Day 6: APD officer's murder trial continues, state likely to wrap Tuesday

Prosecutors are nearly finished presenting their case against Austin Police Officer Christopher Taylor, who is on trial for murder in the death of Mike Ramos. Taylor's attorneys are expected to take over Tuesday.

AUSTIN (KXAN) -- Prosecutors are nearly finished presenting their case against Austin Police Officer Christopher Taylor, who is on trial for murder in the death of Mike Ramos. Taylor's attorneys are expected to take over Tuesday.

Taylor shot and killed Ramos, 42, during a confrontation with police back in April 2020 at a south Austin apartment complex parking lot. Taylor is on administrative leave with APD.

KXAN's Grace Reader will be in court Monday providing live updates of the trial on social media platform X:

Previous coverage of this trial:

• APD Officer Christopher Taylor’s statement read during murder trial
• Medical Examiner walks through autopsy of Mike Ramos in APD officer’s murder trial
• APD officers testify in fellow officer’s murder trial
• ‘I would take that back’: Woman who called 911 testifies in APD officer’s murder trial
• Witness video shown in first day of APD officer murder case
• Opening statements wrap up in murder trial involving APD officer
• Jury selected in APD officer’s murder trial
• Judge grants mistrial motion in APD officer murder case

Previous day: Detective details investigation

The jury heard Friday morning from a retired Austin Police Department detective who was the lead investigator for this shooting in 2020.

Sergeant Dan Mireles testified Friday that the police department's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) deviated from standard operating procedure by allowing Taylor's attorneys to view body camera and in-car camera videos prior to an interview Mireles set up with Taylor nearly two weeks after the shooting.

Typically, the police department allows officers in officer-involved shootings to view video prior to their interview to refresh their memory, Mireles testified. But it is uncommon for attorneys to view the video without the officer present, which is what happened in this case, Mireles said.

Mireles testified that after Taylor's attorneys viewed the videos presented, they left and shortly after returned with a more than five-page statement from Taylor, instead of providing an interview as scheduled.

"I was disappointed, but it is within their right. They are representing their client," Mireles said.

The defense argued without the jury present that watching a video after the fact can "corrupt someone's memory" and claimed they informed Mireles of that the day of the scheduled interview.

Taylor's statement read in court

Mireles was asked to read Taylor's written statement in court.

"I observed Ramos's vehicle began to move forward. I perceived this action as a threat of death or serious bodily injury to myself and several other officers in the path of the vehicle. Perceiving this threat, I fired my rifle, attempting to hit Ramos in the head and to ultimately stop the deadly force threat," the statement read, in part.