Peoria, IL (CAPITOL CITY NOW) – This will be the live blog for day six of the Sean Grayson murder trial.  Grayson, a former Sangamon County Sheriffs Deputy, is charged with murder for the death of Sonya Massey in July, 2024.  Grayson has pleaded not guilty and has claimed self defense.

WTAX and CapitolCityNow’s Will Stevenson is covering the trial at the Peoria County Courthouse, moved there from Springfield due to pre-trial publicity.

This story will be updated throughout day six of the trial. Click “refresh” on your browser to see the latest entries.  A new post will be created every day during the trial. (Some post times may be approximate.) Some of these entries may contain typographical errors that will be fixed as time allows.

Some of the language below may be coarse, and some descriptions may be disturbing.

2:14pm: It’s now possible closing arguments could be had Tuesday at 9am, but that will be taken up after the current witness is done, after a recess.

2:09pm: Davis says his still-frame analysis found what Illinois State Police did in terms of throwing the pot toward Grayson. We couldn’t know what was going through Massey’s mind. Only Grayson’s mind matters at this point.

“Officer-created jeopardy” is not widely accepted, but it’s a construct that’s been developed by academics of shifting the responsibility from the subject to the officer. It’s an “academic construct — in other words…it’s something somebody felt.” You won’t find that in Davis’ tenure as an officer, and not accepted in police training. “Some sort of novel police concept,” said Mark Wykoff, defense attorney. (Earlier prosecution witnesses, at least one, worked in academia but was a former police officer.)

2:07pm: Davis says the body-worn camera, even if perfectly placed, would not perfectly show what an officer sees. In other words, no one really knows what the officer saw except for the officer himself. The lens is a fisheye lens, and can make things look distorted, people look farther away, etc. The video doesn’t tell the whole story, he says. “Sometimes some things can be missed” watching things in real-time, said Davis. It’s not a continuous picture — the audio is, but the picture isn’t, not a 30 frames per second.

As he looked frame by frame, after she put the pot on the counter, she dropped down to the ground, but sprang back up, threw the contents of the pot. That’s what Grayson’s report says happened.

2:01pm: Davis says you can be sanctioned for policy violations but be okay because you didn’t violate lethal force policy.

1:57pm: A defense witness list shows only five people, outside of Grayson. We are on the third of five of those witnesses now.

1:52pm: We tell officers to maintain distance, but law enforcement “is a contact sport” and sometimes closing distance is needed depending on the circumstance.

Grayson changed positions to look at Massey was “completely reasonable” and less obscured. No tactical error there. Where to stand in a situation is discretionary and generally-accepted.

1:49pm: “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” was perceived as a threat before throwing it in the direction of Grayson. The officer fired, and the use of force stops.

Defines de-escalation as a “concept that has gathered steam within law enforcement over the last few years.” Have to have subjects that will cooperate. Can take the form of deadly force being used. Says a lot more training that has come out since he was retired, but de-escalation can be intertwined with use of force.

Grayson made attempts to de-escalate with “put the pot down” are warnings based on warnings of his perception of a potential threat. If she put the pot down and not picked it up again, she would have been taken into custody at least for investigation.

Lethal force is a de-escallation, “you’re stopping the person.”

1:34pm Sangamon County’s use of force policy is deemed generally-accepted police standards. Says Grayson’s use of lethal force was warranted based on county policy and generally-accepted standards.

1:32pm: When he examines a case, he wants “everything I can get my hands on.” He wanted curriculum from the state on use of force, but never received it.

1:22pm: Says with Akron Police, he also supervised the installation and use of body-worn police cameras.

1:11pm: Next witness is Kevin Davis, retired law enforcement officer, formerly with Akron, Ohio police, now an expert and police trainer. Says he received “thousands of hours of training” on use of force, after being very successful in narcotics investigations. Says he became “the trainer of the trainers” regarding use of force. Now runs his own consulting firm after retiring.

1:10pm: Under re-direct, says while he doesn’t speak to generally-accepted principles in report, they’re taught and practiced every day.

1:05pm: Wrote that entire encounter must be examined in the first of two reports. Also says that “everything coupled with the totality of circumstances” is included. Wrote “[Massey’s] actions comprised the totality of circumstances that make up this incident.” It was “apparent” that Massey was having a mental health episode. So it made sense for Grayson to use de-escalation techniques. But he defines “slightly different than anyone else.” Can’t teach outcomes, but teach techniques that lead to outcomes. Said de-escalation would have been achieved if she had put down pot of boiling water, in his opinion. Communication is first and foremost, and both a sender and a receiver. That’s ideal for de-escalation.

Mentions generally-accepted principles zero times in his reports. But Grayson achieved de-escalation by shooting Massey.

1:01pm: Back from lunch and Corbitt will be under cross examination by ASA Marybeth Rodgers.

11:34am: Analysis has to be done unbiased, objectively, and at times with hindsight.

Recess for lunch until 1pm.

11:27am: If some of the procedures were deemed inappropriate, that doesn’t necessarily mean everything that follows would also be inappropriate, said Corbitt.

11:23am: Pulling the trigger was the tactically-sound thing to do, said Corbitt. Farley not being able to turn off the water was what started down the path. Massey’s intentions with the pot of water do not matter, he said. Only the officer’s perception is what matters, not Massey’s intentions.

11:22am: Corbitt says based on generally-accepted principals, etc., what Grayson did, the use of force against Massey was appropriate, based on the “totality of the circumstances.”

11:10am: Grayson did not fail to escalate or de-escalate the situation. There is no such thing as “de-escalation,” because that’s an outcome. Verbally communicate with a suspect, which is a two-way street. Use of force can also be a de-escalation technique. In this instance, he didn’t violate de-escalation techniques. There is a misconception about what de-escalation means in the public. Communications before that lead to the outcome. Communication includes a sender and a receiver. If Sonya never did threw the point of water, the outcome would have been achieved. The receiver’s action are often times the ones that escalate the event. When Grayson signaled to Farley to turn off the stovetop where the water was, and if he had turned off the stove, the outcome of de-escalation would have been met. But, Farley never made it to the stove. When Massey got to stove and grabbed the pot, that would have escalate the event. If Massey had set the pot down, it would have de-escalated the situation. It also would have de-escalate the event. But, she didn’t. She turned and looked into the directions of the officers, with the pot in hand.

Corbitt says if the pot had been put down, that would have been the outcome. But, she them turned toward officers with the pot, she “started in the process of throwing the pot.” Ultimately, de-escalation occurred after Massey was shot. Grayson warned her, Corbitt said.

Corbitt says Grayson did not violate standardized crisis intervention guidelines, trainings, protocols, etc. Crisis intervention response turned into use of force response because of the pot.

11:00am: Looked at whether or not Grayson put himself in the position to be in harm’s way when he decided he needed to employ lethal force. In his opinion, Corbitt says getting himself close to Massey was not a tactical misstep (as prosecution claims). Grayson approaching was generally-accepted techniques and practices. Trying to gain line of sight view of Massey is typical. Grayson needed to do that. Any time there’s a “perceived threat” officers need to regain line of sight to see if the threat is still there, like when Massey went behind the counter and getting the pot of boiling water. Not a tactical violation. However, if you can see the threat, you can back yourself away from it. You sort of have two policies here that are in conflict. You have to “choose the lesser of two evils” — trying to keep line of sight on subject, and create distance between officer and subject. The first of those, to gain line of sight, is more important.

10:57am: Was asked to review Grayson case. Wrote two reports: preliminary summary, and a more comprehensive report. Has the county’s Use of Force policy. Says it conforms with generally-accepted practices and principles.

10:30am: Next witness is Glyn Corbitt, owns a consulting and training company dealing with police procedure, use of force, training to other states, etc. Says he’s an expert on a use of force.

Works with the Georgia Public Safety Training Center, he was manager of the use of force unit.

10:25am: Cross-exam by ASA Marybeth Rodgers. Wrote a report on his involvement with Grayson that night. Advised defendant not to speak, but actually told him “don’t say a f***ing thing to anyone.” Claims part of that was a directive to himself. Also told him to turn off his body camera. Everything captured on his body camera, but only recorded for one minute and four seconds. But they weren’t captured on body camera.

Re-direct: Although not on body camera, you can testify based on your recollection: yes.

10:21am: Said he was kind of going “up and down” in terms of demeanor. Had dealt with Grayson before. Says he was different than he had ever seen him.

10:21am: After a brief recess, next witness for defense is Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy, Jason Eccleston. Was also on third shift the night of the Massey shooting, assigned to “North” side, but ended up being dispatched to the south side, heard commotion on radio, then shots fired over radio, then went to Massey. Got out of the car, saw Deputy Grayson, took him over to her squad car. Says Grayson looked “panicked” –heavy breathing, looking right through me, started sobbing over near the car, then pacing back and forth. Stayed with him through that period, told him to be quiet and relax. Was with him the rest of the night when I took him to the hospital, then the sheriffs department, about four to five hours. Just talked to him in generalities, nothing major.

10:02am Re-direct exam. Grayson did ask to review body-worn camera. Didn’t think he needed to put everything in the report because it was on the body camera. Wrote it’s a “summary” of his action. Never went to state police to change report (reference to Farley doing so).

9:56am: Cross-examination by SA John Milhiser. Says it’s new that she was going forward. “I didn’t put that in my report,” said Grayson. Milhiser than goes through Grayson’s report. FOP rep, and a sergeant, watching over me as I wrote the report. Says it’s important to put all accurate information in the report.

Grayson admits that he didn’t write “I will shoot you in your f***ing face” in the report, but think he did reference threatening to shoot. Just stated that he drew his weapon, nothing else. No one would have heard that if Farley’s body cam wasn’t on. “I was in imminent fear” he wrote in this report. Says FOP didn’t give him that language. Wrote that he asked Farley if he got hit with the liquids. Stated he did not get hit. Watched video several times. In the video, it’s 50 seconds after the shot that he asked Farley, “you good?” Wasn’t right away.

“New information,” Milhiser says, that I was approaching forward to put Massey in handcuffs. None of that is in Grayson’s written report, he admits.

9:52am: I approached her because she was on the ground making movements behind the counter. I was going to secure her in handcuffs, and if I had done that, she would have been okay. She would have been arrested for aggravated assault on a police officer. Trying to gain a direct line of sight on her. When Grayson told her he was going to shot, she had said “I’m sorry.” She then put her hands in the air, which is why I approached. It wasn’t until I got closer to the cabinets that she jumped up and grabbed the pot, raised it above her head. As she was throwing the pot at me, that’s when I fired the gun.

9:40am: Attempts to get contact information for Sonya. Under a direct order that any time I went to a call I needed to get contact information. She was generally being cooperative, but “scatter-brained.” I never got any identifying information. Stack of cards were in hand, but that’s when I heard popping and cracking coming from the kitchen.

I observed the pot turning red, suggesting it had been own for awhile. Told Farley to go to the stove to turn it off. Farley was closest to the stove. I was inbetween Massey and the baseball bat.

Then Massey jumps up, goes in to the kitchen, and I wasn’t sure why she jumped up from the couch. Maybe she had an “oh crap” moment, but I was concerned that she went in behind Farley. I didn’t see any food or other cooking material out, so that was also a concern. Sonya did turn off the burner. She picks up the pot, starts to walk towards me. I was six feet away from her, then she started going toward our directions. I wasn’t quite sure what she was going to do. Rested pot on the counter, turned on the water, but never filled it or did anything else. She was wearing oven mitts. It made me believe she knew the pot was very hot. Walking toward me and the sink. We started to backstep, she asked where we were going. I said “away from your hot steaming pot of water.” She said “this pot of steaming water…I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” It came out of nowhere, so I took it as a threat. She’s standing, holding the pot, raised a lot of concern for me when she said she’d rebuke me, making me think she was going to throw the pot of water on me.

We were trained to use force that was going to gain compliance. In this situation, “I matched the threat level.” The only thing that could stop the treat was his gun. She was being very stern, no joking, meaning what she was saying. When someone repeats themselves (“I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”), they’re serious. Thought that’s when she would throw the boiling water, I drew my duty weapon.

Not every deputy carries a taser. Deputies have to know what it feels like before they can carry it. I decided not to use taser because of what she was wearing. I had an older model of taser. I didn’t want to take the chance of it not functioning. It has happened before. She could possibly have thrown the water even if using a taser. “It’s not 100 percent effective,” said Grayson.

I did warn her multiple times, and she did comply.

9:31am: I wasn’t worried, but more concerned. Lots of things could have been going on inside the house, said Grayson. After four minutes, Massey later answered. She said “please don’t hurt me,” I said we were going to help you. She would say “nothing” when asked what she needed after saying “I need help.” I didn’t know if she had taken meds, drinking, used drugs, etc. Behavior was “pretty typical” for the type of people we dealt with at midnights. Said some random person had dropped off the car, had dispatch run the vehicle. I’m talking to her, she kept saying she needed help, or if she was going to say someone was inside the residence. Said he’d come inside, but we need to get your name. When asked about the car, she said it wasn’t her car. I asked her about the damage, if there was any prior damage (there was a dent), and she said “Oh yeah, it happened earlier” when asked about the smashed windshield. Farley said the vehicle had come back to being registered to Massey. Didn’t know “why she was lying” about the vehicle. Said we needed to get her name then we would leave.

I stepped into the living room of the home. All the lights were on, TV was on, a bible and a baseball bat on the couch of the home. I believed she was scared, and maybe it was self-defense if someone came into the home.

9:25am: The damage to the car made it a different call to Grayson. Didn’t know who it belonged to or how it got there. Because there was a brick inside the car and smashed windows, that was a concern.

Grayson started searching the south side of the property, while Farley went to the north. Farley and I communicated via radio as we searched. We decided to approach the front door after we cleared the yard and found no trace. Farley knocked, I walked up as he was knocking. Says he knocked louder than Farley did. We could see someone moving in the house, but no one responding. Dispatched called, we heard ringing, but still no one answered. Could hear loud voices, but no one answering. Says concern was raising the longer we didn’t get inside.

9:20am: Grayson had been called to the “Cabbage Patch” area of Springfield previously — a lot of calls for serious crimes in that area — drugs, alcohol, guns, other violence. “The east side of Springfield is kind of a high crime area,” said Grayson. Both arrived at the Massey home at almost the same time. Farley searched the north side of the property, Grayson the south.

Says a “prowler” is a sort of lower priority, depends on what information is given. It’s a little higher priority if someone tries to enter a residence versus just walking around the outside of the residence.

Says we are not always required to write a report on a call. Anyone wants to file charges a report will written. It’s up to the complainant. Will write a narrative for the ticket, but not always a full report.

Has seen both body-worn camera videos. Policy of when camera is on: when “something is not civil.” “When she answered the door…I should have turned my body cam on,” said Grayson, when he started investigated damage with the car. No cameras on if you’re just serving papers. Anything civil, with no report, no camera on.

Said sometimes you have to hit the button two or three times to get the camera to turn on. It can make an audible noise, but we usually mute it at night shift so it’s not lit up and people can see us coming.

9:16am: Grayson was on a traffic stop near 2nd and Spruce Hills prior to the call at Massey’s Hoover Ave. home. Farley responded to the same traffic stop after he did, just to see if help is needed. Not upset about anything, except that he was having problems with his computer system in his patrol car.

Then, a female called dispatch saying someone was outside her home. Grayson got to call just after Farley did in the “Cabbage Patch” area of unincorporated Springfield, 2868 Hoover Ave.

9:10am: Grayson says the most difficult calls come in during his shift, the “midnight shift.” Says dealing with the public at that time involved a lot of people who were under the influence. He generally patrolled “North Town” — north of Cook Street, but was in “South Town” the night of the incident. Two deputies generally assigned to that area. Deputies generally assigned to calls based on who’s closer. Says he did not know Deputy Dawson Farley outside of the shift. Maybe five or six times tops, and a less-experienced deputy works with one more-experienced. Farley started after Grayson.

9:05am: Defense attorney Dan Fultz questions Grayson. Grayson is a native of Virden.

He’s been a police officer for four years. Hired part-time in 2020. Was with Sangamon Co. Sheriff’s Department over a year. Started May 1, 2023. Completede 14 week training in Decatur, followed by two weeks in the department going over policies and documents.

9:02am:  Judge talks about Grayson’s right to testify in his own defense.  Grayson says he will testify.

9:01am:  The state presents the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department Use of Force Policy.  They will rest once the evidence is shown to the jury.  A motion for directed verdict by the defense is being presented.  They don’t believe the state has presented a case for murder beyond reasonable doubt.  Milhiser says there’s sufficient evidence reasonable doubt has been proved.  Judge denies motion for directed verdict.