Kentucky Attorney General Charges Brett Hankinson with Wanton Endangerment, No Charges for Other Officers; Attorney General Cameron to Convene Task Force Including All 120 Kentucky Counties; Grand Jury Heard Evidence Monday Through This Morning.
DANIEL CAMERON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY: With a thorough and complete knowledge of all evidence collected in this case, lawyers with our Office of Special Prosecutions presented the findings of our independent investigation before a grand jury comprised of Jefferson County residents beginning on Monday, and concluding today. In Fletcher v. Graham, the Kentucky Supreme Court said that the grand jury has competing but balanced functions. On the one hand, its purpose is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct and determine if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. On the other, the grand jury serves to protect the public against unfounded criminal prosecutions where probable cause is lacking. The grand jury is unique in our criminal justice system because it operates independent of the court and the prosecutor. The hallmark of the grand jury is its independence from outside influence. This independence is necessary to ensure that justice is done both for the victims and for the accused. After hearing the evidence from our team of prosecutors, the grand jury voted to return an indictment against Detective Hankison for three counts of wanton endangerment, for wantonly placing the three individuals in Apartment Three in danger of serious physical injury or death. The charge of wanton endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony. And if found guilty, the accused can serve up to five years for each count. Kentucky law states that a person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. My office is prepared to prove these charges at trial. However, it's important to note that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. During the last six months, we've all heard mention of possible charges that could be brought in this case. It's important to understand that all the charges that have been mentioned have specific meanings and ramifications. Criminal homicide encompasses the taking of a life by another. While there are six possible homicide charges under Kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us because our investigation show -- and the grand jury agreed -- that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in their return of deadly fire, after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker. Let me state that again. According to Kentucky law, the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Ms. Breonna Taylor's death. The truth is now before us, the facts have been examined and a grand jury comprised of our peers and fellow citizens has made a decision. Justice is not often easy. It does not fit the mold of public opinion, and it does not conform to shifting standards. It answers only to the facts and to the law. With this in mind, we must now ask ourselves, where do we go from here? Will we continue to prosecute the charges brought in this case as it now proceeds through the justice system and moves to trial? That is our responsibility. And this will be done while the FBI continues its investigation into violations -- potential violations -- of federal law. I know that not everyone will be satisfied with the charges we've reported today. My team set out to investigate the circumstances surrounding Ms. Taylor's death. We did it with a singular goal in mind, pursuing the truth. Kentuckians deserve no less, the city of Louisville deserves no less. Every person has an idea of what they think justice is. My role as special prosecutor in this case is to set aside everything in pursuit of the truth. My job is to present the facts to the grand jury, and the grand jury then applies those facts to the law. If we simply act on emotion or outrage, there is not justice. Mob justice is not justice. Justice sought by violence is not justice. It just becomes revenge. And in our system, criminal justice isn't the quest for revenge, it's the quest for truth, evidence, and facts. And the use of that truth as we fairly apply our laws. Our reaction to the truth today says what kind of society we want to be. Do we really want the truth, or do we want a truth that fits our narrative? Do we want the facts, or are we content to blindly accept our own version of events? We as a community must make this decision. I understand that Ms. Breonna Taylor's death has become a part of a national story and conversation. But we must also remember, the facts and the collection of evidence in this case are different than cases elsewhere in the country. Each is unique, and cannot be compared. There will be celebrities, influencers and activists who, having never lived in Kentucky, will try to tell us how to feel, suggesting they understand the facts of this case and that they know our community and the commonwealth better than we do. But they don't. Let's not give into their attempts to influence our thinking or capture our emotions. At the end of the day, it is up to us. We live here together. We work here and raise our families here together. I urge those protesting on the streets to remember this. Peaceful protests are your right as an American citizen. Instigating violence and destruction are not. I've spoken with both Mayor Fischer and Governor Beshear in the days leading up to this announcement, and I urge them to do what is necessary to maintain law and order and to protect our cities and our people. We have a long road ahead, both as we pursue this case through the criminal system, and as we address the pain in the Louisville community. I'm committed to being part of the healing process. When tragedy occurs, we must mourn. We must also do everything we can to prevent it from happening again. Today, consistent with that view, I am announcing that I will create a task force to review the process for securing, reviewing and executing search warrants in Kentucky. The task force will consist of a variety of stakeholders including citizens, members from the law enforcement community, representatives from the judiciary, defense attorneys and elected leaders. I will be issuing an executive order in the coming days to create this task force. I believe conducting a top-to-bottom review of the search warrant process is necessary to determine if changes are required, and establish best practices. You have my word that I will also vigorously prosecute the criminal charges announced today. I can assure you that my team of prosecutors will continue to give this case their attention and time. We'll also continue to support the good men and women of our law enforcement community, who put their lives on the line every day to protect and to serve. And I will fight for those across our state who feel like their voice isn't heard, who feel marginalized, judged, and powerless to bring about change. In a world that is forcing many of us to pick a side, I choose the side of justice. I choose the side of truth. I choose a path that moves the commonwealth forward and toward healing. You have that choice as well, let's make it together. Thank you and God bless. I'll now take some questions.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- tell us about the racial and gender makeup of the jury</s>CAMERON: I won't get into the specifics of the makeup of the grand jury.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir, you mentioned that Breonna Taylor was hit by six bullets. You identified the one that killed her. What -- who shot the other five bullets and did any of Hankison's bullets hit Ms. Taylor?</s>CAMERON: Based on the evidence, there's nothing conclusive to say that Detective Hankison's, any of his bullets hit Ms. Taylor.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just curious what your message would be to the family and those who support</s>CAMERON: As I said from the beginning -- and I appreciate that question -- this is a tragedy. And sometimes, the law, the criminal law is not adequate to respond to a tragedy. And I fully acknowledge that, and I know many that are watching today -- and those that are listening -- recognize that as well. But the response is that the grand jury was given all of the evidence, presented all of the information, and ultimately made the determination that Detective Hankison was the one to be indicted.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you</s>CAMERON: I -- grand jury proceedings are secret, and so I'm not going to get into the specifics of details about that proceeding. What I will say is that we presented all of the information, and they ultimately made a determination about whether to charge in this instance. They decided to indict Detective Hankison.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- firing in self-defense. Do you think state law needs to be changed?</s>CAMERON: I'm sorry, say that again?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When it comes to officers firing back in self- defense, do you think the current state law needs to be changed to fit cases like this?</s>CAMERON: Well, what my role as the special prosecutor in this case was to provide the information and facts to the grand jury. Detective Cosgrove and Sergeant Mattingly were justified in returning fire because they were fired upon. I'll leave it to others to make determinations. We have vigorous self- defense laws in this state, and that is something that existed prior to this case. I'll let others make judgments about that. Yes, sir?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One big question surrounding this case is whether or not the officers knocked and announced their presence. Talk about the evidence that you came to that they did announce their presence?</s>CAMERON: Yes, the statements that were made by officers there, the night -- or the morning of March 13th show that they did knock and announce. The important point here, is that information was corroborated by another witness who was in close proximity to Apartment Four, who corroborated that information and said that there was a knocking and announcing by the officers.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was the witness a civilian or a law enforcement</s>CAMERON: The witness was a civilian.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If a wanton endangerment takes place while there is a death involved, would that not be a manslaughter charge? If it was a death that occurred during a wanton endangerment?</s>CAMERON: Well, Chris (ph), to your question, I think it -- again, it's important to step back and recognize that what we did was uncover all the information and facts related to the morning of March 13th, and then provided that information to the grand jury. The grand jury had every piece of detail needed to make their assessment and their judgments. And ultimately, their conclusion was that the decision needed to be made to indict Mr. Hankison.</s>RUKMINI CALLIMACHI, JOURNALIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Mr. Cameron? Mr. Cameron? Rukmini Callimachi with "The New York Times," right here. Right here -- right here, sir --</s>CAMERON: I'm sorry, yes, ma'am.</s>CALLIMACHI: -- hi, two questions for you. Number one, you said that she was shot six times, yet her death certificate says five. Can you please explain the discrepancy? And the second thing is, journalists in this room -- myself included -- have taken apart that apartment complex looking for witnesses to the point that you made about knocking and announcing. Of a dozen witnesses that I spoke to, only one -- a man who was directly upstairs -- heard them announce. Do you think that's enough, in the middle of the night when somebody is asleep, for just one person in a tight-knit apartment block to have heard that? Is that a sufficient way of announcing?</s>CAMERON: Well, let me try to answer your second question first. Your question was, is it enough for me? I think the more pertinent question is, what was the evidence provided to the grand jury? What was sufficient for their purposes? They got to hear and listen to all the testimony and made the determination that Detective Hankison was the one that needed to be indicted, knowing all of the relative points that you made. As to your first question, can you repeat it one more time?</s>CALLIMACHI: Her death certificate -- her death certificate says five, and yet you are saying six. Today's the first time I'm hearing six.</s>CAMERON: Yes. So there is a bullet that was lodged -- and "bullet" might be too generous a term, there was an object that was lodged into the -- into one of her feet, and so that is what is being referred to as the sixth I guess projectile.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to -- are you going to release the full --</s>CAMERON: Joe?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- are you going to release the full grand jury report?</s>CAMERON: Can you say that one more time, I apologize --</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to release the full grand jury report?</s>CAMERON: Well, I am -- right now, because there is a pending indictment, I think it is our practice -- and because there is an ongoing FBI investigation, to revisit that question. But at this point, I don't think it's appropriate for us to release any information.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And just for clarification, you said that if it's</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you expand on that</s>CAMERON: Well, that is what the evidence shows, is that there was nothing conclusive to demonstrate that any of his bullets hit --</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So does that leave the door open for -- the fact that maybe one of his shots did hit her, or --</s>CAMERON: Well again, all the evidence was given to the grand jury, and they made the decision that, one, endangerment was the charge to file -- or to indict against Mr. Hankison.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, and thank you --</s>CAMERON: When -- yes,</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- criticisms (ph)</s>CAMERON: Well, the -- your last question about providing information, in any investigation, criminal investigation, the best practice -- and this is whether on the state or federal level -- is to not make too many specific comments about the investigation because you do not want to compromise that investigation. There are also ethical considerations, as investigators and prosecutors, that we're responsible to abide by as well. Some of those obligations continue now because we have a responsibility to pursue the prosecution against Detective Hankison. It is -- it's my judgment, very early on, that we needed to take this case in the Attorney General's Office. As you know, the commonwealth's attorney was conflicted out of this case because of another matter that he was pursuing. I could have farmed the case out to another commonwealth's attorney in one of our 120 counties. Instead, I did not do that because the resources that we have to bring to bear, and the relationships that we have with our federal partners, in my judgment, were needed to uncover the truth in this case. And part of the reason the investigation took so long is because we needed to make sure that we were doing a thorough job of looking at all the facts and gathering all the materials, interviewing witnesses, making sure that all of our people felt confident in their presentation to the grand jury. I will remind you, as late as Friday, we were still interviewing people in this case. And so the length of it is because this case deserves thorough and fair analysis. That was needed and deserved by Breonna and by her family, for the officers involved, for the community of Louisville and for the commonwealth. We needed to have a thorough investigation. We also got the FBI involved in terms of the ballistics report. We needed additional -- their ability to scrutinize and make an independent assessment as well. And so the length of the investigation was a reflection, I hope people understand, of how important it was that we got this right. We didn't want to rush it, and we did not. And I am grateful to the team that is behind me for the work that they did. Look, over 200 years of combined experience. These are prosecutors and investigators who don't care about political distinctions, don't care about influence in any particular regard. What they care about is the truth, and we presented that to the grand jury.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sir? Sorry.</s>CAMERON: I'm sorry? I won't get into what our private conversation was. Yes, ma'am?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. What do you say to people who say this is just another example of the black community not getting full justice? And what specifically do you plan to do to calm a community that's long been hurting? And do you understand that anger that people might feel?</s>CAMERON: I certainly understand the pain that has been brought about by the tragic loss of Ms. Taylor. I understand that as an attorney general who is responsible for all 120 counties in terms of being the chief legal officer, the chief law enforcement officer, I understand that. I understand that as a black man, how painful this is. And -- which is why it was so incredibly important to make sure that we did everything we possibly could to uncover every fact. And I know -- look, this team, myself, the members of the -- representatives of the Attorney General's Office have taken a lot of criticism and scrutiny. But that scrutiny in many ways was misplaced because there was not a day the people in this office didn't go to sleep thinking about this case, and there wasn't a day when the first thing on our minds is getting to the truth in this case. And obviously, again, the criminal law is not meant to respond to every sorrow and grief, and that is true here. But my heart breaks for the loss of Ms. Taylor. And I've said that repeatedly. My mother, if something was to happen to me? Would find it very hard. And I've seen that pain on Ms. Palmer's face, I've seen that pain in the community. And what our responsibility in the A.G.'s office was to make sure that we uncovered every fact, that we utilized every resources that we could bring to bear to uncover the facts and the truth, and that's ultimately what we presented to the grand jury. On the question of what I'm going to do, I've talked to partners in the community about helping to be a constructive member of any conversations moving forward. I recognize in my remarks, I mentioned the fact that we'll be establishing a task force in the coming days ahead to look at best practices for warrants. So there is a lot that I can do with this platform to help.</s>MARIA SACCHETTI, JOURNALIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Sir, this is Maria Sacchetti with "The Washington Post." How about a couple of quick questions, please?</s>CAMERON: I hear your voice -- OK, yes, ma'am.</s>SACCHETTI: Hi, sorry, over here in the back.</s>CAMERON: No, that's OK.</s>SACCHETTI: Just wanted to double-check, the -- were -- did the grand jury ever consider the charges of manslaughter, reckless homicide? And if not, could you please explain why? And do you anticipate any other charges in this case?</s>CAMERON: I apologize. Could you say that a little louder? I think I got --</s>SACCHETTI: Sure, sure. Did the grand jury ever consider manslaughter or reckless homicide or those kinds of charges? And if not, please explain why? And do you anticipate any other charges or are we -- is this it?</s>CAMERON: I won't get into the specifics, again, of the proceedings themselves are secret. But what I will say is that our team walked them through every homicide offense, and also presented all of the information that was available to the grand jury. And then the grand jury was ultimately the one that made the decision about indicting Detective Hankison for wanton endangerment. I think that in terms of what happened, the wee hours of March 13th, in terms of that particular or specific date and what happened that night in the apartment, I think it is unlikely that there will be any additional prosecutions that come from that event itself.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Attorney General, so can you -- can you go into the confusion over the fatal shot that was fired, and kind of what the issue was there in terms of determining that? And then also, did you present to the grand jury with any charges against Mattingly and Cosgrove?</s>CAMERON: Well, so as to your first question, what I think you asked about was --</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Confusion over the fatal shot.</s>CAMERON: Yes. The reports that were provided to us by the Kentucky State Police, and then the FBI as it relates to ballistics. So initially, we got the report from Kentucky State Police and it was inconclusive about making a determination into that fatal shot. And so again, with the relationships that we have with our federal law enforcement community and namely the FBI, I thought it imperative that we utilize that resource. And so they undertook an independent analysis and review of -- and conducted or provided a ballistics report. There is nothing that this team was able to glean suggesting that there was an objective reason for why FBI was able to conclusively or definitively state that Mr. Cosgrove fired the fatal shot. Both -- again, KSP, their lab, well regarded, well respected. FBI, equally regarded and respected. That said, it certainly creates some issue in terms of providing that information to the grand jury and providing that at any subsequent prosecution. And so it was -- from our judgment -- important to provide both of those to the grand jury, and then ultimately make -- let them make a determination about what to do with that information.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And were they presented with charges for Mattingly or Cosgrove --</s>CAMERON: Yes, ma'am? I'm sorry.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- were they presented with any charges for Mattingly or Cosgrove?</s>CAMERON: Well, what I will say is that they were walked through all the homicide offenses. And with that information and the information and facts that were provided to them that we uncovered in our investigation, they made the determination that Detective Hankison was the one that needed to be indicted here. Yes, ma'am?</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: General Cameron, just a couple points. First of all,</s>CAMERON: So what I will say is, there's -- obviously I don't want to get into the proceedings related to Mr. Walker, that's a separate -- so I'm not going to have any comment on that. This team behind me presented to the grand jury. And your other question was about the racial makeup of --</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Percentage of</s>CAMERON: Well, I'm black and I speak for the entire department. And I hope that will satisfy that question. Yes, ma'am? Yes, ma'am, I'm sorry.</s>UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Nicole (ph)</s>CAMERON: The grand jury was presented with the information today. I won't get into the specifics of when they began their deliberations, but I will say that they started early Monday, and concluded sometime before noon. And so they heard everything they needed to hear. We didn't withhold anything from them. And I hope that satisfies your question.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: General, can you tell me a little bit more about this task force? You know, Senate President Stivers and Representative Scott are introducing warrant bills for the next legislative session. Are they going to be on this task force perchance? And will you be taking some of the information from the bills they pre-filed to work with on this?</s>CAMERON: Well, I don't want to put, obviously, the cart before the horse. But I did mention in the remarks that we are certainly going to have elected leaders on this task force. And I imagine that some of the policy questions and some of the policy proposals that have already been put forward and have entered into the public conversation will be a part of this task force. But I want to make sure that people recognize that this task force is being established not to demonize any one side or any one department or agency. I think it's a healthy thing for the attorney general from time to time to be a part of a conversation with all 120 counties. I'm not talking or singling out any county specifically, but with all 120 counties, about best practices that can be utilized. I had a recent conversation with somebody that said there's always room for improvement. I think that's important in any industry, important in any job. And so as part of my role as the attorney general, I certainly recognize the part I have to play in making sure that all of our systems in government are improved upon, whether it be because of a particular matter that occurred, or because from time to time it's just the responsible thing to do.