
— Johannes Mehserle’s decision not to testify at a preliminary hearing left the judge hearing the case of the shooting of unarmed passenger Oscar Grant with no choice but to put the former BART Police Officer on trial for murder.

Killer cop Johannes Mehersele will stand trial for the Murder of Unarmed Oscar Grant
OAKLAND (KRON) Judge C Don Clay told the court, “this case boils down to the state of mind of Mehserle at the time of the incident.”
Since Mehserle didn’t testify, Judge Clay says he couldn’t determine the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the shooting.
Mehserle shot and killed Grant while investigating a fight on a BART train early on New Year’s morning.
The former officer’s attorney, Michael Rains, tells KRON 4 he’s not happy with how things turned out, “”We are going to take a look at things and move forward to the next arraignment and see if we need to challenge the basis on the ruling. We need to get transcripts from the prelim, and than with utmost certainty we will look into if we need to challenge the way that the judge conducted himself during the entire case. We will be figuring out our plan of action over the next couple of days and will most likely have a decision soon if we are going to file any sort of appeal.”
Judge Clay said it was clear to him that Mehserle shot Grant, that the victim was unarmed, and that manslaughter can’t be determined without knowing Mehserle’s state of mind.
The judge also says he found a conflict in reports of Mehserle’s behavior immediately before and after the shooting. Officer Tony Pirone testified Mehserle told him to stand back because he was going to shoot Grant with a taser. However Judge Clay says that doesn’t square with the former officer’s remarks that he thought Grant had a gun. The judge says if Mehserle is going to argue a case of self defense, he would have to acknowledge the shooting was intentional and not an accident.
“There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Mehserle intended to shoot Oscar Grant with a gun and not a Taser.” the judge said.
As to whether Grant was cooperating with officers, the judge said the victim “did nothing to warrant deadly force.”
Witnesses did say Mehserle said “Oh My God” several times after the shooting but Judge Clay says he didn’t know what that meant. He noted no one reported the officer as saying he made a mistake.
The judge said he wasn’t sure he trusted the testimony on Pirone. He did credit another officer’s statements that Mehserle’s mood was “elevated” following an earlier chase involving a man with a gun at the West Oakland station.
Mehserle is due to return to court June 18th for a formal arraignment. He could then learn a trial date in the case.

Monday at 8:30 AM the trial of former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle for the murder of Oscar Grant III on January 1 hearings.
Judge Clay tried to keep Rains in line by stating that his courtroom would be a “forum of law” and the motion was quickly dismissed. The prosecution was then allowed to begin calling witnesses to present their case for why Mehserle should be charged with murder. The prosecution called four witnesses: two eyewitnesses from the BART platform who had taken video footage of the murder and the events surrounding it and also the forensic pathologist who examined Oscar’s body and the video expert from the county DA’s office. The first eyewitness to take the stand was Karina Vargas who was on the BART train on January 1 recounting that BART Officer Tony Pirone forced his way onto the train car in front of her and yelled “You get the f**k off the car” to several young men who were doing nothing that warranted them being removed from the train. Her testimony went on to emphasize that the young men who were with Oscar that night as well as Oscar himself were completely cooperative with the officers and that the reason she had begun filming was that it appeared that the officers were being violent towards the young men for no reason.
Vicky Long was called to testify third and she has been a video technician for the Alameda County DA’s office dealing with video evidence in cases for over 28 years. She validated the way the video evidence was preserved and viewed and authenticated it as not having been tampered with or altered in any way by her office. She also showed the court how she was able to view footage frame by frame to allow for close examination of what was happening in the form of still images.