Has justice been served for Breonna Taylor? Amy and T.J. discuss how the two officers who actually shot 26 year old Taylor, asleep in her bed, were never charged in her death… and the one who shot and missed, has just been sentenced to nearly 3 years behind bars. Yes, he was sentenced, but will former officer Hankison actually serve any time in jail… many believe he won’t.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Heolks, it's July twenty second, twenty twenty five. Brianna Taylor
was killed March thirteenth of twenty twenty and today, five
years later, one of the three officers who shot at
her that night was sentenced to jail time. He is
the only officer charged in her shooting death, and he's
(00:24):
the only one of the three officers whose bullets did
not hit Brianna Taylor.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Welcome everybody to Amy and TJ. Robes.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We are doing this episode, yes, because this is timely,
but also in part because of a conversation that was
not naturally sparked between the two of us, and it's
kind of you kind of had a wait, what the
hell moment.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Yeah, I mean, look, we cover and we've covered crime
stories for decades now, and this one is a head
scratch and you really do kind of have to read
between the lines and do a little research to figure
out what the hell is going on. So the man
and Brett Haykinson was charged, the former police officer in
the shooting death of Breonna Taylor, and he was sentenced
(01:09):
to thirty three months in prison correct so just shy
of three years. But he was the only one of
the three officers who fired their weapons that night, whose
bullets didn't hit Brionna Taylor, the two men whose bullets
hit Brianna Taylor, and the one man's who actually was
the fatal shot. Neither one of them were even.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Charged the death a not guilty verdict. They did not
even matter of a mistrial, hungery not.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
No charges, no charges, And so you have to think why,
how is that possible? And you have to go back
to how the story started and the reason why these
other two officers weren't charged, And there was.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
An uproar at the time when the charges weren't brought
against some of the other officers. But we're here now because, folks,
we sit here five years later and for the first time,
someone is being held accountable, at least with prison time,
for the death of Brianna Taylor. Now we go back
to twenty twenty. That was a different time. She actually died.
(02:13):
Was that two three months before? Two months before, George
George Floyd. Yes, So there were protests and there were
an uproar, and you know what you actually said this
he said.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
The first thing that came to.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Mind was the hashtag say her name, Brianna Taylor. Say
her name, and there was, yes, a huge uproar. People
were upset that this twenty six year old, innocent woman
sleeping in her own bed, in her own apartment is
killed by police officers who rush into her apartment without
(02:45):
announcing themselves, and the two men who fired bullets into
her body and killed her were not even charged. How
do you explain this, right, they.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Explain it legally.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Brett Haggison to catch everybody up here, and you'll probably
saw the headlines today that he was sentenced to thirty
three months in jail. Former Louisville police officer now rose.
Before the headline came about him being sentenced, there was
another headline about what the government was even asking for.
So the government that prosecuted this man gave a sentencing recommendation. Now,
(03:25):
usually the way this goes in whatever case criminal case
you deal with, the prosecutors want as much jail time
as possible, the defense wants as little as possible. And
this was not the case.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
No, and let's point this out that when the prosecution,
because this was a federal case, so we're talking about
the Department of Justice, those were the prosecutors. The Department
of Justice at one point during this case was run
by the Biden administration, but when we got to sentencing,
now the Department of Justice is run by the Trump administration,
(03:59):
So the Trump Department of Justice basically did an about face.
I think the judge called it a one point eighty
from what they had said under the Biden administration. But
suddenly now they're asking for one day. The maximum for
this penalty that Haginson was convicted of could be life
(04:19):
in prison, so there was a large range of time
that he could have spent behind bars, and the Department
of Justice, the Trump dj asked for one day.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Seemed defensive a little bit, just say no jail time,
but they were The point they were trying to make
is say, he spent a day in jail during his
when he was first arrested, when he was first booked,
he spent a day in jail, So they just evening
things out is essentially time served. He wouldn't go back
into jail for a day. But it's just the optics
of it. It felt it felt like an intentional insult.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Yes, and it almost seemed like they wanted to give
him credit, you know, they say credit for time served.
They almost kind of wanted to give him credit for
the time he served. It was a kind of a
but yes, Breonna Taylor's mom said as much. She said
it was insulting and offensive that someone finally might be
held accountable for what happened to her daughter, her very
innocent daughter. And even when he was convicted, the prosecution
(05:16):
is asking for one day, the defense was asking for
zero days. So they were basically on the same side.
That's what it felt like to Breonna Taylor's mother.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
To the judge's credit, I don't have her name in
front of me, it's a lady. But yes, the sentencing
today and comes out that he is going to get
thirty three months, like you said, two years plus in jail.
She actually commented on the prosecution's case. She incongruous was
(05:49):
what is the word she used.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Yah.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
She essentially said, it is absolutely inappropriate to suggest that
this man should not spend any time in jail. She
said it she all amos was suggesting. It was INCOMPREHENI.
It didn't make sense the argument that you all were
making for the one day.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
No, it made no sense at all, and she just
felt like it was it was a slap in the face.
It truly was, and so there was some relief when
finally there was a decision by this judge to say, no,
I'm not going to do the one day. I am
going to give two years and nine months or whatever
it ended up being it. And look, it wasn't exactly
(06:26):
what Taylor's or Taylor's family wanted, but it was something,
and it was better than one day, and it was
certainly better than nothing. And at one point they thought
that he might be going free without any other.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Punishment, and they said as much today it came out
and made their statements, and you could tell that they
weren't necessarily celebrating, but they knew they were preparing themselves
for him not to do any time in jail, So
at least they accepted that.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
The thing we were in a lot of people, and
I remember covering this story a lot when it first
went down. People couldn't understand why is it that three
people showed up that night and again the incident in
twenty twenty, they show up to serve a no knock
warrant at this house. Breonna Taylor and her boyfriend are
sleeping inside at the time.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Now it's you.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Got different reports about whether or not they announced themselves
or not. Neighbors say they heard one thing, other folks
say they didn't hear anything, but no knock warrant And
Brionna Taylor's boyfriend fire is a shot. I mean, he
has a weapon that he is registered, licensed to have,
and he fired at the officers, hitting one of them.
They returned fire. Two officers returned fire from a particular position,
(07:38):
and then a third officer, Hankinson we're talking about, fired
into the home. But blindly. He fired into a window
that had blinds. He couldn't see what he was shooting at.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
And that is against police standard operating procedures. You have
to be able to see who you are shooting at.
That is clear as day. What ended up happening is
those ten bullets he fired into a window with blinds.
One or two or few of those bullets went into
another apartment where a pregnant woman, her five year old son,
and her boyfriend were all sleeping. They were not hit, thankfully,
(08:13):
But the judge pointed out, you were just lucky, I mean,
you were just lucky that no one else was injured.
But he threatened to other people's lives. The actual count
that he was charged with and convicted of, was violating
Breonna Taylor's civil rights by using excessive force in discharging
those ten shots through her window that ended up going
(08:33):
into another apartment as well.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
And you know I do deep dives from some of
these things.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
It's a Fourth Amendment issue. She has the right against
illegal or excessive search and seizure. By firing that many
bullets into the home, the legal argument is that that
was excessive force that went beyond what is normal search
and seizure, and that was the Fourth Amendment violation. Now,
(08:59):
he was also charged with something else because the bullets
missed her. That he was charged with endangerment. He got
off on state charges of endangerment. The federal charges tried
to mention those things, but.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
He got off on that.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Phuy.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
He was a hunger on that count. So the only
thing he was charged with was this one thing. So
what we are saying ropes like, there's some legalities to
get into there, but this is the fact. The only
officer charged in the shooting death of Brianna Taylor is
the officer who missed her. That is tough to stomach
(09:38):
at times for a lot of people.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Well, if you are Breonna Taylor's mom. If you are
someone who loved and knew Brianna Taylor, yeah, that's gonna
piss you off. The two men who actually did put
bullets into their loved one again, she was sleeping. Those
two men. Then, those two police officers weren't charged, aren't
(10:04):
going to jail, and are living their lives. And the
reason is because they said Brianna Taylor's boyfriend fired their shots.
He did say very and this is understandable. He said
he thought they were intruders. He thought someone was breaking
into their home. The police officers didn't have to announce
who they were. So, yeah, someone's breaking into your home,
(10:25):
you have a weapon, you're sleeping as well. You might
be disoriented, almost certainly you are, but you go into
fight or flight, right, So he went into fight mode
and he fired a shot. And because he fired a
shot at those officers, the officers who then returned fire
were within their rights as police officers to do so.
(10:46):
It just so happened those bullets went into Brianna Taylor. Unfortunately,
it's just a.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
This is a wild, wild scenario.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
I mean, it led to all kinds of reform that
the Louisville Police department. What was it twelve million dollars
that her family got from the rural police department as well,
oh the city there so people admitted fault. This is
just this was one of those things that's hard to
stomach to understand that five years later, dozens of bullets
or shots were fired. Yes, and the only person who
(11:19):
missed her is the one that is being punished, the
one that is getting jail time. However, folks, I know
one officer we've been talking about, did did receive a sentence,
is supposed to be going to prison, but already people
are talking about one person who could step in right
now and with the stroke of a pen keep this
(11:41):
officer from ever setting foot in prison.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Welcome back everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ.
We are talking about the Brianna Taylor case and it's
confusing from a criminal and legal standpoint. But yes, the
only person right now who has been convicted among those
three police officers who fired bullets is the one officer
whose bullets never even hit Breonna Taylor. And so yes,
(12:17):
he was sentenced to thirty three months behind bars, but
only because the judge in the case went against the
prosecutors when against the defense recommendations. They each put in
their sentencing recommendations. The prosecution said, we're good with one day. Obviously,
the defense didn't want their client to go to prison
for any days, and essentially the prosecution was saying, we'll
(12:40):
just give him credit for time serve, so he wouldn't
have actually been going to prison at all. But the
judge in this case, Rebecca Grady Jennings is her name.
So Judge Jennings decided that she wasn't going to do that.
She decided to take issue, and she pointed out that
this isn't this wasn't a expected and she was disappointed
(13:01):
by the DOJ's recommendation of just one day. So she
settled on thirty three months. But that even is far
less than what the maximum penalty could have been. Haykinson
could have been sentenced to life in prison with the
charge he was convicted of. So she went with thirty
three months better than one day or zero days, but
(13:24):
certainly doesn't feel like justice.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
What was it? She said?
Speaker 1 (13:30):
She kind of got on to them for being inappropriate
in act asking for one day. She kind of went
a little farther and saying, kind of your argument is
incomprehensible and almost called it.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
I'm using the word silly.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Here, but to suggest that his actions were inconsequential, I
think it's how they put it. There was a suggestion
by saying one day, it's as if what he did
didn't matter just because he had blind luck in not
hitting somebody and killings in the next apartment. So, I mean,
the judge, I was interested in her some of the comments,
(14:06):
but yeah, she completely rejected this idea of one day.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Yeah, and she called them out and said, this is
a one eighty from what we heard before. And again
we pointed out before we went to break that two
different administrations were leading the Department of Justice throughout this process.
So the one eighty might have been politically motivated in
the sense that they just had different agendas or different
perceptions of what was fair and what was just. And
(14:31):
so yes, it was a complete about face. So the
judge called them out on that and said this isn't
appropriate and made the decision she made. And you know,
the Taylor family said that they were grateful to the
judge for giving some time because they really were preparing
themselves to walk away with nothing, because that's when you
hear the prosecution is recommending nothing. Essentially, they were preparing
(14:54):
themselves for that, so they said they're disappointed, but they're
grateful and that that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
But already, and this is key, folks, Brett Hankerson did
deal with state charges. All those state cases, those are over.
Now what he just dealt with now that he's been
convicted of again, not convicted on any state charges, but
convicted now of fedaal charges and robes is very key
(15:24):
that this is a fedaal case because there is someone
in the Fedda Oral government who could bail him out,
and this is already being talked about.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Correct, And we should make it very clear here that
Brett Haykieson, the former police officer who has been convicted
and has been sentenced now to thirty three months behind bars,
is not behind bars right now. He is free. He's
likely home with his family, but his attorneys have filed
for an appeal, and while they're waiting for that appeal,
(15:53):
he is going to remain out on bond, so to speak,
before he serves his sentencing time. But a lot of
folks are wondering if he's even going to even need
to move forward with the appeal or even worry about
heading to jail to serve that time, because there is
someone who is the head of the federal government who
can commute his sentence, who can pardon him, who can
(16:16):
make sure he doesn't spend a day in jail. That's
President Trump.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
I mean, I guess he could commute it. I mean
he could simply commute it, or do time served, or
cut it down and not vacate the conviction not clear
his record. That's an option as well. But it's the
White House. It's the Trump administration that was pushing for
him to have one day. It was the Trump administration
who actually said he is not a.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Threat to the community.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Is the Trump administration who filed officially paperwork saying that
this man what is it? They said, never in the
history of the world or something that has there ever
been someone who has been sentenced to time in jail
for firing a weapon in defense and not hitting anybody.
I mean they they yes, argued, I mean they were
(17:02):
literally on his side in terms of his prison sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So would we be surprised.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
It's reasonable to believe that if that is what the
Department of Justice was arguing for a basically a zero
day sentence, one day sentence. That that would be the
same line of thinking that would cause someone like President
Trump to say, hey, well, I don't like and you
(17:30):
know he doesn't like judges making decisions, which is funny,
but he really has an issue with a lot of judges.
And so for him, he may say, hey, a judge
shouldn't go beyond what a prosecutor is asking. You should
respect where the Department of Justice was on this case,
and you went outside of what the DJ was asking.
And so that could be not that he needs a
(17:51):
reason to do what he does or to make the
decisions he does, but you could see where his mind
and his reasoning might go to that place.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
I was a betting man, and you just would have
convinced me to go with Trump is probably going.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
To And what's that going to do? What's that reaction
going to be? What's going to happen?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Then?
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I mean say her name? Hashtags say her name? And
I haven't heard that in a while. Obviously it was
five years ago when this all was going on. But
what do we see if that were to happen, what
would the reaction be.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
It's going to be a bigger uproar if he does
it that way instead of the Department of Justice doing
it the way they were trying to do it, which
was simply saying we are not pushing for a jail sentence.
If he would have just gone home, I think that
it would be that would have been a little quieter.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
But if the.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
President, after a judge says this man should stay in
prison for two and a half plus years for his
actions on the night that led to the death of
Brianna Taylor, say her name, innocent woman, and Trump is
going to say, you know what, Nope, he shouldn't be
punished at all for his role in her death. That
(19:01):
reads different from the DOJ just saying one day in prison.
That is going to be a if if if.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
That's and here's another part of this situation. The New
York Times had something very interesting talking about that the
Department of Justice made this request for credit for time
served in the same vein and the same efforts to
abandon addressing racial disparities in policing. This has been a
(19:30):
theme obviously with the second term for the Trump administration
doing away with die policies. Not wanting to point out
d I always say that d Ei. I always say
that is dee I. But it's this this same agenda
that President Trump has had about the culture war agenda,
the wokeness, like the diversity, like we're not going to
(19:53):
talk about black versus white, a white officer and a
black victim. So they may say this is all a
part of that as well. There trying to stop this
race based prosecutioner. This is what part of their reasoning
was for asking for one day, just one day.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
This is.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
You know what I didn't realize we should mention. I
don't think we have. There are three other officers involved
in this case who were not on the scene that night,
robes that were I guess essentially charged for their behavior afterwards,
we're essentially talking about obstruction and conspiracy and we're talking
about trying to forge some paperwork and live.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Yes, it's really crazy because again, the two officers who
actually fired the fatal bullets into Breonna Taylor no charges,
no trials, no convictions, no nothing. But all these folks,
there are three people who are being charged, and two
of them weren't even on the scene. So one former
(20:58):
officer named Kelly Goodlitch, she pleaded guilty by the way,
she's gonna be sentenced in February for a federal conspiracy
charge because she did something with the paperwork and the
actual paperwork, yeah, paperwork, but yes, she falsified documents after
the fact about this no knock warrant. Now there are
two other people, Joshua James and Kyle Meani, and they
(21:21):
are charged. These are other Louisville Metro Police officers. They
are charged for again falsifying records and conspiring to cover
it up after the fact and lying to federal investigators.
So it was all about a cover up, but it
had nothing to do conspiracy with the actual act of
killing Brianna Taylor.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
So yes, four four officers, Yes.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
And totally you're right. Four officers, So.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Six officers involved, four facing charges, the two who shot
her are the only two that never faced charges, and
three over paper work and lies.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
It makes your blood boil a little, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
I mean, you want to trust in the system.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
You have to. We just have to.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
It doesn't work if we don't trust in some way.
But there in it sometimes it feels like it fails
us greatly. And this is one you can certainly understand
why Breonna Taylor, whose family is are they still seeking justice?
What more can you do after this?
Speaker 2 (22:30):
You know?
Speaker 1 (22:30):
So I don't know if finally some closures, some finality
to it with this, I don't know, but it might
not be over because they might see a headline in
a few days or a post on truth Social that
says Brett Hankerson is never going to prison.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
And I can't imagine what that could set off in
terms of just that anger is right there. I mean,
it's it's there just for what the outcome is as
it is, but to have that go a step further
is even tougher. And obviously there's so much conversations about
no knock warrants and whether or not that's even legal.
To not announce yourself, that's another unthinkable situation. I can't
(23:08):
even imagine putting myself in someone choose, where you're in
a home and people are busting in and yelling and
you have no idea who it is. I mean, that's
frightening and scary, and I don't think anyone really knows
how they'd react until they were put in that situation.
But we will follow this story to see if there
are any new developments, and you can count on us
to certainly weigh in if there are, but thank you
(23:29):
so much for joining us today. I'm Ami roboch On
behalf of my partner t J. Holmes. Have a great night, everybody,
Heolks, it's July twenty second, twenty twenty five. Brianna Taylor
was killed March thirteenth of twenty twenty and today, five
years later, one of the three officers who shot at
her that night was sentenced to jail time. He is
the only officer charged in her shooting death, and he's
(00:24):
the only one of the three officers whose bullets did
not hit Brianna Taylor.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Welcome everybody to Amy and TJ. Robes.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We are doing this episode, yes, because this is timely,
but also in part because of a conversation that was
not naturally sparked between the two of us, and it's
kind of you kind of had a wait, what the
hell moment.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Yeah, I mean, look, we cover and we've covered crime
stories for decades now, and this one is a head
scratch and you really do kind of have to read
between the lines and do a little research to figure
out what the hell is going on. So the man
and Brett Haykinson was charged, the former police officer in
the shooting death of Breonna Taylor, and he was sentenced
(01:09):
to thirty three months in prison correct so just shy
of three years. But he was the only one of
the three officers who fired their weapons that night, whose
bullets didn't hit Brionna Taylor, the two men whose bullets
hit Brianna Taylor, and the one man's who actually was
the fatal shot. Neither one of them were even.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Charged the death a not guilty verdict. They did not
even matter of a mistrial, hungery not.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
No charges, no charges, And so you have to think why,
how is that possible? And you have to go back
to how the story started and the reason why these
other two officers weren't charged, And there was.
Speaker 1 (01:52):
An uproar at the time when the charges weren't brought
against some of the other officers. But we're here now because, folks,
we sit here five years later and for the first time,
someone is being held accountable, at least with prison time,
for the death of Brianna Taylor. Now we go back
to twenty twenty. That was a different time. She actually died.
(02:13):
Was that two three months before? Two months before, George
George Floyd. Yes, So there were protests and there were
an uproar, and you know what you actually said this
he said.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
The first thing that came to.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
Mind was the hashtag say her name, Brianna Taylor. Say
her name, and there was, yes, a huge uproar. People
were upset that this twenty six year old, innocent woman
sleeping in her own bed, in her own apartment is
killed by police officers who rush into her apartment without
(02:45):
announcing themselves, and the two men who fired bullets into
her body and killed her were not even charged. How
do you explain this, right, they.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Explain it legally.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Brett Haggison to catch everybody up here, and you'll probably
saw the headlines today that he was sentenced to thirty
three months in jail. Former Louisville police officer now rose.
Before the headline came about him being sentenced, there was
another headline about what the government was even asking for.
So the government that prosecuted this man gave a sentencing recommendation. Now,
(03:25):
usually the way this goes in whatever case criminal case
you deal with, the prosecutors want as much jail time
as possible, the defense wants as little as possible. And
this was not the case.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
No, and let's point this out that when the prosecution,
because this was a federal case, so we're talking about
the Department of Justice, those were the prosecutors. The Department
of Justice at one point during this case was run
by the Biden administration, but when we got to sentencing,
now the Department of Justice is run by the Trump administration,
(03:59):
So the Trump Department of Justice basically did an about face.
I think the judge called it a one point eighty
from what they had said under the Biden administration. But
suddenly now they're asking for one day. The maximum for
this penalty that Haginson was convicted of could be life
(04:19):
in prison, so there was a large range of time
that he could have spent behind bars, and the Department
of Justice, the Trump dj asked for one day.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Seemed defensive a little bit, just say no jail time,
but they were The point they were trying to make
is say, he spent a day in jail during his
when he was first arrested, when he was first booked,
he spent a day in jail, So they just evening
things out is essentially time served. He wouldn't go back
into jail for a day. But it's just the optics
of it. It felt it felt like an intentional insult.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
Yes, and it almost seemed like they wanted to give
him credit, you know, they say credit for time served.
They almost kind of wanted to give him credit for
the time he served. It was a kind of a
but yes, Breonna Taylor's mom said as much. She said
it was insulting and offensive that someone finally might be
held accountable for what happened to her daughter, her very
innocent daughter. And even when he was convicted, the prosecution
(05:16):
is asking for one day, the defense was asking for
zero days. So they were basically on the same side.
That's what it felt like to Breonna Taylor's mother.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
To the judge's credit, I don't have her name in
front of me, it's a lady. But yes, the sentencing
today and comes out that he is going to get
thirty three months, like you said, two years plus in jail.
She actually commented on the prosecution's case. She incongruous was
(05:49):
what is the word she used.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Yah.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
She essentially said, it is absolutely inappropriate to suggest that
this man should not spend any time in jail. She
said it she all amos was suggesting. It was INCOMPREHENI.
It didn't make sense the argument that you all were
making for the one day.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
No, it made no sense at all, and she just
felt like it was it was a slap in the face.
It truly was, and so there was some relief when
finally there was a decision by this judge to say, no,
I'm not going to do the one day. I am
going to give two years and nine months or whatever
it ended up being it. And look, it wasn't exactly
(06:26):
what Taylor's or Taylor's family wanted, but it was something,
and it was better than one day, and it was
certainly better than nothing. And at one point they thought
that he might be going free without any other.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
Punishment, and they said as much today it came out
and made their statements, and you could tell that they
weren't necessarily celebrating, but they knew they were preparing themselves
for him not to do any time in jail, So
at least they accepted that.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
The thing we were in a lot of people, and
I remember covering this story a lot when it first
went down. People couldn't understand why is it that three
people showed up that night and again the incident in
twenty twenty, they show up to serve a no knock
warrant at this house. Breonna Taylor and her boyfriend are
sleeping inside at the time.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Now it's you.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Got different reports about whether or not they announced themselves
or not. Neighbors say they heard one thing, other folks
say they didn't hear anything, but no knock warrant And
Brionna Taylor's boyfriend fire is a shot. I mean, he
has a weapon that he is registered, licensed to have,
and he fired at the officers, hitting one of them.
They returned fire. Two officers returned fire from a particular position,
(07:38):
and then a third officer, Hankinson we're talking about, fired
into the home. But blindly. He fired into a window
that had blinds. He couldn't see what he was shooting at.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
And that is against police standard operating procedures. You have
to be able to see who you are shooting at.
That is clear as day. What ended up happening is
those ten bullets he fired into a window with blinds.
One or two or few of those bullets went into
another apartment where a pregnant woman, her five year old son,
and her boyfriend were all sleeping. They were not hit, thankfully,
(08:13):
But the judge pointed out, you were just lucky, I mean,
you were just lucky that no one else was injured.
But he threatened to other people's lives. The actual count
that he was charged with and convicted of, was violating
Breonna Taylor's civil rights by using excessive force in discharging
those ten shots through her window that ended up going
(08:33):
into another apartment as well.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
And you know I do deep dives from some of
these things.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
It's a Fourth Amendment issue. She has the right against
illegal or excessive search and seizure. By firing that many
bullets into the home, the legal argument is that that
was excessive force that went beyond what is normal search
and seizure, and that was the Fourth Amendment violation. Now,
(08:59):
he was also charged with something else because the bullets
missed her. That he was charged with endangerment. He got
off on state charges of endangerment. The federal charges tried
to mention those things, but.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
He got off on that.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Phuy.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
He was a hunger on that count. So the only
thing he was charged with was this one thing. So
what we are saying ropes like, there's some legalities to
get into there, but this is the fact. The only
officer charged in the shooting death of Brianna Taylor is
the officer who missed her. That is tough to stomach
(09:38):
at times for a lot of people.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Well, if you are Breonna Taylor's mom. If you are
someone who loved and knew Brianna Taylor, yeah, that's gonna
piss you off. The two men who actually did put
bullets into their loved one again, she was sleeping. Those
two men. Then, those two police officers weren't charged, aren't
(10:04):
going to jail, and are living their lives. And the
reason is because they said Brianna Taylor's boyfriend fired their shots.
He did say very and this is understandable. He said
he thought they were intruders. He thought someone was breaking
into their home. The police officers didn't have to announce
who they were. So, yeah, someone's breaking into your home,
(10:25):
you have a weapon, you're sleeping as well. You might
be disoriented, almost certainly you are, but you go into
fight or flight, right, So he went into fight mode
and he fired a shot. And because he fired a
shot at those officers, the officers who then returned fire
were within their rights as police officers to do so.
(10:46):
It just so happened those bullets went into Brianna Taylor. Unfortunately,
it's just a.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
This is a wild, wild scenario.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
I mean, it led to all kinds of reform that
the Louisville Police department. What was it twelve million dollars
that her family got from the rural police department as well,
oh the city there so people admitted fault. This is
just this was one of those things that's hard to
stomach to understand that five years later, dozens of bullets
or shots were fired. Yes, and the only person who
(11:19):
missed her is the one that is being punished, the
one that is getting jail time. However, folks, I know
one officer we've been talking about, did did receive a sentence,
is supposed to be going to prison, but already people
are talking about one person who could step in right
now and with the stroke of a pen keep this
(11:41):
officer from ever setting foot in prison.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Welcome back everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ.
We are talking about the Brianna Taylor case and it's
confusing from a criminal and legal standpoint. But yes, the
only person right now who has been convicted among those
three police officers who fired bullets is the one officer
whose bullets never even hit Breonna Taylor. And so yes,
(12:17):
he was sentenced to thirty three months behind bars, but
only because the judge in the case went against the
prosecutors when against the defense recommendations. They each put in
their sentencing recommendations. The prosecution said, we're good with one day. Obviously,
the defense didn't want their client to go to prison
for any days, and essentially the prosecution was saying, we'll
(12:40):
just give him credit for time serve, so he wouldn't
have actually been going to prison at all. But the
judge in this case, Rebecca Grady Jennings is her name.
So Judge Jennings decided that she wasn't going to do that.
She decided to take issue, and she pointed out that
this isn't this wasn't a expected and she was disappointed
(13:01):
by the DOJ's recommendation of just one day. So she
settled on thirty three months. But that even is far
less than what the maximum penalty could have been. Haykinson
could have been sentenced to life in prison with the
charge he was convicted of. So she went with thirty
three months better than one day or zero days, but
(13:24):
certainly doesn't feel like justice.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
What was it? She said?
Speaker 1 (13:30):
She kind of got on to them for being inappropriate
in act asking for one day. She kind of went
a little farther and saying, kind of your argument is
incomprehensible and almost called it.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
I'm using the word silly.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Here, but to suggest that his actions were inconsequential, I
think it's how they put it. There was a suggestion
by saying one day, it's as if what he did
didn't matter just because he had blind luck in not
hitting somebody and killings in the next apartment. So, I mean,
the judge, I was interested in her some of the comments,
(14:06):
but yeah, she completely rejected this idea of one day.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
Yeah, and she called them out and said, this is
a one eighty from what we heard before. And again
we pointed out before we went to break that two
different administrations were leading the Department of Justice throughout this process.
So the one eighty might have been politically motivated in
the sense that they just had different agendas or different
perceptions of what was fair and what was just. And
(14:31):
so yes, it was a complete about face. So the
judge called them out on that and said this isn't
appropriate and made the decision she made. And you know,
the Taylor family said that they were grateful to the
judge for giving some time because they really were preparing
themselves to walk away with nothing, because that's when you
hear the prosecution is recommending nothing. Essentially, they were preparing
(14:54):
themselves for that, so they said they're disappointed, but they're
grateful and that that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
But already, and this is key, folks, Brett Hankerson did
deal with state charges. All those state cases, those are over.
Now what he just dealt with now that he's been
convicted of again, not convicted on any state charges, but
convicted now of fedaal charges and robes is very key
(15:24):
that this is a fedaal case because there is someone
in the Fedda Oral government who could bail him out,
and this is already being talked about.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Correct, And we should make it very clear here that
Brett Haykieson, the former police officer who has been convicted
and has been sentenced now to thirty three months behind bars,
is not behind bars right now. He is free. He's
likely home with his family, but his attorneys have filed
for an appeal, and while they're waiting for that appeal,
(15:53):
he is going to remain out on bond, so to speak,
before he serves his sentencing time. But a lot of
folks are wondering if he's even going to even need
to move forward with the appeal or even worry about
heading to jail to serve that time, because there is
someone who is the head of the federal government who
can commute his sentence, who can pardon him, who can
(16:16):
make sure he doesn't spend a day in jail. That's
President Trump.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
I mean, I guess he could commute it. I mean
he could simply commute it, or do time served, or
cut it down and not vacate the conviction not clear
his record. That's an option as well. But it's the
White House. It's the Trump administration that was pushing for
him to have one day. It was the Trump administration
who actually said he is not a.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
Threat to the community.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
Is the Trump administration who filed officially paperwork saying that
this man what is it? They said, never in the
history of the world or something that has there ever
been someone who has been sentenced to time in jail
for firing a weapon in defense and not hitting anybody.
I mean they they yes, argued, I mean they were
(17:02):
literally on his side in terms of his prison sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:06):
So would we be surprised.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
It's reasonable to believe that if that is what the
Department of Justice was arguing for a basically a zero
day sentence, one day sentence. That that would be the
same line of thinking that would cause someone like President
Trump to say, hey, well, I don't like and you
(17:30):
know he doesn't like judges making decisions, which is funny,
but he really has an issue with a lot of judges.
And so for him, he may say, hey, a judge
shouldn't go beyond what a prosecutor is asking. You should
respect where the Department of Justice was on this case,
and you went outside of what the DJ was asking.
And so that could be not that he needs a
(17:51):
reason to do what he does or to make the
decisions he does, but you could see where his mind
and his reasoning might go to that place.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
I was a betting man, and you just would have
convinced me to go with Trump is probably going.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
To And what's that going to do? What's that reaction
going to be? What's going to happen?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Then?
Speaker 3 (18:08):
I mean say her name? Hashtags say her name? And
I haven't heard that in a while. Obviously it was
five years ago when this all was going on. But
what do we see if that were to happen, what
would the reaction be.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
It's going to be a bigger uproar if he does
it that way instead of the Department of Justice doing
it the way they were trying to do it, which
was simply saying we are not pushing for a jail sentence.
If he would have just gone home, I think that
it would be that would have been a little quieter.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
But if the.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
President, after a judge says this man should stay in
prison for two and a half plus years for his
actions on the night that led to the death of
Brianna Taylor, say her name, innocent woman, and Trump is
going to say, you know what, Nope, he shouldn't be
punished at all for his role in her death. That
(19:01):
reads different from the DOJ just saying one day in prison.
That is going to be a if if if.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
That's and here's another part of this situation. The New
York Times had something very interesting talking about that the
Department of Justice made this request for credit for time
served in the same vein and the same efforts to
abandon addressing racial disparities in policing. This has been a
(19:30):
theme obviously with the second term for the Trump administration
doing away with die policies. Not wanting to point out
d I always say that d Ei. I always say
that is dee I. But it's this this same agenda
that President Trump has had about the culture war agenda,
the wokeness, like the diversity, like we're not going to
(19:53):
talk about black versus white, a white officer and a
black victim. So they may say this is all a
part of that as well. There trying to stop this
race based prosecutioner. This is what part of their reasoning
was for asking for one day, just one day.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
This is.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
You know what I didn't realize we should mention. I
don't think we have. There are three other officers involved
in this case who were not on the scene that night,
robes that were I guess essentially charged for their behavior afterwards,
we're essentially talking about obstruction and conspiracy and we're talking
about trying to forge some paperwork and live.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
Yes, it's really crazy because again, the two officers who
actually fired the fatal bullets into Breonna Taylor no charges,
no trials, no convictions, no nothing. But all these folks,
there are three people who are being charged, and two
of them weren't even on the scene. So one former
(20:58):
officer named Kelly Goodlitch, she pleaded guilty by the way,
she's gonna be sentenced in February for a federal conspiracy
charge because she did something with the paperwork and the
actual paperwork, yeah, paperwork, but yes, she falsified documents after
the fact about this no knock warrant. Now there are
two other people, Joshua James and Kyle Meani, and they
(21:21):
are charged. These are other Louisville Metro Police officers. They
are charged for again falsifying records and conspiring to cover
it up after the fact and lying to federal investigators.
So it was all about a cover up, but it
had nothing to do conspiracy with the actual act of
killing Brianna Taylor.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
So yes, four four officers, Yes.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
And totally you're right. Four officers, So.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Six officers involved, four facing charges, the two who shot
her are the only two that never faced charges, and
three over paper work and lies.
Speaker 3 (22:06):
It makes your blood boil a little, doesn't it.
Speaker 1 (22:09):
I mean, you want to trust in the system.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
You have to. We just have to.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
It doesn't work if we don't trust in some way.
But there in it sometimes it feels like it fails
us greatly. And this is one you can certainly understand
why Breonna Taylor, whose family is are they still seeking justice?
What more can you do after this?
Speaker 2 (22:30):
You know?
Speaker 1 (22:30):
So I don't know if finally some closures, some finality
to it with this, I don't know, but it might
not be over because they might see a headline in
a few days or a post on truth Social that
says Brett Hankerson is never going to prison.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
And I can't imagine what that could set off in
terms of just that anger is right there. I mean,
it's it's there just for what the outcome is as
it is, but to have that go a step further
is even tougher. And obviously there's so much conversations about
no knock warrants and whether or not that's even legal.
To not announce yourself, that's another unthinkable situation. I can't
(23:08):
even imagine putting myself in someone choose, where you're in
a home and people are busting in and yelling and
you have no idea who it is. I mean, that's
frightening and scary, and I don't think anyone really knows
how they'd react until they were put in that situation.
But we will follow this story to see if there
are any new developments, and you can count on us
to certainly weigh in if there are, but thank you
(23:29):
so much for joining us today. I'm Ami roboch On
behalf of my partner t J. Holmes. Have a great night, everybody,
Hosts And Creators
Amy Robach
T.J. Holmes
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com