Possible plea hearing date planned in Apalachee HS shooter Colt Gray's case
Attorneys for the teen charged in the deadly shooting at Apalachee High School appeared in court on Tuesday for a status hearing.
Colt Gray's attorneys say that they are still gathering evidence and are planning to have a psychologist interview the teen.
The attorneys have argued that the widespread publicity of the case, and the passionate response it invokes, should be the reason for the trial being moved.
BARROW COUNTY, Ga. - Attorneys for a 14-year-old boy charged in the deadly shooting at Apalachee High School have asked a judge for more time ahead of a possible plea hearing later this year.
At a hearing on Tuesday, Colt Gray's attorneys told the judge overseeing they needed the time to gather evidence and have the teen speak with a psychologist.
The backstory
Colt Gray is accused of opening fire using a "black semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle" inside the high school's J hall during the second period of class on Sept. 4. Two teachers, 39-year-old Richard Aspinwall and 53-year-old Cristina Irimie, and two students, Mason Schermerhorn and Christian Angulo, both 14, were killed. Nine others were injured.
Investigators later found a notebook they say belonged to Gray that contained drawings eerily matching the events of the school shooting, as well as a checklist outlining steps the teen planned to take. They also reportedly found a "shrine of sorts" behind Gray's computer desk in his home, consisting of approximately 15 photographs and newspaper articles about past school shootings and school shooters.
Gray faces 55 charges, including four counts of murder, four counts of felony murder, four counts of aggravated battery, 25 counts of aggravated assault, and 18 counts of cruelty to children in the first degree.
His legal team is expected to appear in court Tuesday to request a change of venue.
What they're saying
Gray's defense attorney asked the court for "some time in October" to discuss a potential plea.
He said that he and other attorneys are still doing investigatory work and that a psychologist will be visiting the teen in mid-May.
"We should be good to go," the attorney said.
The judge agreed that the October timing would work well, adding that it would prevent possible interference with the trial of Colin Gray, the teen's father, which will begin in September.
Dig deeper
Gray's attorneys have asked for any possible trial to be moved out of Bartow County, saying the pretrial publicity has saturated the community and will bias potential jurors.
"The extensive publicity has biased the Barrow County jury pool against Gray. Removal of the case to another county would save Barrow County the money and time it would have spent trying to impanel an impartial jury from a biased jury pool," the motion read in part. "Removal of the case to another county would enhance Gray's chance at securing a fair trial."
Colt Gray (Barrow County Sheriff's Office)
While his attorneys told the court that both sides are "largely in agreement with the venue issue," they have not yet said what the agreement would be.
Dig deeper
Meanwhile, a separate trial has been set for Colt's father, Colin Gray. A judge scheduled his court date for Sept. 8. Prosecutors allege that the elder Gray allowed his son access to firearms despite being aware of the teen's potential for violence.
In April, a judge ruled on a motion by Colin Gray's attorneys asking him to move his case out of the county. While Chief Judge Nicholas Primm ruled that local jurors will not be moved, it has not been determined if jurors from another Georgia county will be used or if the case will be tried hundreds of miles away.
SEE ALSO:
The Source
This article is based on details from Barrow County Superior Court records and previous FOX 5 Atlanta reports.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
a day ago
Lawyer argues Call of Duty maker can't be held responsible for actions of Uvalde, Texas, shooter
LOS ANGELES -- A lawyer for the maker of the video game Call of Duty argued Friday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the Robb Elementary School attack in Uvalde, Texas, saying the contents of the war game are protected by the First Amendment. The families sued Call of Duty maker Activision and Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, saying that the companies bear responsibility for promoting products used by the teen gunman. Three sets of parents who lost children in the shooting were in the audience at the Los Angeles hearing. Activision lawyer Bethany Kristovich told Superior Court Judge William Highberger that the 'First Amendment bars their claims, period full stop.' 'The issues of gun violence are incredibly difficult,' Kristovich said. 'The evidence in this case is not.' She argued that the case has little chance of prevailing if it continues, because courts have repeatedly held that 'creators of artistic works, whether they be books, music, movies, TV or video games, cannot be held legally liable for the acts of their audience.' The lawsuit, one of many involving Uvalde families, was filed last year on the second anniversary of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The gunman killed 19 students and two teachers. Officers finally confronted and shot him after waiting more than an hour to enter the fourth-grade classroom. Kimberly Rubio, whose 10-year-old daughter Lexi was killed in the shooting, was among the parents who came from Texas to Southern California, where Activision is based, for the hearing. 'We traveled all this way, so we need answers,' Rubio said outside the courthouse. "It's our hope that the case will move forward so we can get those answers." Another attorney for the families argued during the hearing that Call of Duty exceeds its First Amendment protections by moving into marketing. 'The basis of our complaint is not the existence of Call of Duty," Katie Mesner-Hage told the judge. "It is using Call of Duty as a platform to market weapons to minors.' The plaintiffs' lawyers showed contracts and correspondence between executives at Activison and gunmakers whose products, they said, are clearly and exactly depicted in the game despite brand names not appearing. Mesner-Hage said the documents show that they actually prefer being unlabeled because 'It helps shield them from the implication that they are marketing guns to minors,' while knowing that players will still identify and seek out the weapons. Kristovich said there is no evidence that the kind of product placement and marketing the plaintiffs are talking about happened in any of the editions of the game the shooter played. The families have also filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, which manufactured the AR-style rifle used in the May 24, 2022, shooting. Koskoff argued that a replica of the rifle clearly appears on a splash page for Call of Duty. Koskoff, a Connecticut lawyer, also represented families of nine Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims in a lawsuit against gunmaker Remington and got a $73 million lawsuit settlement. He invoked Sandy Hook several times in his arguments, saying the shooters there and in Uvalde shared the same gaming obsession. Koskoff said the Uvalde shooter experienced 'the absorption and the loss of self in Call of Duty.' He said that immersion was so deep that the shooter searched online for how to obtain an armored suit that he didn't know only exists in the game. Koskoff played a clip from Call of Duty Modern Warfare, the game the shooter played, with a first-person shooter gunning down opponents. The shots echoed loudly in the courtroom, and several people in the audience slowly shook their heads. 'Call of Duty is in a class of its own," Koskoff said. Kristovich argued for Activision that the game, despite its vast numbers of players, can be tied to only a few of the many U.S. mass shootings. 'The game is incredibly common. It appears in a scene on 'The Office,'" she said. She added that it is ridiculous to assert that 'this is such a horrible scourge that your honor has to essentially ban it through this lawsuit.' Highberger told the lawyers he was not leaning in either direction before the hearing. He gave no time frame for when he will rule, but a quick decision is not expected. The judge did tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that their description of Activision's actions seemed like deliberate malfeasance, where their lawsuit alleges negligence. He said that was the biggest hurdle they needed to clear. 'Their conduct created a risk of exactly what happened,' Mesner-Hage told him. 'And we represent the people who are exactly the foreseeable victims of that conduct.'
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Lawyer argues Call of Duty maker can't be held responsible for actions of Uvalde, Texas, shooter
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A lawyer for the maker of the video game Call of Duty argued Friday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the Robb Elementary School attack in Uvalde, Texas, saying the contents of the war game are protected by the First Amendment. The families sued Call of Duty maker Activision and Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, saying that the companies bear responsibility for products used by the teenage gunman. Three sets of parents who lost children in the shooting were in the audience at the Los Angeles hearing. Activision lawyer Bethany Kristovich told Superior Court Judge William Highberger that the 'First Amendment bars their claims, period full stop.' 'The issues of gun violence are incredibly difficult,' Kristovich said. 'The evidence in this case is not.' She argued that the case has little chance of prevailing if it continues, because courts have repeatedly held that 'creators of artistic works, whether they be books, music, movies, TV or video games, cannot be held legally liable for the acts of their audience.' The lawsuit, one of many involving Uvalde families, was filed last year on the second anniversary of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The gunman killed 19 students and two teachers. Officers finally confronted and shot him after waiting more than an hour to enter the fourth-grade classroom. At the hearing, the families' attorney, Josh Koskoff, argued that the game goes beyond artistic representation into marketing weapons to teenagers. He showed contracts and correspondence between executives at Activison and gun makers whose products, he said, are clearly and exactly depicted in the game despite brand names not appearing. 'Likenesses of brands,' Koskoff said, 'whether they are labeled or not, is of great value to Call of Duty.' The families have also filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, which manufactured the AR-style rifle used in the May 24, 2022, shooting. Koskoff said the shooter experienced 'the absorption and the loss of self in Call of Duty.' He said that immersion was so deep that the shooter searched online for how to obtain an armored suit that he didn't know only exists in the game. Koskoff played a Call of Duty clip, with a first-person shooter gunning down opponents. The shots echoed loudly in the courtroom, and several people in the audience slowly shook their heads. 'Call of Duty is in a class of its own,' Koskoff said. Family lawyers are expected to argue the First Amendment issues of the Activision case later Friday. The motion for Activision to be dismissed as a defendant is based on California's anti-SLAPP law, or 'strategic lawsuits against public participation.' It is meant to block lawsuits filed to intimidate or silence critics. Highberger asked Kristovich whether it was appropriate for a major company to invoke a statute meant to protect 'the little guy' against a powerful opponent. 'The statute is clear, it does not depend on the court's characterization of big guy, little guy or medium guy,' Kristovich said. 'The First Amendment applies regardless of the size of your pocketbook.' Highberger told the lawyers he wasn't leaning in either direction before the hearing, and it is unlikely he will issue a ruling immediately. The judge did tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that their description of Activision's actions seemed like deliberate malfeasance, where their lawsuit alleges negligence. He said that was the biggest hurdle they needed to clear.
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Lawyer argues Call of Duty maker can't be held responsible for actions of Uvalde, Texas, shooter
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A lawyer for the maker of the video game Call of Duty argued Friday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the Robb Elementary School attack in Uvalde, Texas, saying the contents of the war game are protected by the First Amendment. The families sued Call of Duty maker Activision and Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, saying that the companies bear responsibility for products used by the teenage gunman. Three sets of parents who lost children in the shooting were in the audience at the Los Angeles hearing. Activision lawyer Bethany Kristovich told Superior Court Judge William Highberger that the 'First Amendment bars their claims, period full stop.' 'The issues of gun violence are incredibly difficult,' Kristovich said. 'The evidence in this case is not.' She argued that the case has little chance of prevailing if it continues, because courts have repeatedly held that 'creators of artistic works, whether they be books, music, movies, TV or video games, cannot be held legally liable for the acts of their audience.' The lawsuit, one of many involving Uvalde families, was filed last year on the second anniversary of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The gunman killed 19 students and two teachers. Officers finally confronted and shot him after waiting more than an hour to enter the fourth-grade classroom. At the hearing, the families' attorney, Josh Koskoff, argued that the game goes beyond artistic representation into marketing weapons to teenagers. He showed contracts and correspondence between executives at Activison and gun makers whose products, he said, are clearly and exactly depicted in the game despite brand names not appearing. 'Likenesses of brands,' Koskoff said, 'whether they are labeled or not, is of great value to Call of Duty." The families have also filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, which manufactured the AR-style rifle used in the May 24, 2022, shooting. Koskoff said the shooter experienced 'the absorption and the loss of self in Call of Duty.' He said that immersion was so deep that the shooter searched online for how to obtain an armored suit that he didn't know only exists in the game. Koskoff played a Call of Duty clip, with a first-person shooter gunning down opponents. The shots echoed loudly in the courtroom, and several people in the audience slowly shook their heads. 'Call of Duty is in a class of its own," Koskoff said. Family lawyers are expected to argue the First Amendment issues of the Activision case later Friday. The motion for Activision to be dismissed as a defendant is based on California's anti-SLAPP law, or 'strategic lawsuits against public participation." It is meant to block lawsuits filed to intimidate or silence critics. Highberger asked Kristovich whether it was appropriate for a major company to invoke a statute meant to protect 'the little guy' against a powerful opponent. 'The statute is clear, it does not depend on the court's characterization of big guy, little guy or medium guy,' Kristovich said. 'The First Amendment applies regardless of the size of your pocketbook.' Highberger told the lawyers he wasn't leaning in either direction before the hearing, and it is unlikely he will issue a ruling immediately. The judge did tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that their description of Activision's actions seemed like deliberate malfeasance, where their lawsuit alleges negligence. He said that was the biggest hurdle they needed to clear.
