Peoria, IL (CAPITOL CITY NOW) – The now-former Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy charged with murder for the death of Sonya Massey last year in her Springfield home took the stand in his own defense, and learned Monday of a conviction alternative.

Grayson, is facing three counts of First Degree Murder for Massey’s death. Each charge is based on a different theory of how the act was committed.

2nd Degree Murder Possible

But Monday afternoon, as jury instructions were hammered out between Judge Ryan Cadigan, prosecution attorneys, and defense attorneys, it was learned that the jury will be given three possibilities:  convict Grayson on First Degree Murder, convict him on Second Degree Murder, or find him not guilty.

Second Degree Murder, according to the website FindLaw.com, is defined as killing someone without premeditation or forethought.  As another courtroom reporter put it, that would mean that Grayson knew he could kill Massey, but knew that would be wrong.  That’s despite the fact that two defense witnesses said they believed Grayson followed proper protocol in shooting Massey.  More on that later in this story.

There was very little disagreement on what instructions should be given to the jury during a Monday afternoon conference, once the jury was sent home for the day.  The main differences seemed to be over formatting of the instructions, since a copy will be given to the jury.  Cadigan said different formats, fonts, etc. can confuse a jury, so both sides will have a “meeting of the minds,” according to Assistant State’s Attorney Marybeth Rodgers, and a fresh set will be ready when the conference resumes Tuesday at 8:30am.

Grayson takes the stand

After the prosecution rested Monday morning, the defense started their case with the defendant.  That’s after Cadigan asked Grayson if he understood what that meant, and if that’s his intent.  “Yes, I do,” said Grayson.

He then went to tell details of what most of the public already knew.  He and Deputy Dawson Farley searched the perimeter of Massey’s Hoover Ave. home in the “Cabbage Patch” area of unincorporated Springfield, following Masey’s 911 call of a potential prowler.  Grayson discovered the car, later found to be registered to Massey, in the parking lot with a smashed window.  He and Farley knocked on Massey’s home at least four times before she answered.  Seeming confused, Grayson said, Massey said the car wasn’t hers and didn’t know how it got there, but later said it was hers.

At one point, when Massey rushed to the kitchen to tend to a pot of boiling water, Grayson approached the kitchen, while Farley took a step back after being initially told to shut off the stove.  After picking up the pot after it left the stove, and she raised it above her head, Grayson fired three shots.  But, it was learned Monday that, according to Grayson, he had wanted to handcuff Massey and possibly arrest her for Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon.  He did not, Massey allegedly threw water, and he fired.

Grayson said he didn’t want to use his taser in that instance, because he didn’t think he was close enough, he didn’t think the probes would work, and his taser was an “older model.”

On cross-examination, State’s Attorney John Milhiser questioned the “new detail” he had learned, that Grayson wanted to arrest or handcuff Massey — specifically, the fact that was left out of his police report, written with a Fraternal Order of Police representative, and a sergeant present.  Grayson also admitted that because he didn’t turn on his body-worn camera in time, no one would have heard Grayson say that he’d “shoot [Massey] in the f***ing face” had it not been for Farley having his on most of the time, because that wasn’t in the written report either. Grayson said the FOP didn’t give him any verbiage to put in the report, including asking Farley if he was okay.

Defense attorneys did get Grayson to admit that he did get to review his body-worn camera when writing his report, but didn’t think put everything in the report because the camera video spoke for itself.

In later testimony, Sangamon County Sheriffs Deputy Jason Eccleston testified that he spent the intervening hours after the shooting with Grayson, telling him to calm down but don’t talk.  Eccleston says Grayson looked “panicked” at first, and after a trip to the hospital, his demeanor looked “up and down.”

On cross-examination by Rodgers, Eccleston admitted his body camera was on during the night for only about a minute.  That caught Eccleston actually saying “don’t say a f***ing thing,” something he claimed was more for himself.

The defense’s experts versus the prosecution’s experts

The remaining two of the defense witnesses were experts that both contradicted what the prosecution’s witnesses had said about things like de-escalation, crisis response, and use of force.

Glynn Corbitt, who’s worked with the Georgia Public Safety Training Center, who claims the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department Use of Force policy conforms with generally-accepted practices and principles.  But Corbitt also said, Grayson getting himself close to Massey was not a “tactical misstep,” as the prosecution claimed, and as their witnesses testified to.  Corbitt claims that “de-escalation” is not a policy or procedural matter, but more of an “outcome.”  Both he and another witness said Grayson shooting Massey was de-escalation, and an “outcome.”  And both agreed that the use of lethal force was done based on the “totality of the circumstances.”

In Corbitt’s report, he doesn’t speak to generally-accepted principals, but testified they’re taught and used every day.

Kevin Davis, a retired Akron, Ohio Police officer, and also retired from police training, came to much the same conclusion about Grayson’s actions on July 6, 2024.  He, too, said lethal force can be de-escalation, because “you’re stopping the person.”  Davis says Grayson made attempts to get Massey to not throw boiling water, by ordering the pot to be put down and not picked up again, and even by indicating he could shoot.

De-escalation is “a concept that has gathered steam within law enforcement over the last few years,” said Davis.  He claims that a lot more training has come out on the issue since he retired, but trying to de-escalate can be intertwined with use of force.  Davis says you can be sanctioned for a number of policy violations, but be okay because you didn’t violate the policy on lethal force. Also, he testified that a body-worn camera can be placed perfectly, but will not show a scene from an officer’s perspective, because of lenses and human factors.

Davis also testified that what he says is a relatively new term, “officer-created jeopardy” — testified to by a prosecution expert witness — is something that’s not widely accepted in the law enforcement community.  He calls it an “academic construct…something somebody felt.”  A law and police training professor testified to that earlier in the trial, but that professor was a police officer before going to law school.

In cross-examination, Millhiser brought up a number of “blog posts” by Davis over the years that Davis claimed weren’t for police advocacy, but Milhiser said read that way, and advocated for use of force.  Davis later said, though, that law enforcement should be pro-police.

“I will not attempt to dissect an obviously mentally ill Massey’s thought process…readied weapon delivery system,” wrote Davis, in a final report on the death of Massey.

And, finally…

Closing arguments will begin at 9am  Tuesday.  The jury will likely start deliberations before lunch.

Stick with CapitolCityNow.com, Newstalk 93.9 and AM 1240 WTAX, and the Capitol City Now Facebook page for real-time updates throughout what could be the final day of the Sean Grayson trial Tuesday.