By John Agar
mlive.com
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A judge refused to dismiss a civil lawsuit against former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr in the fatal shooting of motorist Patrick Lyoya.
Schurr was charged with second-degree murder in the April 4, 2022, killing but a Kent County Circuit Court jury could not reach a unanimous decision.
| RELATED: Choose the right real-time policing model for your agency
Prosecutor Chris Becker declined to retry Schurr.
A three-week jury trial is set to begin Oct.19 before U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in Kalamazoo.
Schurr shot Lyoya, a 26-year-old Congolese immigrant, in the back of his head during a fight for control of the officer’s Taser after a traffic stop on the city’s Southeast Side.
Maloney issued a 31-page opinion on Thursday, Aug. 6, over the former officer’s request for a summary judgment to dismiss the case. Under the motion, the judge views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.
“The foundational problem for (Schurr) is that he fails to view the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,” Maloney wrote.
“The video evidence in this case would allow the jury to conclude that Defendant shot Lyoya in the back of the head even though Defendant had already subdued him and had no reason to think he was a threat. And if the jury so concluded, then Defendant would have obviously violated Lyoya’s constitutional rights and acted in a way not covered by governmental tort immunity under state law.”
Detroit attorney Ven Johnson , representing the Lyoya family, said the ruling is a “resounding rejection” of Schurr’s “attempt to escape accountability for the killing of Patrick Lyoya.”
He expected Schurr to appeal, but said, “Despite every effort to have this case thrown out, the court ruled that the core of Patrick’s civil rights claims will move forward.”
The judge said that it would not be irrational for a jury to reach a decision based on videos of the encounter rather than other evidence cited by Schurr’s attorneys. Schurr claims he had qualified immunity.
Lyoya and Schurr struggled for control of the officer’s Taser, which was deployed twice.
Lyoya was on the ground when Schurr said, “Drop the Taser.”
“Defendant says nothing about drawing his gun, and Lyoya would have no way of knowing that Defendant drew his gun,” Maloney wrote.
“Defendant takes his arm out from around Lyoya’s neck and grabs the back of Lyoya’s body, then shoves Lyoya’s head into the ground. A second after Lyoya’s head hits the ground, Defendant fires his gun into the back of Lyoya’s head, killing him,” he wrote.
“Because (Schurr) used deadly force, the key question is whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, could lead a reasonable officer to conclude that Lyoya posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury at the time Defendant shot him.
He said a jury could find that Schurr could have taken other actions instead of deadly force. The jury could also conclude that Schurr acted reasonably, he said.
“The record here is insufficient to lead all reasonable jurors to conclude that Defendant’s choice to shooting Lyoya in the back of the head was a reasonable one,” Maloney wrote.
“Defendant’s version of events rests on a series of factual assumptions, all of which the video of the encounter would allow a rational jury to reject: that Lyoya was holding the Taser, that it was reasonable to assume he could and would use it, that he turned on his own in a way consistent with using the Taser, and that Defendant did not have viable alternatives that reasonable officers would have resorted to first.”
For complete coverage by MLive, go here.
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit mlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
