Former APD chiefs testify in sentencing hearing for Chris Taylor

AUSTIN, Texas — Austin Police Officer Christopher Taylor is still waiting to hear his sentence from a Travis County judge. At the beginning of October, a jury convicted him of deadly conduct for the 2019 shooting death of Mauris DeSilva at his downtown condo building.

Last month, the prosecution had two days to bring in more witnesses. The defense has the same. For the second day of the defense’s portion of the sentencing phase, they brought in two former police chiefs for the Austin Police Department (APD).

First up to testify was Brian Manley, the former chief of police for APD who was serving as the chief when the 2019 shooting occurred. He also responded to the scene that day.

Manley was the one who sent Taylor back to work after the shooting. He testified that after the incident, the department conducted two investigations. The first was an internal affairs investigation that looks into the actions of the officer from a policy perspective. The second was a special investigations unit, or SIU investigation, to see if the officer’s conduct violated state law.

Manley testified that the SIU investigation is worked on alongside the district attorney’s office, but the DA at the time, Margaret Moore, did not pursue charges against Taylor. During testimony, the prosecution asked the judge to disregard this fact for the record.

Since Manley said Taylor did not violate APD policies or have any criminal convictions, he sent Taylor back to work on-duty, armed patrol shifts.

Like other witnesses during this sentencing phase, Manley was also asked about the precedent this trial will set for other officers in APD. He also expressed his concern for the uncertain future of the department.

“I don’t know how they’ll move forward, because the determination of the entire chain of command for Officer Taylor was that he actually followed the policies and training,” Manley said. “With the verdict that was rendered, that obviously makes it very difficult for officers that are working today.

Manley also testified that he wouldn’t recommend APD to young people looking to start their career in law enforcement because of this trial and the way the DA’s office has been working to prosecute law enforcement officers. 

“I hate to say it, but not right now,” Manley said. 

During the prosecution’s cross examination of Manley, they asked him about what the jury’s verdict should be based on. He agreed that the jury’s verdict was based on Texas law and not on APD’s policies, but he made clear that APD’s policies are rooted in the law.

Up next to testify was Robin Henderson, the most current former APD chief, who now serves as the chief of staff since Lisa Davis took over the chief position.

She was asked if in her position as interim chief, she had the ability to impose punishment or conduct a new investigation on Taylor if she believed he had violated any policies. Henderson said that would be something in her power to do, but it was never presented to her.

The state presented their worries during cross examination of Henderson, that just because Taylor followed all APD policies, it doesn’t automatically mean he followed Texas law too.

“The problem I would see is that if courts were to extend grace to police officers who have engaged in fatal shootings … because the department did not find they violated procedure, we would be in a situation where effectively the police department’s discipline would be superseding part of the court’s decision and part of the jury’s decision,” said Rob Drummond, a state prosecutor.

To wrap up the day, Taylor’s defense tried to submit dozens of documents that detail Michael Ramos’ criminal history as evidence.

Taylor was charged with shooting and killing Ramos back in 2020, but after the jury could not come to a decision, the DA eventually dropped the charges. During the state’s sentencing phase for this case, prosecutors presented an abbreviated version of the case by bringing in Ramos’ mother and several others connected to the case to testify.

But on Tuesday, the state objected to the defense trying to submit these documents detailing Ramos’ decades of criminal history.

“I think that the notion that because a person was arrested, convicted, placed on probation for possession of a controlled substance mitigates both the shooting of that same person 12 years later is just abhorrent,” Drummond said.

During the state’s witness testimony for the sentencing phase, prosecutors argued that Taylor and the other officers responding to Ramos were not in any danger of being hit by the car Ramos was driving. On Tuesday, Taylor’s defense argued that his criminal record showed exactly the opposite. They argued that because of his criminal history, Ramos was willing to do anything he needed to avoid getting arrested.

Taylor’s defense said they did not choose to bring the Ramos case in, but since it came in over their objections, they had to address these facts now.

Some of the documents the judge did not admit into evidence, but others she did because of Ramos’ mother’s testimony for the state during the sentencing phase. At that time, she testified that her son was a law-abiding citizen, and that she didn’t know about any of his criminal record.

The defense still has a few more witnesses to bring in, but that won’t happen until Dec. 3. After they present all their witnesses, they will make closing arguments, then the judge plans to hand down a sentence on that day.