Former Columbus police officer Adam Coy expects sentencing next week A jury found him guilty of murder, aggravated assault and reckless homicide in the 2020 shooting death of Andre Hill earlier this month.

Hill’s death and other similar deaths involving Black people killed by white police officers (most notably, the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis) have sparked protests across the country and calls for reform in how police are trained in the use of force.

So, what has changed in the intervening years?

WOSU spoke with Rob Barnhart, a law professor at Capital University.

Rand: Adam Coy became the first Columbus police officer to be convicted of murder for causing the death of someone in the line of duty. Were you expecting a conviction in this case or were you surprised by the jury’s decision?

-Barnhart: I am shocked. As you say, this hasn’t happened before. We apparently had difficulty finding 12 people in Columbus and other parts of the country who would convict a police officer of premeditated murder. And that’s surprising any time it happens, but especially here, because we’ve never seen anything like it happen before.

Rand: Not everyone was happy with the decision. Brian Steel, president of the local chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, said in a statement that Coy was “subject to political and media bias” and that the verdict against Coy would have repercussions on other police officers. Is this a fair criticism?

-Barnhart: Anyone who has prosecuted anything (and I started my career as a prosecutor) will tell you that it is incredibly difficult to find 12 people who will agree on anything, even more difficult to find 12 people who will agree that a law enforcement officer is guilty of premeditated murder. Remember, only one person on the jury (only one in 12) is enough to cause a mistrial. All decisions must be taken unanimously. Additionally, the jurors in this case had a potential choice to recklessly commit murder, something of a compromise verdict, and they chose not to accept it. So in this case I don’t find this to be a particularly fair criticism.

Rand: The Columbus Department of Police took steps to implement changes following Hill’s killing. Coy himself was fired. Former Police Chief Thomas Quinlen resigned at the behest of Mayor Andrew Ginther. A few months later, the City Council enacted Andre’s Law, which requires police officers to have body cameras on when responding to calls and to provide medical assistance if they shoot someone until paramedics arrive. Do you think these steps go far enough?

-Barnhart: I think most people would say it isn’t. On February 21 of this year, Attorney General Dave Yost released a report on police training from a blue-ribbon task force; Some changes to standard police training procedures have been proposed, including the addition of 44 hours of interpersonal communication and mediation training; 16 hours of training in areas that I think are interesting, such as decision making and tactical breathing; crisis mitigation; reducing tension and managing cognitive demand. Therefore, there is a movement, or at least the beginning of an understanding, that we put more pressure on the police. We’ve made the police (not only) the first responders to crime, which is arguably their job, but we’ve also made the police the first responders to mental health crises. We made the police the first responders to family crises. And I don’t think it’s unfair to think about the cognitive load that we put on law enforcement and to suggest that even if you think the structure of the prison state is a problem, we’re also asking for too much. I don’t think it’s unfair to say this on the other side.

Rand: Finally, what does this decision in the Coy case mean for future cases involving police officers?

-Barnhart: The task of the jury is to express the thoughts or will of the society. And I think society has said “enough is enough” to some extent with this case. That’s why I think the defense in future hearings needs to be careful about the public’s readiness to take a stand, to condemn the officers. From the prosecutor’s point of view, from a trial strategy point of view, it’s okay, is what we’re doing here working? How do we explain here what worked to prosecute these cases and can we do this again, a similar strategy with defense teams knowing that this could be our strategy in the future.