The trial of three Washington state police officers accused of employing excessive force leading to the death of Manuel Ellis entered a critical phase this week. Attorneys presented closing arguments, providing starkly different narratives that will weigh heavily on the jury’s verdict.

Defence’s Position: “He Created His Own Death”

Wayne Fricke, the attorney for Tacoma police Officer Christopher Burbank, asserted that Manuel Ellis’s behaviour, driven by a methamphetamine addiction, was the catalyst for the officer’s use of force. Fricke argued during closing statements, “This is a situation where he created his death.” According to the defence, Ellis’s violent and erratic conduct compelled the officers to respond with force, framing their actions as a necessary reaction to the situation at hand.

Prosecution’s Rebuttal: Assessing Credibility and Contradictions

In contrast, special prosecutor Patty Eakes countered Fricke’s claims by urging the jury to scrutinize the officers’ credibility. Eakes emphasized the importance of contrasting their statements with witness testimonies and video evidence. The prosecution, representing the Washington Attorney General’s Office, seeks to establish that excessive force was used, leading to Ellis’s tragic death. Eakes played audio clips of officers’ statements, highlighting contradictions and inconsistencies to cast doubt on the defence’s narrative.

Critical Examination of Video Evidence

Central to the trial’s dynamics is the scrutiny of video evidence. Eakes questioned the believability of the officers’ accounts by comparing them to the visuals captured during the incident. One pivotal moment was when Officer Collins claimed that Ellis lifted him off his feet and threw him into the street, which Eakes argued had no witness corroboration and was not captured on camera. The prosecutor challenged the officers’ version of events, questioning the reliability of their statements.

Discrepancies and Contradictions

Multiple discrepancies emerged during the trial, such as Officer Collins asserting that Ellis never uttered the words “I can’t breathe.” The responding Officer Rankine contradicted this claim, stating that Ellis did say he couldn’t breathe but in a calm and everyday voice. These contradictions, along with discrepancies in the officers’ accounts, form the crux of the prosecution’s argument against the officers.

Defense’s Assertion of Lawful Arrest

Amidst the contradictions and refutations, the officers’ defense maintained that they acted properly. Fricke and Ausserer, attorneys for Officers Burbank and Collins, respectively, contended that the use of force was warranted as Ellis resisted arrest and assaulted the officers. The defense emphasized that the officers followed their training and fulfilled their duty to bring Ellis under control. They urged the jury not to compound the tragedy of Ellis’s death by convicting innocent officers.

Impact on Police Accountability Dialogue

As the trial moves toward deliberations, the case remains a focal point in the broader national conversation about police conduct and accountability. The outcome of this trial, which marks the first since the removal of the requirement to demonstrate malicious intent in police conduct cases, has implications for future discussions on the use of force by law enforcement.

Final Arguments and Deliberations Ahead

With closing arguments concluded, the prosecution will have one more opportunity to address the jury before deliberations commence. The jury’s decision will determine the fate of Officers Burbank, Collins, and Rankine and contribute to ongoing discussions about justice, police accountability, and the need for reform in law enforcement practices. The trial’s resolution is anticipated to have a lasting impact on the trajectory of similar cases in the future.