Latest news with #UniversityofSouthCarolinaSchoolofLaw
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Yahoo
USC program aims to teach police leadership skills, with help from state funding
Major Lee Catoe, with the state Transport Police, accepts an award for completing the Excellence in Policing and Public Safety Program at the University of South Carolina School of Law on Friday, May 9, 2025. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette) COLUMBIA — As the University of South Carolina's first day of a police leadership program came to an end, the 15 officers in the class started to wonder, 'What have we gotten ourselves into?' said Major Lee Catoe, one of the program's students. That first class, which taught officers about different types of leadership styles, was just a taste of the intensive 17-month course in which police officers from across the state learned leadership skills and how to handle difficult policing situations, said Catoe, who has spent 18 years with the State Transport Police. Started with $10 million from the state Legislature in 2023, the Excellence in Policing and Public Safety Program teaches officers evidence-based practices on policing. Lessons include how to effectively communicate with each other and members of the public and how policing relates to civil rights issues, according to its website. The program's second cohort of officers graduated Friday, bringing the total graduates in the pilot program to 31. The first cohort of 16 officers finished the course in March. Staff at the university's law school, in talking to state law enforcement officials, realized police had few professional development opportunities focused on what it takes to be a great leader, said William Hubbard, dean of the university's law school. So, they decided to fill in those gaps, he said. The course was open to officers who are already in a leadership position at their agency or aspire to be in one and have the skills necessary. By cultivating great leaders, the program aims to encourage more people to become police officers and stay in the profession, Hubbard said. 'That's what we've sought to do,' Hubbard said. Unlike other professional development courses, professors give students real-world scenarios to solve using what they learned about best practices and how their actions affect everyone involved, Catoe said. 'A lot of times, you like to live in black and white, very ordered and structured,' Catoe said. 'Every once in a while, you have to go outside of that to find a solution that's beneficial to the person, not violating their rights and that supports law enforcement's objective.' The program consisted of seven weeklong courses, spread out over the course of 17 months. Along with teaching leadership skills, staff also offered help in writing grants for departments and other resources for officers. 'It's really a treasure trove for law enforcement,' Catoe said. Among the topics covered are what drives people to commit crimes, how mental health and community trust can affect people's interactions with police officers and the history of racial profiling, according to the program's website. Many of the courses were eye-opening, Catoe said. For instance, one week, officers learned how to use social media to connect with their communities. They used the university's social media lab to see which posts did well and which didn't, which Catoe hadn't considered previously. 'Sometimes we have to adapt on the fly and do something,' Catoe said he learned. 'When we find what works, we continue to use it.' Filling in those gaps, including teaching leaders how to work together, is essential, said Gov. Henry McMaster. He recalled a major drug bust he led as the state's U.S. attorney in the 1980s that came together only when different agencies figured out how to collaborate instead of working parallel to one another. Operation Jackpot, as the bust was known, led to the conviction of more than 100 people who were smuggling drugs into the country. 'You've got to make the ends meet,' said McMaster, the keynote speaker for Friday's graduation. 'There can't be gaps.' The program was meant to test curriculum for a master's degree in public safety executive leadership, with the university plans to start offering this fall, according to an application the university submitted to its board of trustees. The master's course will use officers' feedback from the pilot program to develop its curriculum, broadening it to twice as many people in the coming years, according to the application. 'I truly believe that as this program is pushed out across the state, it is going to be monumental for our officers,' said Aiken Lieutenant Jennifer Hayes, one of Friday's graduates.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Yahoo
Schurr prosecution expert said in 2022 that video was not ‘proof positive' of crime
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — The murder trial of former Grand Rapids police officer Christopher Schurr will begin Monday in Kent County Circuit Court and is expected to include the testimony of an expert prosecution witness on the use of force. It won't be the first time the expert has given his opinion on the April 2022 shooting death of Patrick Lyoya. Seth Stoughton, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, provided it to Target 8 while watching video of the shooting released by police days after the shooting. His take back then: The video showing Schurr shooting Lyoya in the back of the head after a traffic stop and a struggle was not proof either way that Schurr committed a crime. 'It raises some very significant red flags,' Stoughton said at the time. 'It's not in and of itself proof positive that the officer committed a crime. It's also not in and of itself proof positive that the officer did not commit a crime. I would want more information than just this video. 'I see a lot of uses of force, a lot of uses of fatal force,' he told Target 8 at the time. 'None of them are easy to watch. This one certainly is not.' Nearly all-white jury chosen in Schurr's trial Stoughton is among 11 witnesses listed by Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker for the trial. He's one of two prosecution witnesses. The prosecution must prove the shooting was not justified. Schurr's defense attorney, Matthew Borgula, has asked the judge to block the prosecutor's witness from testifying. The defense has also listed more than 40 potential witnesses, including its own experts. Schurr's attorney says he was in fear for his life and acted in self-defense. Stoughton co-authored a book, 'Evaluating Police Uses of Force.' He testified for the prosecution in the murder trial of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the 2020 death of George Floyd. The death led to national unrest. After watching the GRPD videos for Target 8, he said the shooting of Lyoya should never have happened. He questioned the officer's decision-making. Stoughton told Target 8 that Schurr's first mistake was chasing Lyoya after the traffic stop. Lyoya was driving a car with a wrong license plate. The officer was on patrol alone and had no backup. Police, Stoughton said, could have identified Lyoya and gotten a warrant later. 'It is preferable to go slower and safer than it is to go more quickly and less safe,' he said. He watched the video as Schurr and Lyoya wrestled. 'That officer has no idea how to control that guy,' he said. He questioned his training and why the officer pulled his Taser when he did. 'Deploying the Taser at close range is not a good idea, because the guy can grab it. That's exactly why you don't do that,' he said. He listened as Schurr yelled repeatedly for Lyoya to let go of his Taser. In an email exchange with Target 8, Stoughton said he was later retained by the prosecutor's office and reviewed other evidence before reaching a conclusion. He declined to elaborate with the trial pending. 'Video itself — that is, as the only piece of evidence — is almost never enough to make a definitive assessment as to criminal or civil liability; making such determinations requires reviewing the entire body of evidence in a case,' he wrote in an email. Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina criminology professor who co-authored the use of force book with Stougton, viewed the video for Target 8 after Schurr's arrest in June 2022. He's not listed as a witness in the case. 'It's very difficult to determine when a civil wrong rises to the level of a crime, and that's something that a jury has to decide, and it's not an easy decision,' he said at the time. National expert: Murder charge against GRPD officer not surprising The key, Alpert said, was the Taser at the time of the shooting and whether it posed a threat to Schurr. It had already been fired twice, striking the ground. 'That certainly could be something that convinces jurors that he was in imminent fear of his life, or he wasn't,' Alpert said. The trial before Kent County Circuit Court Judge Christina Mims is expected to last up to two weeks. If past court hearings in this case are any indication, it could be contentious, even outside the courtroom. During previous hearings, the hallway leading to the courtroom was packed with supporters of Schurr and Lyoya. It got unruly. The Back the Blue Michigan Facebook page is urging Schurr supporters to gather outside the courthouse at 6 a.m. Monday with signs, Blue Line flags, and Stand With Schurr bracelets. Schurr's supporters, including the Grand Rapids Police Officers Association, have held fundraisers for him and his family, including a golf tournament. An organizer with Back the Blue Michigan declined to comment. The police association did not respond to requests for interviews. Kent County Commissioner Robert Womack, who has become close to the Lyoya family and sat through jury selection, said he also expects a turnout of Lyoya supporters. Security will be tight. Extra deputies were called in for jury selection; so was a bomb-sniffing dog. The court is limiting the number of people in the hallway. The death led to marches and protests; and visits from civil rights leaders including Rev. Al Sharpton, who demanded justice and police reform. What led up to murder trial for ex-GRPD officer The 14-member jury, which includes two alternates, is made up of four men and 10 women. Ten are white, three are Hispanic and one woman identified herself as biracial. 'It's not a race-based crime,' defense attorney Borgula said last week after the jury was selected. 'Obviously, race is always an issue as part of the fabric of our society, but it's not going to be an issue in the case, other than what the personal experiences of the jurors are.' Many of the jurors questioned were familiar with the case; some had watched body camera video leading up to the shooting. The video released by police shows Lyoya running away from Schurr after the April 4, 2022, traffic stop, then the two struggling over Schurr's Taser. Ultimately, Schurr, who was on top of Lyoya trying to hold him down, shot him in the back of the head. Schurr was later charged with second-degree murder and fired from GRPD. Womack, the Kent County commissioner, has marched with the Lyoya family and was with them at their son's funeral. 'Justice for them, of course, would be seeing the officer go to jail,' he said. He said he has faith in the jury. 'So racially, we have one African American, so we can't argue about that, but we talk about the demographics and location,' he said. 'You have incidents happening in the heart of Grand Rapids' urban area and the majority of the people who you might put on a jury may come from as far away as Cedar Springs, they may come from anywhere in Kent County, so it's definitely going to be a challenge, but we're going to trust the jury system.' Schurr's attorney accuses Lyoya family's legal team of trying to sway jury He urged peace. 'I just tell the community, no matter what the outcome, we're going to have to accept it and we can't take it out on businesses,' Womack said. 'We can't take it out on each other. We don't need violence; we don't need riots. That's something that even the Lyoya family has been trying to get out to the media. 'We want peace after this verdict.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
"It's not being looked at as a crazy thing": Emboldened Republicans renew push to restrict divorce
As the Trump administration continues its opening barrage of contentious executive actions targeting federal protections for marginalized Americans, legislators at the state level are taking another shot at no-fault divorce, renewing a heretofore quiet effort to turn a fringe idea — restricting Americans' ability to get a divorce — into a potential reality in the most conservative states. In Oklahoma last month, a state senator introduced for the second time a bill seeking to remove "incompatibility" from the state's grounds for divorce, while also proposing a separate piece of legislation that would provide a tax credit to encourage covenant marriages, which make it harder for spouses to obtain a divorce. In Indiana, a now-dead bill introduced last month aimed to add a hurdle for married couples with minor children seeking a divorce on no-fault grounds. The recent bills targeting no-fault divorce come against a backdrop of a slew of executive actions at the federal level that threaten civil rights and freedoms for a host of Americans. While these state bills have previously failed to gain any traction in their respective legislatures — Republican Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers' 2024 attempt at eliminating no-fault divorce failed to make it out of committee — their reappearances in state legislatures illuminates a potentially burgeoning trend toward further limiting women's rights. In a post-Dobbs United States, legal experts find such a prospect alarming. Marcia Zug, a professor of marital law at the University of South Carolina School of Law, told Salon that she expects more of this kind of legislation to arise in the years to come because of their spread. Despite these bills' current unpopularity, their failures are not dissuading lawmakers in other states from introducing similar proposals. "It's not being looked at as a crazy thing," Zug said of some ultraconservative state lawmakers' approach to the legislation. "'Some state over there is doing it. Let's consider it, and maybe we want to propose it, and maybe it'll pass — maybe it won't.' But if more and more, states propose it, some state will pass it. Maybe other states will pass it. That's more likely than not at this point." No-fault divorce laws allow for married couples to split without having to prove either spouse's fault at a trial. Often coupled with unilateral divorce, which provides that only one spouse has to file to begin the process, no-fault divorce provides greater ease in ending a marriage while keeping the already overwhelmed family court system from getting bogged down. In 1969, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan's implementation of no-fault divorce set off a tidal wave of other states adopting "incompatibility" as divorce grounds over the following 20 years. Though it came alongside the expansion of women's social and political power during the second wave of feminism, no-fault divorce initially arose to defend the integrity of the family court system from fraud and perjury as spouses fabricated evidence of fault to prove they were entitled to a divorce. Its modern-day opponents, which include men's rights activists and these bills' sponsors, argue that eliminating no-fault justification would in turn promote traditional families and values, reducing the risk of harming children with contentious divorce proceedings. SB 829, the Oklahoma no-fault bill, is part of an eight-piece slate of proposals that Sen. Deevers claims will "restore moral sanity in Oklahoma." It would end no-fault divorce in the state while still allowing for splits in cases of "abandonment," including "habitual drunkenness" and "gross neglect of duty," "extreme cruelty," "adultery" and "unknown pregnancy." For couples with minor children, the bill would also require the at-fault parent to establish a trust fund accessible when the child reaches adulthood as a form of restitution for the divorce. Alongside his proposal to eliminate no-fault divorce, Deevers introduced another bill offering a $2,500 tax credit as an incentive for opting into a covenant marriage, a restrictive marriage contract favored by right-wing Christian groups that creates barriers to divorce like required counseling and limits applicable divorce justifications. Only a few states offer covenant marriages — Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona — and they are widely unpopular. Zug said the bill's "extreme cruelty" grounds is what most alarmed her because of its vagueness and implication that non-extreme cruelty would be insufficient grounds for divorce. "One of the worries of getting rid of no-fault divorce is that it will increase domestic violence because lots of people who get divorced under no-fault theoretically would have grounds because they're abused," she said. "But there's so many problems with trying to get a divorce based on physical cruelty that people don't. So here, not only would they have to go through all of that, they would have to show that it is extreme — and what does that mean?" Marilyn Chinitz, a veteran divorce attorney at Blank Rome in New York, flagged Deevers' no-fault bill as especially problematic when paired with the covenant marriage incentive. "In my view, the state is totally overstepping its bounds" in proposing such legislation, she said. "Whether you have kids or not, you should have the same right to get divorced. There shouldn't be any burden or hurdles for you to end the marriage," she added. Neither a spokesman for Deevers nor the senator himself responded to requests for comment. Deevers, in a January press release announcing the bills, argued that the no-fault bill elevates the profile of marriage by making it meaningful and a binding contract while protecting people's right to leave abusive spouses. 'A society that teaches and allows a marriage covenant to be less important and binding than a business contract will reap the fruit of social upheaval, unfettered dishonesty, crime, violence towards women, war on men, and expendability of children," he said. Indiana state Rep. Timothy Wesco also stressed the impact of divorce on children though he only attempted to complicate no-fault divorce for married couples with minor children. Under his now-defunct bill, at least one of the parties seeking a divorce on "irretrievable breakdown" grounds would have to present a witness who could testify to affirm the breakdown. The legislation also placed limits on who that witness could be, naming as acceptable individuals an officiant of the marriage, a parent or sibling of the party, and a religious leader with knowledge of the marriage among others. Unlike the Oklahoma proposal, the Indiana bill was trying to implement a "speed bump," argued Zug. The assumption behind it, she said, is that "if you have to bring in a third party to agree with you that this marriage is one that can't be saved, you're less likely to divorce." While she said she doesn't find that assumption "likely to be true," she added that the bill could be a step toward further attacking no-fault justification in the future. However, Joanna Grossman, an SMU Dedman School of Law professor of family law, said that despite Wesco's possible intention, in practice, his bill would have been unlikely to have any tangible impact on the divorce process. If ever implemented, divorces would likely proceed exactly as they currently do with the addition of a third party who submits an affidavit to attest to the grounds. "This rule only applies in the divorce that's on a no-fault ground, and so they're testifying to nothing," she told Salon. "They're testifying that the person who filed for divorce thinks the marriage is over. It's not an objective fact." The Indiana House voted to withdraw Wesco's bill a week after it was filed in late January because its introduction violated the legislature's rules governing how many proposals a lawmaker can submit during one legislative session. While dead this session, the bill could theoretically return to the state legislature. Salon asked a spokesperson for Wesco whether the lawmaker had plans to reintroduce the bill or similar legislation. That spokesperson told Salon he'd pass the questions on to the Indiana representative. Wesco did not respond by late Tuesday afternoon. Wesco said in a late January post to X that he introduced the bill after watching parents "casually getting divorced and ruining their kids' lives while mutually claiming their marriage was irretrievably broken." Chinitz argued, however, that these kinds of bills would have a similar effect on children and fail to protect children in the way they set out to. Increasing the time spent in a "vulnerable situation" with parents in an unhappy marriage "could be very dangerous for them and for their kids," she said. "It's dangerous, and it has tremendous negative and adverse impact," Chinitz said of legislation targeting no-fault. "I think it's going to be very costly — costly, financially and costly because it's going to force people to stay in dangerous situations. Let's face it, victims will be less likely to report domestic violence, and it prolongs the divorce process — what a terrible impact that has on children." Deevers' and Wesco's bills are far from the first proposals taking aim at no-fault divorce laws. Deevers' first introduced legislation attempting to strike "incompatibility" from the state's divorce grounds in 2024, and a Republican state representative in South Dakota, Tony Randolph, introduced a similar bill every year between 2020 and 2024. The GOP in other states have also voiced an interest in legislation restricting or cutting no-fault divorce grounds, with Republican parties in Texas and Nebraska including guidance for potential legislation in their most recent platforms. These bills, should they ever be successful, threaten to ensnare people in abusive and violent relationships while disproportionately limiting low-income Americans' access to divorce, argued Katie Dilks, the executive director of advocacy organization Oklahoma Access to Justice. "When we look at this pitch to reduce divorce rates, it's really displaying a lack of understanding of what the actual causes and contributors are to Oklahoma's high divorce rates, which is unsafe families and unsustainable living conditions," Dilks said of Deevers' bill in a phone interview. Oklahoma, which has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation, also has some of the country's highest rates of intimate partner violence and domestic violence homicides. Oklahomans also face procedural and legal barriers to obtaining divorces such as a lack of standardized court forms, Dilks noted. "If we were to move to a system that required proving fault and having a full evidentiary trial, it would be a significant burden both on our courts but also on Oklahomans who need access to this to stay safe," Dilks said. Dilks and Grossman said that in the current political climate, they don't expect these bills to gain any serious traction in state legislatures. While Dilks said the Trump administration may act as a sort of tailwind for rightwing lawmakers pursuing this legislation, she's unsure if it will "fundamentally change the paths and outcomes of those bills." "I think it's just standard issue conservatism misogyny. There's nothing special about these bills," Grossman added. "They seem to be consistent with people who either want to take symbolic actions that shore up their conservative bona fides, or they actually want to trap women in marriages." She also argued that the level of social disruption wrought by the current administration's actions makes it less likely these types of legislation will advance seriously because, by comparison, they may appear as "petty distractions." "At the same time, maybe the big picture distraction will mean that people really can't pay attention to the small things that actually will cause a lot of harm and are just not going to get the attention they deserve from opponents," she said.
