‘I did not fire the gun': Alleged Maryland high school shooter testifies in murder trial
BALTIMORE — Jaylen Prince testified in his own defense Wednesday in Harford County Circuit Court, saying he did not intentionally shoot and kill fellow Joppatowne High School student Warren Grant.
Prince, 16, is charged with first-degree murder in the September shooting death of 15-year-old Grant inside a high school bathroom. Prince testified that the gun went off because Grant 'shook' him.
'I did not kill him,' Prince said. 'I did not fire the gun. It accidentally went off.'
Harford County State's Attorney Alison Healey cross-examined Prince, asking him why he had a gun inside the school. Prince testified that he routinely carried the gun because he was scared and because he did not want to leave it at home where his mother or younger siblings could find it.
He said carrying the gun was the 'only way' he felt he could protect himself, and that he had lost many friends to gun violence.
Healey showed numerous images of Prince holding guns. Investigators found the photos on Prince's cellphone. In one, Prince is pictured inside a relative's home with the Polymer 80 handgun he purchased in August. Healey used the image to contradict Prince's claim that he would only carry a gun when he felt unsafe by emphasizing that he often had a handgun in 'safe' environments.
Prince testified that he and Grant began arguing in the bathroom after a misunderstanding about Grant's girlfriend. He said he didn't know Grant was in the bathroom until Grant 'blew smoke' into his face and 'kept getting closer,' trying to fight Prince.
'I told him I would kill him to get him to stop,' Prince testified. 'I didn't mean it.'
Prince testified that he became 'frantic' when Grant's friends began to 'surround him.' In a cellphone video of the incident, Prince can be seen with his back to the entrance of the bathroom yelling in Grant's face with one of Grant's friends between him and Grant.
Healey asked Prince, if he was scared of Grant, why would he yell in his face?
'That's a scare tactic,' Prince responded.
In the video, Prince tells Grant that he would not fight him because his hand is broken — referring to an injury to his right index finger he sustained about a year earlier.
Prince testified that as Grant 'kept getting closer,' he drew the gun as another means of scaring him into backing away. The gun, Prince said, was in his right hand.
Prince's mother testified Tuesday that Prince's right index finger does not have full mobility since it was broken. Prince's defense attorney, Stacey Pipkin, physically recreated the scene in the bathroom, demonstrating how Grant allegedly shook Prince by his shoulders, prompting the gun to point from Prince's waist area toward Grant's chest before going off.
'I could not believe it happened,' Prince testified. 'I panicked and ran out of the bathroom.'
Prince underwent several hours of questioning from both the defense and prosecution after which the defense rested its case.
Closing arguments are expected to begin at 9 a.m. Thursday, after which jury deliberations will begin.
___________
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour
The end is nigh. That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old. The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!' Even if a student merely asks, 'What's transgender?,' teachers are expected to say, 'When we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.' Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views. Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw. The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values. The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared 'another victory for right-wing culture warriors,' even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents. However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas. The majority pushed back against 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that 'the damage to America's public education system will be profound' and 'threatens the very essence of public education.' The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S. Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools. Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.' Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.' These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children. Today, many are indeed following Jackson's advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism. Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities. It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children. What the majority calls 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures. The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over 'the essence of public education.' However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
San Francisco Chronicle
16 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What the Supreme Court's latest decision on LGBTQ inclusion means for California
Parents with religious objections to schoolbooks that favorably refer to lesbians, gays or transgender people have a right to be notified and remove their young children from class, the Supreme Court has ruled in the latest of a series of cases condemned by LGBT advocates. But it may not be the last word in California. Friday's 6-3 decision in a case from Maryland came a week after the same Supreme Court majority upheld laws in Tennessee and 26 other states denying puberty blockers and other gender-affirming care for transgender minors. A month earlier, the justices allowed President Donald Trump to expel thousands of transgender troops from the U.S. military while it considers his request to ban them from service. Together, the decisions mark a broad shift that California is fighting. Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed a $1.5 million fine on the Temecula Valley Unified School District in Riverside County for rejecting the state's social studies curriculum because it briefly discussed Harvey Milk, the gay-rights leader and San Francisco supervisor. Milk was assassinated in 1978 by former Supervisor Dan White, who also fatally shot Mayor George Moscone. After imposing the fine and shipping a supply of Milk-inclusive textbooks to the Temecula district, Newsom signed a law, Assembly Bill 1078 by Corey Jackson, D-Perris (Riverside County), that prohibits school boards from banning instructional materials because they contain discussions of a particular 'individual or group,' such as Milk and his advocates. The debate — inclusion and trans rights on one side, freedom of speech and religion on the other — was addressed Friday by a different set of referees, the Supreme Court's conservative majority. One of its most outspoken members, Justice Samuel Alito, said the Maryland school district's use of elementary-school textbooks with LGBT characters or themes violated the rights of religious parents to oversee their children's education. 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,' Alito wrote. He described one storybook for grades kindergarten through five that showed Kate, apparently a transgender girl, in what Alito described as a 'sex-neutral or sex-ambiguous bathroom,' telling her friends that a bathroom 'should be a safe space.' Another book, titled 'Prince & Knight,' showed two men battling a dragon, then falling in love and marrying with applause from 'the whole kingdom,' Alito said. Even if those books do not expressly endorse LGBT rights, Alito wrote, 'they are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated' and are being presented to 'young, impressionable children' without notification to their parents. He cited the court's 1972 ruling that allowed Amish parents to remove their children from school after the eighth grade, in accordance with their religion, despite a Wisconsin law requiring attendance until age 16. Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling 'invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure' to subjects that displease students' parents. Giving children 'of all faiths and backgrounds … an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society ... is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' said Sotomayor, joined by the court's other two Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious faiths.' California, unlike Maryland, has a law allowing parents with religious objections to their children's schoolbooks to remove their children from class — but only for classes related to health care. And last month a federal judge in San Diego barred a school district from assigning a book about a transgender child to a fifth-grader in a non-health care class without notifying his parents or allowing them to object. The book, 'My Shadow Is Pink,' tells the story of a boy who likes to wear dresses and is criticized at first by his father, who eventually comes to accept him. It was part of the Encinitas Union School District's 'buddy program' in which fifth-graders use school materials to mentor kindergarteners. Although state law serves 'an admirable purpose' by requiring schools to teach students about the contributions of 'historically marginalized groups,' the district appears to have violated the fifth-grader's constitutional rights by not allowing him or his parents to object, said U.S. District Judge M. James Lorenz, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. The district has appealed Lorenz's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which now can rely on the Supreme Court's analysis in assessing the state law. 'I am very concerned about the practical implications' of Friday's ruling, said Jonathan Glater, a professor of educational law at UC Berkeley. 'If I am a teacher, I might share with all parents a detailed explanation of all materials students might be exposed to, so that they can pull their students out of particular segments. The burden on a school of administrating those opt-outs is clear. And of course, a parental opt-out is highly unlikely to stop kids from talking with each other about the disfavored material; that is not how kids work.' The Supreme Court's ruling drew praise and criticism. Attorney Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund, which represented the Maryland youth's parents, said the court had reaffirmed that 'parents — not government — have the final say in how their children are raised.' But Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, a union representing 2.8 million teachers, said the ruling 'could have a chilling effect on students for generations to come.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who filed arguments with the court supporting the Maryland district, seemed unperturbed. 'By ensuring our curriculum reflects the full diversity of our student population, we foster an environment where every student feels seen, supported, and empowered to succeed,' he said in a statement after the ruling. 'In California, we will continue to remain a beacon of inclusivity, diversity, and belonging.' The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, No. 24-297.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. Advertisement The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. Advertisement The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools.
