Former Columbus police officer Adam Coy’s attorneys filed a motion for a new trial on Monday, claiming the prosecution didn't disclose a witness who would have argued that Coy’s actions were reasonable.
Earlier this month, a jury found Coy guilty of murder, reckless homicide, and felonious assault in the December 2020 shooting death of 47-year-old Andre Hill. Coy shot Hill, an unarmed Black man, inside an Oberlin Drive garage.
Coy is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 25.
Attorneys Mark Collins and Kaitlyn Stephens argued Coy mistakenly thought Hill was holding a gun in a hand that he couldn't see well. Hill was actually holding his keys.
The attorneys told the jury Coy's mistake was in good faith and in line with what he had been trained to do in order to protect his life on the job.
Now, Collins and Stephens assert that an expert witness contacted by Assistant Franklin County Prosecutor Anthony Pierson would have agreed that Coy made a reasonable decision when he shot Hill.
The motion for a new trial says Pierson, who was with the Ohio Attorney General’s Office at the time, reached out to body-worn camera video expert Jamie Borden of Nevada before the trial started. Borden had testified for the prosecution in the trial for former Columbus police officer Andrew Mitchell.
When Borden said Coy’s actions appeared to be in response to a perceived deadly threat, “the State of Ohio informed him that he was no longer needed as a consult for his expert services,” a motion stated.
The state went on to use a different expert witness, Seth Stoughton, at trial. Stoughton testified that he didn’t see why Coy would have found Hill's behavior suspicious.
“The State engaged in retail therapy to shop for an opinion favorable to that of the State’s position,” the motion reads.
The motion also says that Pierson reported no “potentially exculpatory evidence,” in a response to a discovery, meaning Pierson made no mention of evidence or a witness that might have cleared Coy of guilt.
The motion also argues that not listing Borden as a witness violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brady vs. Maryland, which said that the government withholding evidence violates the defendant’s right to due process.
Under the Brady decision, the defendant must prove that favorable evidence was purposely or accidentally withheld by the prosecution, which caused the defendant harm.
In court documents, Borden wrote that if a new trial was granted, he would testify that he was contacted by the prosecution in the first trial. Borden said he could also testify as an expert witness.
Pierson said the prosecutor’s office will be filing a response to the defense’s motion, but the office had no further comment.
