At a Glance
- 7th Court of Appeals overturns conviction of Officer Christopher Taylor for a 2019 shooting that killed Mauris DeSilva.
- Taylor was acquitted after a jury had found him guilty in 2024.
- The ruling sparks debate over police accountability.
Why it matters: The decision raises questions about how appellate courts review criminal convictions and the limits of police use-of-force.
The 7th Court of Appeals reversed the 2024 conviction of former Austin Police Officer Christopher Taylor, who had been sentenced to two years in prison for a 2019 shooting that killed Mauris DeSilva. The appellate court declared the jury verdict “absurd” and entered a judgment of acquittal, prompting statements from the department, the district attorney, and the DeSilva family’s legal team.
Court Decision
The appellate court found that no reasonable juror could have convicted Taylor, citing the jury’s inability to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court’s ruling overturned the conviction and entered a judgment of acquittal. The decision was announced Tuesday.
Doug O’Connell stated:
> We are deeply grateful for the 7th Court of Appeals’ decision to overturn the conviction of Detective Chris Taylor and enter a judgement of acquittal in his case,
> Detective Taylor should never have faced prosecution for defending himself and his fellow officers against a man who threatened them with a knife.
Doug O’Connell added:
> Taylor’s use of force was both legal and authorized under the circumstances.
Reactions
The Austin Police Department acknowledged the ruling and is reviewing the decision with the City Attorney’s Office.
Travis County District Attorney stated:
> The conservative Amarillo-based 7th Court of Appeals judges think they know better than the Travis County jurors who heard the case and convicted Taylor. The basis for the reversal-that no reasonable juror could have convicted is absurd. We will continue fighting to uphold the jury’s conviction.
Smith and Vinson stated:
> We are disappointed by today’s ruling, but we believe a civil jury will see this differently. Unlike the criminal system, a civil jury won’t be constrained by laws that shield officers from accountability for excessive force. Society demands better conduct from its police. The DeSilva family deserves justice, and we intend to get it.
Background
Taylor was convicted by a jury in the 2019 shooting of Mauris DeSilva, who was found walking around his downtown Austin condo complex with a knife to his throat. Officers confronted DeSilva outside an elevator, told him to drop the knife, and shot and killed him. Taylor and another officer fired guns; a third officer fired a Taser.
Prosecutors argued the use of force was excessive and DeSilva was undergoing a “profound” mental health episode, while Taylor’s attorneys argued self-defense and defense of others.
The jury deliberated about four days before entering a guilty verdict. Taylor was convicted in 2024 and has been out on appellate bond since then.
In 2023, a mistrial was declared for Taylor in a separate case – a murder charge in the 2020 shooting death of Michael Ramos – when a jury could not reach a unanimous decision. A subsequent grand jury reviewed the case and chose not to re-indict Taylor on that murder charge.
Related Cases
- November: Travis County DA dismissed the case against Officer Karl Krycia, requiring him to attend ICAT training.
- November 18: Judge declared a mistrial for Officer Daniel Sanchez in the 2022 shooting of Rajan Moonesinghe.
- 2023: Mistrial declared for Taylor in the murder charge of Michael Ramos; grand jury chose not to re-indict.
Key Takeaways
- The appellate reversal underscores tension between criminal convictions and appellate review.
- Police use-of-force cases continue to test the balance between officer protection and public accountability.
- Related cases show a pattern of mistrials and dismissals in Austin police shootings.
The appellate reversal underscores the tension between criminal convictions and appellate review, while the broader context of police use-of-force cases continues to test the balance between officer protection and public accountability.
