Alabama attorney general pushes for trial of an ex-officer accused of fatally shooting an armed man
In a court brief filed late Tuesday, Attorney General Steve Marshall said a lower court was correct in ruling that former Decatur police officer Mac Marquette, 25, failed to show "a clear legal right to prosecutorial immunity' when he fatally shot Stephen Perkins on Sept. 29, 2023.
Shortly before 2 a.m., Marquette and two other officers accompanied the tow truck driver to repossess Perkins' pickup truck at his home in Decatur. When Perkins emerged from his house pointing a gun at the truck driver, Marquette fired 18 bullets less than two seconds after the officers emerged from a concealed position and identified themselves as law enforcement, according to body camera footage.
The appeals court decision, and the fate of the trial, hinges on Alabama's ' stand your ground ' law, which grants immunity from prosecution to anyone who uses deadly force as long as they reasonably believe they're in danger and are somewhere they're rightfully allowed to be. Alabama allows judges to determine if someone acted in self-defense before a case goes to trial.
After a Morgan County judge denied Marquette immunity in April, the ex-officer's lawyers asked the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to overturn the decision. The appeals court said the circuit judge's decision was a 'gross abuse of discretion' because the judge didn't give enough weight to Marquette's assertion that he feared for his life after Perkins pointed his gun at the officer before he was shot.
If the appeals court rules against Marquette, he will go to trial in September.
The shooting drew regular protests in the north Alabama city, and the three officers were fired after personnel hearings. Marquette is white.
While the attorney general's brief didn't contest that Marquette feared for his life, he argued that witnesses in a pre-trial hearing failed to establish that Marquette was at Perkins' house on legitimate police duty, and therefore 'there remain open questions regarding whether he had a legal right" to be there.
The brief, written by the Assistant Attorney General Kristi Wilkerson, pointed to conflicting testimony from the two officers who were with Marquette when he shot Perkins.
One officer testified that the three officers were at Perkins' house to investigate a misdemeanor menacing charge since Perkins had previously pulled a gun on the tow truck driver in an attempt to repossess Perkins' truck earlier that night. The other officer testified that he was unaware of a menacing investigation, saying that he believed they were there to assist in 'keeping the peace.'
Alabama law requires a court order for law enforcement to be involved in a vehicle repossession — which the officers didn't have.
Testimony from a state agent who investigated the shooting, Jamie King, also conflicted with both officers' accounts of the moments leading up to the shooting. King said that while Marquette may have feared for his life, the three officers were not positioned in an effective way to keep the peace or to investigate menacing since they were intentionally out of Perkins' view until seconds before the shooting.
Marquette's attorneys have argued that there is more than one way to conduct police operations.
In light of the ambiguity, Marshall's office said deference should be given to the trial court's position, and that a jury "alone is in the best position to determine the trustworthiness of testimony presented to it.'
All parties in the case are prohibited from speaking to the media.
___
Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
Death row inmate with heart implant reported pain as he was executed
Tennessee death row inmate Byron Black moaned and said he was in pain during his execution, according to reporters who witnessed the lethal injection Tuesday morning. Black's attorney said his distress was evidence he was "tortured." Black's legal team had argued his heart implant could create unconstitutional pain during the execution. At one point, Black told his spiritual adviser, who was with him, it was "hurting so bad," according to witness accounts. Prison officials took Black into the execution chamber at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution shortly after 10am. He was declared dead at 10:43am. Multiple media witnesses said Black appeared to be in more distress than inmate Oscar Franklin Smith, who was put to death by lethal injection earlier this year. The big picture: Black's attorneys asked multiple courts to delay the execution so doctors could deactivate a medical device implanted last year to keep his heart beating normally. The lawyers said the device could deliver painful repeated shocks in an attempt to restore Black's heartbeat. They argued that would amount to cruel and unusual punishment that violated the U.S. Constitution. They had also fought to stop the execution because of Black's intellectual disability. Prosecutors agreed the new state standards would make Black ineligible for the death penalty if he were tried today. Black, 69, was sentenced to death for the 1988 shooting deaths of his girlfriend Angela Clay and her two young daughters, 9-year-old Latoya and 6-year-old Lakeisha. The Clay family, which provided a statement after the execution, said "a load and burden that has been lifted off our hearts." "This is closure for my family," Clark's sister wrote in the statement. "My sister and her two daughters can finally rest in peace." What she's saying: Federal public defender Kelley Henry, who represented Black, said the state had "heartlessly and intentionally traumatized a second family today. A family that matters. A family that is devastated."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
3 African nations have agreed to take deportees from the US. What we know about the secretive deals
3 African nations have agreed to take deportees from the US. What we know about the secretive deals CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — Rwanda has become the third African nation to enter into a deal with the Trump administration to accept migrants deported by the United States. The Rwandan government said Tuesday it has agreed to accept up to 250 deportees from the U.S. for resettlement but didn't immediately give any more details, including when they would arrive or what Rwanda got, if anything, out of the deal. The U.S. has already deported eight men it said were dangerous criminals who were in the U.S. illegally to South Sudan and another five to Eswatini. Here's what we know, and still don't know, about U.S. President Donald Trump's expanding third-country deportation program in Africa and the largely secretive deals the U.S. is striking. The U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security haven't responded to requests seeking more details on the deals in Africa. South Sudan The U.S. sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in East Africa in early July after their deportations were held up by a legal challenge. That led to them being kept for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in nearby Djibouti. U.S. officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the U.S. When it took custody of them a month ago, the South Sudan government said it would ensure their 'safety and wellbeing' but has declined to give other details, including where the men are being held and what their fate might be. South Sudan has been wracked by conflict since it gained independence from Sudan in 2011 and is teetering on the edge of civil war again. Eswatini Two weeks after the South Sudan deportations, the U.S. announced that it had sent another five men — citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos — to the small kingdom of Eswatini in southern Africa. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said they were also violent criminals whose home countries had refused to take them back. Eswatini's government said the men would be held in solitary confinement until their repatriation, and later said that might take up to a year. A human rights lawyer in Eswatini has taken authorities to court alleging the men are being denied legal representation while being held in a maximum-security prison, and questioning the legality of detaining them indefinitely when they have served their criminal sentences in the U.S. U.S. authorities didn't name the men or say if they had been deported straight from prison or detained in another way. Eswatini, which borders South Africa, is one of the world's last absolute monarchies. King Mswati III has ruled since he turned 18 in 1986. Authorities under him are accused of violently subduing pro-democracy movements in a country where political parties are effectively banned. Rwanda Rwanda's deal with the U.S. comes after a contentious migrant agreement it reached with the U.K. in 2022 collapsed and was ruled unlawful by Britain's Supreme Court. That deal was meant to see people seeking asylum in the U.K. sent to Rwanda, where they would stay if their asylum applications were approved. The failed deal ultimately cost the U.K. nearly a billion dollars in public money, including around $300 million that it gave to Rwanda and didn't get back. Rwanda said that the deportees it will take from the U.S. will be resettled there and given work training, healthcare and help with accommodation. Analysts say that African nations might be seeking a range of benefits from the Trump administration in return for taking deportees, including more favorable tariff rates, aid and other financial assistance, and even the easing of sanctions against some of their officials. ___ AP news on the Trump administration: Gerald Imray, The Associated Press
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What's known and not yet known about the Justice Department's scrutiny of Trump-Russia probe origins
WASHINGTON (AP) — News that Attorney General Pam Bondi is moving to criminally investigate the Obama-era origins of the Trump-Russia investigation means that one of the most studied, and politically polarizing, chapters of modern American history will be under the microscope yet again. A saga with a long backstory Perhaps no issue continues to aggravate President Donald Trump more than the assessment by intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf and the investigation by law enforcement into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow to tip the outcome of the contest. Robert Mueller, the former FBI director tapped as special counsel by Trump's first Justice Department to investigate, found that Russia had waged a multi-prong operation in Trump's favor and that the Republican president's campaign welcomed the aid. But Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. As president for a second time, Trump has made no secret of his desire to use the Justice Department as a weapon of retribution against perceived political adversaries he sees as having smeared him, including by calling for Obama-era officials to be jailed. And his administration, now more broadly and across multiple agencies, has been engaged in a effort to reopen the long-accepted conclusion — including among prominent Republicans — of Russian interference and to scrutinize the officials involved in reaching that assessment. A Bondi grand jury directive Bondi, a Trump loyalist, has directed Justice Department prosecutors to present evidence related to the Russia inquiry to a grand jury. Grand juries are tools used by prosecutors to issue subpoenas for records and prosecutors and to produce indictments based on the evidence they receive. The bar is low for an indictment given that the presentation of evidence by prosecutors is one-sided, though grand juries do have the option to decline to indict and have done so in the past. A person familiar with the matter confirmed Bondi's directive to The Associated Press but key questions remain. It was not disclosed, for instance, which prosecutors are pursuing the investigation, where the grand jury that might hear evidence is located and whether and when law enforcement officials might seek to bring criminal charges. The Justice Department, in an unusual statement last month, appeared to confirm the existence of an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director James Brennan but provided no details or specifics. Potential targets of probe remain unclear It's not clear who might be targeted in the investigation, but the Trump administration has been aggressively challenging intelligence community conclusions about Russia's actions and intentions that had long ago seemed settled. It's been a welcome diversion for the administration as it confronts a wave of criticism from Trump's base and conservative influencers over the handling of records from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. In the last month, Trump administration officials and allies have released a series of documents aimed at casting doubt on the extent of interference and at portraying the original Russia investigation as an Obama administration frame-job. The documents have been hailed as incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy, but a close inspection of the records shows they fall well short of that. Among the documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, the administration's director of national intelligence, are emails from 2016 showing that Obama administration officials recognized in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in favor of Trump. But the absence of evidence that votes were switched — something the Obama administration never alleged — has no bearing on the ample evidence of other forms of Russia interference, including a hack-and-leak operation involving Democratic emails and a covert social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and spreading disinformation. Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a previously classified annex of a 2023 report by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the first Trump administration to hunt for government misconduct in the Russia probe. The annex included a series of emails, including one from July 2016 that was purportedly sent by a senior staffer at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, that referred to a plan approved by then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to falsely link Trump to Russia. But Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood that it was a product of Russian disinformation. Fresh scrutiny has also centered around the intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference, which was published in January 2017. An annex in a classified version of the assessment contained a summary of the so-called Steele dossier — a compilation of opposition research that included uncorroborated rumors and salacious gossip about Trump and Russia. The latest in a series of investigations Multiple government reports, including not only from Mueller but also a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee that included current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have documented Russia's activities in sweeping details. To be sure, reports from the Justice Department inspector general and Durham also identified significant flaws in the FBI's Russia investigation, including errors and omissions in applications the Justice Department submitted to a secretive surveillance court to eavesdrop on a national security adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign. But Durham found no criminal wrongdoing among government officials, bringing three criminal cases — two against private citizens that resulted in acquittals at trial and a third against a little-known FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email. It is unclear if there is any criminal wrongdoing that exists that Durham, who launched his investigation in 2019 and concluded it four years later, somehow missed during his sprawling inquiry.
