was calm, but he was not an experienced DUI investigator. So that’s why he called Officer Rolfe in. He has indicated to us that he was somewhat surprised that it accelerated into an actual arrest because he thought that the situation might have been resolved before then. So when he then decided to describe what happened once the wrestling took place on the ground, you could tell he became a lot more emotional. And that’s when he said to us that he needed some additional time to explain to us his feelings about the shooting that took place immediately afterwards. He did tell us that he approached the body afterwards, and he admitted that he did, in fact, as he described it, stand on the arm of Mr. Brooks. We ask, why did he stand on his…

… Brooks. We asked why did he stand on his arm and he said something to the effect that he really didn’t know what was going on and he was trying to ensure that Mr. Brooks did not have a weapon, and we found that kind of strange because Mr. Brooks had already displayed to them the fact that he did not have a weapon.

Speaker 5: (36:28)
[inaudible 00:36:28] there are other [inaudible 00:36:29] in your office right now. What do you say to the families who are looking for closure? They see this and they’re like. “This is getting all the attention.” What can you say to those families?

Well this is what I would say. We have been working diligently to prepare those cases, but this case has something that many of the others don’t have. Number one, we’ve got video tape. We don’t have body cams, we don’t have dash cams, and so we have spent an inordinate amount of time and large sums of money trying to recreate crime scenes. The police officers will not give us statements, and that’s why we are very surprised, and really almost shocked that [Brazden 00:37:16] has come forward, because in our other cases, we do not get statements to assist us from the officers involved. One of the things that I’m hoping that we will pass, not only in our state but in the entire country, is that I think we need to change the law. I believe that prosecutors should be allowed to indict cases directly without a grand jury when they involve police shootings.

And the question that you asked me, I would say to those folks that are waiting, if I had the authority to sign the indictment, I would sign them today. And I’m hoping, our legislature is in session, if you really want to do something to improve police misconduct, why don’t you give district attorneys the right to proceed with the case without waiting for a grand jury? And that’s particularly important now during the virus is because it looks like right now, we won’t convene a grand jury in Fulton County until October. That’s a long time. I wish that we could do it today.

Speaker 6: (38:29)
[crosstalk 00:38:29]?

Sometimes we do and sometimes we don’t.

Speaker 6: (38:37)
Why not in this case?

Well we didn’t need it, because as we pointed out, the evidence was available. We could move forward without getting the reports from the GBI. And we’ve been working with the GBI. In fact today we worked together with the automobile that we talked about. So it was different circumstance. Because once you get the video tapes, and we’ve had eight of them, I believe, in this case, it places the case on a different level of being investigated.

Speaker 7: (39:10)
[inaudible 00:39:10] you said he was not obstructing the officer. Was the fact that he was running away, [inaudible 00:39:16]?

Well that’s just one of the things. As we said before, the whole casual conversation, the fact that they patted him down, he had no weapon, even the body language between the officers and Mr. Brooks, it was very casual, very informal. Nothing seemed to happen that would indicate that he was of some danger. But you’re right, at the critical point of the shooting, what the evidence shows, that he was some 18 feet, three inches away, his back was turned, and I believe a reasonable person would conclude that he was not an immediate threat at that time.

Speaker 8: (39:59)
Mr. Howard-

Yes sir?

Speaker 8: (40:00)
What do you feel about your warrant and your indictment versus qualified immunity? Do you think that qualified immunity should be changed?

Well I have put together a list of nine recommendations, and I believe recommendation number eight is that we are to eliminate both sovereign immunity and qualified immunity for cases involving police shootings. We’ve got to do it. And my barometer that says to me that something is wrong with that immunity, even our good friend Clarence Thomas says something is wrong with it. And when Clarence Thomas says that it’s bad, you know it’s probably pretty bad. And so I think we need to change it. We need to change it so that the families of victims like Mrs. Miller, the way that the law stands right now, they don’t stand a very good chance if they decided to pursue some lawsuit. It ought to change for people all over the country.

Speaker 9: (41:05)
Mr. Howard, how would you characterize the word [inaudible 00:41:07] and what happens next? What has to go into all of it now?

Well what happens next is the way that the law stands now, we’ll wait for an indictment. And as the other reporter pointed out, we’ve already scheduled about seven cases that are scheduled to be presented to grand juries before this one. So I would suspect that we’re probably talking about January or February when we would get a chance to present it to a grand jury. I believe that should be eliminated. I don’t think we should wait because why can’t the district attorney just sign the indictment and let the case go forward?

Speaker 10: (41:49)
Mr. Howard, while you’re recommending no bond for the officer, what’s the likelihood that the Superior Court judge will give him one? If so, what do you think it ought to be?

I have long given up predicting the Superior Court judges. I do not know.

Speaker 11: (42:05)
[inaudible 00:42:05] oversight and everything in the state, what do you feel about [inaudible 00:42:16]?

Well as I mentioned, the list of the nine things that I’m recommending, one of the things that I think we ought to do for the whole country, if there is a police force, there are 18,000 police departments in the United States, every one of them ought to have a civil citizen review board. But I think the citizen review board ought to be changed to require that when the city does not follow the recommendation of the review board, that failure to follow it ought to be signed off by the mayor, it ought to be signed off by the police chief, and it ought to be signed off by the city attorney, because I know that with your board, a great many of the recommendations are never followed. And the citizens believe what’s the use of having a board if they never follow any of the recommendations? And so I think it ought to change for people all over the United States, and it’s really kind of sad that Atlanta is one of the only jurisdictions in the entire United States with an active civilian review board.

Speaker 12: (43:21)
[inaudible 00:43:21]?

Through the DA’s office, yes. Yes. So let me take one more.

Speaker 13: (43:39)
Officer [inaudible 00:43:39] put out a statement saying that you were moving too quickly [inaudible 00:43:41]?

Yeah. Well I would expect that he would do that, and I’m not surprised by that, but we’ve already interviewed him twice, and so I can tell you what he has said to us.

Speaker 14: (44:00)
Mr. Howard, can you quickly respond, I’m told you’re representing Officer [inaudible 00:44:00] gunshot coming at him when he saw the flashes [inaudible 00:44:00]. Do you have a response to that?

I don’t. I stand by what we’ve said today. I think that is the reasonable interpretation, and I think if there is some litigation in court, I think that what we contend will be proven to be the correct view of what happened. Thank you all very much.

DA Announces Charges in Atlanta Rayshard Brooks Killing by Police Officer: Press Conference Transcript

Other Related Transcripts

Stay updated.