Judge to decide if jury can consider self-defense in case of man who shot at Corinth officers

While Williams pleaded not guilty, Williams’ defense lawyers, Gina Morgan and Spencer Robuck, said they are not disputing that Williams shot at officers — there is indisputable video evidence of him doing so. Instead, they argue that he didn’t point his gun or shoot first and that he shot at the officers in self-defense.

In Texas, a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense if the evidence raised during trial can support that claim, regardless of how strong the evidence is. After both sides closed their cases, Williams’ defense attorneys argued the testimony did support self-defense, but state utors disagreed.

Outside the presence of the jury, Judge Lee Gabriel said she’d need to see more supporting case text before she could make a ruling on whether she would instruct the jury to consider self-defense as a defense in this case.

Tuesday’s testimony showed evidence of the several angles of camera footage that captured the shooting. The state also called its witnesses — Corinth Officers Archippus Daily, Ashley Flack and Jennifer Allen — who each testified that Williams’ actions cause them to fear for their lives that night.

Flack was the officer who shot a marked less-lethal weapon first. Then Williams drew his gun from a holster and shot at the officers. The officers returned fire with lethal guns, shooting Williams several times in the shoulder area, bottom and legs.

Williams’ wife, Iris Washington, who was caught in the officers’ gunfire and shot in the ankle, also testified that she feared the officers were going to kill her and her husband.

But the jury did not hear whether Williams feared for his life that night, as he chose not to testify in the trial. What’s up for debate in whether the jury can be provided a self-defense instruction is if, after hearing the evidence, the jury can reasonably infer he was afraid for his life.

Judge Gabriel said in the case law regarding a defendant claiming self-defense (including defense of one’s self, defense of another or necessity and proportionality) against peace officers that she had reviewed, almost all the defendants were under search or arrest. In two other instances, the defendant was still in custody, such as during transport or while being moved from one cell to another.

None of those were applicable to this case, she said. The officers testified that Williams was engaging in a consensual encounter with the officers, meaning he chose to engage with them and could have walked away. He was not under search or arrest until after he had shot officers and fallen to the ground, they testified.

If the defense could provide Gabriel with other applicable case law, the judge said she wanted to “do the right thing” and include the self-defense charge for the jury. But she said she needed more precedential authority.

State utor Jesse Davis said the state objected to any self-defense instruction. He said there was no evidence presented for the jury to infer what he believed he was doing by shooting at the officers and why he was doing it.

While Davis said he is aware the law allows for some inference of what might be going through a defendant’s head, he said that would have required Williams to verbalize his thoughts — but he didn’t say much on video after Flack shot him with the less-lethal shotgun, and he didn’t testify.

Judge Gabriel, noting the video footage of him being shot first with the less-lethal shotgun and his immediate reaction of shooting a lethal weapon back, asked whether that would be evidence to infer he was reacting in fear. Davis argued that simply shooting at officers was not enough evidence of his state of mind.

Davis argued that none of Williams’ actions or words were defensive in nature or displayed that he wanted to withdraw from the encounter and didn’t want a fight. What could be heard on the video after Flack deployed the less-lethal shotgun at Williams, Davis said, was Williams calling her a b---h and pulling out his weapon to shoot. Davis argued that this comment was the opposite of defensive.

Morgan argued that every witness gave testimony that the officers escalated and had their firearms pointed and had fired their weapons, although less lethal, first. Morgan said the judge should leave it to the jury to decide whether Williams acted out of fear or not and include the self-defense charge in the jury instructions.

Again, Davis argued that they could make inferences but not assumptions. Davis said that without more evidence, the jury deciding what was going on in Williams’ mind would go beyond inferences. The prosecutor argued there was no evidence that Williams believed the officers used unlawful force or deadly force and feared for his life.

Morgan argued that the state was trying to insinuate that Williams has to testify, even though he has the legal right not to. She said the three separate videos included plenty of evidence of self-defense. She called it “ludicrous” to suggest that the jury members can’t make their own inferences.

Davis said it was a stretch to suggest Williams was defending his wife. He said there was no evidence that Williams was defending anybody or himself and that Williams saying “b---h” suggested he acted out of anger. Judge Gabriel agreed that she didn’t think there was any evidence to support him defending someone else and that the only evidence that could point to self-defense was that Flack shot Williams with the less-lethal weapon first.

Morgan agreed to provide Gabriel with examples of applicable self-defense case law to review Wednesday night.

Again outside of the jury’s presence, Gabriel and the attorneys will take up whether to give the jury self-defense instruction early Thursday morning. The judge intends to provide the jury with the charge and deliberation instructions after 9 a.m. After that, the jury will deliberate its verdict.

If convicted, Williams could face 5 to 99 years, or life, in prison for each of the three counts of aggravated assault of a peace officer.