PEORIA — In a crowded but airy courtroom 75 miles from where a downstate sheriff’s deputy shot and killed Sonya Massey near Springfield in a case that stirred national outrage, a prosecutor said Wednesday the deputy shot Massey after he got mad at her as she held a pot of boiling water, while the deputy’s attorney told a jury the fatal shooting was in self-defense.
A 12-person jury listened intently to opening arguments from Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser and attorney Daniel Fultz, who is one of the lawyers representing now-former Sangamon County Deputy Sheriff Sean Grayson in the first-degree murder trial. The jury is composed of nine women and three men. Only one of the jurors, who is a male, is Black.
“At the end of the day, this defendant went into the home of Sonya Massey when she called for help,” Milhiser told the jury, “and without lawful justification (he) shot and killed (her).”
The national interest in the case was sparked by graphic police body camera footage from the incident that occurred July 6, 2024, in Massey’s home just outside the Springfield city limits. It shows Grayson, who is white, shoot and kill Massey, who is Black, after he repeatedly shouted at her to drop a pot of boiling water. Outside the Peoria County Courthouse, a few dozen protesters chanted and held signs such as “Justice for Sonya Massey” while some passing motorists appeared to honk their horns in support.
During his opening remarks to the jury, Milhiser summarized much of what can be seen on the body camera footage, including when Massey, who had been suffering from mental health challenges, uttered the words “please God” repeatedly when Grayson and his partner arrived. Milhiser explained to the jurors how they would see a “nice kind” of exchange between Massey and the deputies before “the defendant gets mad at a woman who is standing in her kitchen.”
At some point during the interaction, body camera video shows Grayson was in Massey’s living room with his gun drawn while she was holding a pot in her kitchen. Grayson fired three shots after telling her loudly to drop it, shooting her in the face.
“He did not follow training. He did not follow policies and he is guilty,” Milhiser said.
Milhiser noted that while Grayson’s partner, Deputy Sheriff Dawson Farley, immediately activated his body camera upon arrival at the scene, Grayson failed to turn his camera on until later in his encounter with Massey — which demonstrates a pattern the prosecutor says the jury will see of Grayson not following law enforcement policies or training.
Sporting a black suit, brown shoes and thick, dark-rimmed glasses, Grayson on Wednesday at times reclined in his chair as he watched testimony, leaning over a few times to write on a notepad. As he stood at one point during a break, he gave a thumbs-up to someone in the gallery.
In his opening remarks, Fultz, one of Grayson’s lawyers, said he doesn’t think someone would think Grayson made up his mind to kill Massey when he went to her home. Fultz also alluded to a point in the body camera footage when “she makes a comment along the lines of ‘don’t hurt me’ and he says ‘why would we hurt you?'”
From there, Fultz said the encounter rapidly developed into a situation where Grayson needed to protect himself and his partner from the danger of the boiling water.
“We believe the evidence will show that Deputy Grayson was lawful (in) discharging the weapon at the time Ms. Massey died,” Fultz said. “What happened to Ms. Massey was a tragedy but it was not a crime.”
Fultz also explained to the jurors the importance of not forming an opinion about the case until they’ve heard all the evidence.
“If the state is not able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Grayson committed first-degree murder, you’re obligated to acquit him,” Fultz said. “There is no crime if you decide the shooting was lawful.”
In his testimony, Farley, Grayson’s partner, acknowledged that weeks after the shooting, he corrected statements he initially made in a police report, including alluding to Massey as a threat.
Farley testified Wednesday that at no time did he consider Massey a threat.
“I just wanted to do right by (Massey’s) family and tell the truth,” Farley said of correcting the statements.
While Farley testified that he was in fear when the shooting occurred, it was due to Grayson’s actions.
On cross-examination, Fultz sought to poke holes in Farley’s reporting, noting Farley wanted to make the changes to his report after Grayson was indicted.
“It is extremely important that what you put in that report is accurate,” Fultz said, to which Farley later said he accepted blame for any misstatements he documented.
“I had tunnel vision at the time, a hundred things going in my mind,” he said of the shooting.
The jury also viewed the non-redacted body camera footage, which included Massey’s final moments and the aftermath, including Farley applying pressure to her wound with a towel to try to stop bleeding.
As the footage was shown, one juror appeared to look down while another had a look of disbelief. Another juror appeared to cover part of her face at times with a notebook. In the gallery, a couple of Massey’s loved ones left the courtroom at one point, and a few others appeared to cry quietly.
In the video, Farley told Grayson moments after the shooting that he wanted to get his medical kit to try to stop Massey’s bleeding before paramedics arrived. Initially, Grayson discouraged him from rendering aid because she was “done.”
A short time later, Farley was seen on video going to the kitchen to retrieve a towel to apply pressure to Massey’s wound.
In his testimony, Farley said, despite not being the officer who shot Massey, “if you use force on anyone, it’s your job to render aid.
Milhiser also called Illinois State Police Lt. Eric Weston to testify about the agency’s investigation into the shooting. As is common practice, the State Police stepped in to investigate the case as a neutral party, rather than the Sangamon County sheriff’s office conducting its own probe.
Weston said his observations of what happened during the shooting, from being on the scene afterward, were different from what he eventually saw in video footage of how it unfolded.
“My initial thought was it was different than the assumption I made on scene,” he said. “The assumption on scene was there was some sort of major incident or altercation that (led) to deadly force.”
On cross-examination, one of Grayson’s other lawyers, Mark Wykoff, sought to challenge those statements, considering Weston is supposed to oversee a neutral investigation.
“It’s fair to say, as an investigator, you’re not to form assumptions, are you?” asked Wykoff.
“I’m not to form a conclusion,” Weston replied.
