Jury deadlocked in murder trial of Austin police officer who shot Michael Ramos

The trial of the Austin police officer accused of murder in the 2020 fatal shooting of Michael Ramos ended in a mistrial on Wednesday morning.

This is the second time the case has ended in mistrial. The first time came at the end of May, after a tumultuous four days of jury selection resulted in the seating of just seven jurors. After a successful jury selection, the rescheduled trial began Oct. 23.

The state argued that Christopher Taylor shot and killed Ramos with “no reasonable basis” as Ramos attempted to flee a police interaction in an East Austin apartment complex parking lot. The officer’s defense argued that Taylor was acting within his rights to stop the “threat” he perceived Ramos and his moving vehicle posed to other officers.

After four days of deliberation, the jury informed Travis County Judge Dayna Blazey on Wednesday morning that it could not come to a unanimous decision. This comes just days after Blazey asked the jury to continue deliberating in order to come to a unanimous verdict.

Mayor Kirk Watson acknowledged the mistrial in a statement released on Wednesday.

“This mistrial will leave just about everyone frustrated, but we can’t let this outcome divide our city,” Watson said. “The last few days have intensified the community conversation around public safety and policing, and I understand and support everyone’s right to make their feelings known and their voices heard. I ask that we express our views and emotions in a way that is safe and constructive to the dialogue that needs to continue.”

He continued, “We have come a long way in terms of policing policies, training and how transparent the City is and will be when these types of incidents occur. We have farther to go. I acknowledge that and, as Mayor, I will continue to push these efforts forward. I can tell you that, from the Chief to rank-and-file officers, those that serve the Austin community are dedicated to wholesale change and a new way of policing that focuses on building trust within the community, improving communication, implementing de-escalation tactics, and understanding mental health needs. Their – and my – number one priority is creating a safer city for everyone. And to our police officers, let me say that this community supports you and wants you to be a part of our efforts to create a safer city for all. We need you.”

In a statement, the Austin Justice Coalition called the outcome a “betrayal” of the community’s response to Ramos’ shooting, which sparked massive demonstrations in 2020 that demanded accountability for Taylor. The group is calling on the city to implement the Austin Police Oversight Act that voters overwhelmingly approved in May.

“While we seethe in solidarity with Mike’s family, particularly his mother Brenda, and we ache at the thought of them having to endure another trial, we demand that Travis County District Attorney José Garza retry this case,” the statement reads. “We hold fast to the belief that putting people in cages worsens, rather than solves, the issues we face in our society, but given the City of Austin’s failure to fire Christopher Taylor despite him having killed two people in separate incidents while on duty, both resulting in indictment – information withheld from the jury – Taylor must be held to public account for this harmful act so that he never regains the ability patrol our community with a gun and the discretion to use force.”

The statement continues, “Finally, this trial and this outcome underscore the unfitness of the criminal punishment system to provide the healing, truth, and accountability that true justice demands and our community deserves. We remain resolute in the face of this latest injustice and guarantee that Mike’s name will never be forgotten, and our efforts to end police violence and impunity and to build transformative justice alternatives will only strengthen.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.