Thoughts on Akron Police Internal Investigation into Jayland Walker Shooting

It’s been less than six weeks since [now former] Akron Police Chief, Steve Mylett, published his executive summary [which you you can read here or in the provided screenshots below. There are three pages] of the Akron Police Department’s internal investigation into the eight officers that fired a collective 94 shots at Jayland Walker on the night of June 27, 2022, killing him. While Chief Mylett’s findings are of no surprise to me, they do displease me on such a colossal level that it’s taken me weeks to process and work through enough for me to adequately articulate my thoughts. This piece will be the first of many that I will write about Jayland Walker’s case. There are too many aspects and components to this case that I want to cover that I can’t possibly fit them all into a singular coherent piece. This piece will include both factual evidence, as well as my thoughts and opinions based on those facts. I just ask that those reading this, read it with an open mind and I also want to encourage you to think critically about the information I’ve included. If you wish, feel free to click on all the linked information to double check that the information I’ve referenced is cited as fact. I have linked as much information as I could to the best of my ability to provide context to the facts, but I recognize even with that, there will still be people who will be completely shut off to receiving this information with an open heart or mind, and that’s okay. I am not here to be well-received. In fact, much of the work that I do revolves around pushing folks outside of their comfort zones where silence and apathy to injustice exists.

Here is the Executive Summary from Akron Police Chief Steve Mylett on the internal investigation that was published on November 28, 2023:

Over the last eighteen months since Jayland Walker was killed, I have invested a significant amount of time and energy, not only advocating for accountability, transparency, and justice for Jayland Walker’s brutal killing, but also conducting my own “investigation” of sorts into his death [which has been easy to do considering the Ohio Attorney General publishes the investigative documents related to all fatal officer-involved shootings] and more specifically, into the conduct of the police officers that shot and killed him, as well as the conduct of Chief Mylett and other officers in the aftermath of the shooting. While Chief Mylett was not involved in the immediate incident, he did oversee the happenings following the shooting and there are some details that I find to be extremely concerning that I, personally, have not seen any major news outlets reporting on. My social platform may be small in comparison, but I still think it’s important to bring my concerns and reflections about this case to the public, if not for anything but to educate and bring awareness.

I initially brought up my concern over a particular discrepancy following the release of the Ohio BCI [Bureau of Criminal Investigation] in a video I posted to TikTok on April 18, 2023. I didn’t have nearly the amount of followers back then that I have now so my engagement was much lower on that video than my more recent videos; but essentially in this video, I’m highlighting a discrepancy I noticed that is so easily glossed over if one has not immersed themselves into this case to the depth that I and other members of the community have.

First, let’s look at the facts as they played out in the aftermath of the shooting and then I will elaborate on where I believe there are discrepancies, “half truths,” and other details I find concerning.

First, Chief Mylett’s Narrative in the Aftermath of the Shooting

During the first press conference following the shooting, that took place on July 3, 2022 Chief Mylett stated [at the 13:53 video mark], “When I was sworn in as Chief of Police ten months ago, I began moving the police department in a direction to have outside, independent investigations when officers are involved in a shooting. So on Monday morning, I formally requested the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigations to investigate this shooting.” He goes on to explain, “Some of the benefits of having an independent investigation include: increased perceptions of credibility of the findings, increased transparency, the public tends to trust the result and fairness of the investigation, and quite frankly, this has become ‘best practice’ in my profession.“

Interestingly, most of the official City of Akron’s press releases regarding Jayland Walker are no longer available for view on the City of Akron’s website, however, thanks to the internet archive, we can still access the original postings as listed below:

• City of Akron Press Release published on June 29, 2022 [ NOW DELETED original press release link // internet archived link ]
• City of Akron Press Release published on July 3, 2022 [ NOW DELETED original press release link // internet archived link ]
• City of Akron Press Release published on July 12, 2022 [ NOW DELETED original press release link // internet archived link ]

Additionally, on April 10, 2023 in a “Conversations with Your Chief” video on the Akron Police Department’s Facebook page, Chief Mylett reiterated his assertion that he was the one that decided to have an independent investigation into the shooting and that he asked the Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation to take lead on the investigation.

Next, let’s look at Ohio BCI Senior Special Agent Cory Momchilov’s Narrative of the Aftermath of the Shooting

On page one of the Ohio BCI’s Investigative Report Summary dated January 21, 2023 [which you can read here or refer to the screenshot below], Senior Special Agent Momchilov states, “Initially, the Akron Police Department requested only the use of BCI’s Crime Scene Unit to process the scene and that Akron Police personnel would conduct the investigation. Later in the day, at approximately 11:00 AM, the Akron Police Department requested that BCI’s Special Investigations Unit conduct the investigation. Therefore, no Special Investigations Unit agent responded to or took any action at the scene.” [Emphasis is mine.]

I would like to point out that the purpose and duties of Ohio BCI’s Crime Scene Unit are much different than their Special Investigations Unit. According to the Ohio Attorney General’s website, the Special Investigations Unit is responsible for investigating “officer-involved critical incidents and OHLEG misuse and help local officers solve felony-level cases of homicide, financial crimes, public corruption and voter fraud, among other crimes.”

OHLEG, which stands for “Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway” is the electronic information network that Ohio law enforcement agencies use to share criminal justice data and provides law enforcement with investigative tools and training applications to help solve and prevent crime. OHLEG is limited to those employed by criminal justice agencies. Ohio BCI’s Special Investigations Unit would be responsible for investigating misuse of that system, however, the Ohio Attorney General’s website states that BCI agents can typically only investigate when their help is requested by a local law enforcement agency or prosecutor’s office. Thus, they are not responsible for investigating citizen complaints.

While I couldn’t find a tab on the Ohio Attorney General’s website explaining what Ohio BCI’s Crime Scene Unit was responsible for, it was my understanding that historically, Crime Scene Units sole responsibility is to collect evidence and process the crime scene. It is also my understanding that Crime Scene Units do not conduct investigations, meaning they do no interviews and take no witness statements; they are just there to collect physical evidence to pass over to whichever investigative unit that will take lead. I was able to find an article from Fox 28 in Columbus that stated, “The BCI’s role in an investigation often comes early, with agents from the Crime Scene Unit collecting and preserving evidence,” which is consistent with my understanding of Crime Scene Units overall.

Lastly, let’s look at the Akron Police Department’s official statement that was “For Immediate Release” the day of the shooting.

Similarly, the following official statement from the Akron Police Department that was “For Immediate Release” on June 27, 2022 [the same day as the shooting], appears to have since been removed from the City of Akron’s website. The Akron Police Department’s official statement is currently only accessible through the internet archive and a June 28, 2022 post on the Akron Police Department’s Facebook page, which you can find here and here, or you can refer to the screenshots below [there are two pages].

This official statement from the Akron Police Department is consistent with the statement by Ohio BCI Senior Special Agent Momchilov on page one of the Ohio BCI’s Investigative Report Summary dated January 21, 2023, that stated the initial investigation would be conducted by the Akron Police Department. The only additional information provided in the Akron Police Department’s official statement that was not specified in the Ohio BCI’s Investigative Report Summary is that it would be the “Major Crimes Unit” of the Akron Police Department who would be conducting the initial investigation. According to the City of Akron’s website, the Major Crimes Unit [also referred to as “Crimes Against Persons Unit”] is responsible for investigating homicides, felonious assaults, robberies, sexual assaults and other felonies.

In Summary [and my personal take on the facts]

To summarize, the only official press release that the Akron Police Department put out following the shooting stated that their own “Major Crimes Unit” would be conducting the initial investigation [with the assistance of Ohio BCI] and Ohio BCI’s Investigative Report Summary is consistent with that narrative—that it was the Akron Police Department that initially led the investigation into the shooting.

This contradicts not only the narrative implied by Chief Mylett that Ohio BCI has led this investigation from the beginning, but also contradicts what Chief Mylett claims to stand for and claims to “have brought” to the Akron Police Department. This is where it gets sticky and the question of full transparency comes into play.

Did Chief Mylett lie? Technically speaking…no—because he only stated that he “requested Ohio BCI to lead the investigation,” which he did do—except that he only did so around 11:00 AM, when the shooting had occurred approximately 10 hours and 22 minutes prior. Therefore, the Akron Police Department was investigating “themselves” for the first 10 hours and 22 minutes after the shooting. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I find it incredibly concerning that the Akron Police Department had initially designated their own “Major Crimes Unit” to conduct the investigation into the shooting. I also find it incredibly concerning that because of the delay in requesting Ohio BCI’s Special Investigations Unit to lead the investigation, no BCI Special Investigations agents responded to the crime scene.

Think about that for a moment—Ohio BCI, the agency who is supposed to serve as an independent party to an investigation, never saw the active crime scene. I imagine they visited the scene eventually, but according to Special Agent Momchilov, no agents responded to the scene. For that information to be front and center on the first page of the Investigative Report, prior to the “Preface,”—that indicates to me that it’s important information that Ohio BCI likely wanted to be understood by all who read their findings. To be frank—the seemingly-intentional placement of this information on the first page, prior to the “Preface,” seems to me like it could have potentially been a subtle caveat to relinquish liability from Ohio BCI for anything potentially untoward that could’ve occurred in the 10 hours and 22 minutes that the Akron Police Department was leading the investigation into themselves on June 27, 2022.

See? I told you it was sticky because then we get into—is Chief Mylett’s omission of the truth regarding the timeline and request for BCI to lead the investigation actually considered a lie? The answer to that question could depend on the context in which it’s being asked—from an ethical stand point [which can be subjective] or from a legal stand point [which is not subjective]. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t comment on how the law views omissions of truth, but I can tell you that from an ethical stand point, my personal opinion is that an omission of truth in this context is a lie, especially if it was done so deliberately [which we have no way of knowing outside of a personal confession from those involved].

While on the surface, it appears that Chief Mylett was making a truthful statement—in that he requested Ohio BCI to conduct an independent investigation into the shooting—we can’t ethically ignore that he absolutely omitted some very important context—that the Akron Police Department was initially leading the investigation for over 10 hours after the shooting. What happened during that timeframe? Who precisely was investigating? Who was in and out of the crime scene? What did that investigation entail? I have so many questions about what actually occurred in those 10+ hours that the Akron Police Department got to investigate themselves.

Now for the Internal Investigation “Findings”…

The Akron Police Department’s investigation into themselves and their handling of the incident that resulted in the brutal shooting death of Jayland Walker revealed just how abysmally low the standards are for police conduct, adherence to policy, and frankly—basic human decency. The internal investigation by the Akron Police Department concluded that all eight officers were cleared of any wrongdoing or violations of departmental policy. What I want to highlight, though, are the reasons that Chief Mylett cited for why he found the officers’ conduct to be justified, reasonable, and within policy.

In the Executive Summary by Chief Mylett, he makes several claims to support his conclusion that all eight officers’ conduct was justified and within departmental policy, however, his claims are not necessarily based in fact, but merely in opinion. A reason that he cites several times throughout the Executive Summary to support his opinion [keyword: opinion] that the officers’ actions were reasonable is because: the grand jury decided not to indict any of the officers on criminal charges. As Chief Mylett stated, “I also believe the Special Grand Jury determined the officers’ use of force was not excessive when it decided against criminal charges.”

While I am not an attorney, nor do I claim to be, I just want to point out that grand jury proceedings are completely secret, so unless Chief Mylett inserted himself, or someone else with whom he communicates, into the deliberation room with the grand jurors, he cannot possibly conclude that the jurors’ decision not to indict the officers on criminal charges is at all due in whole or in part to their opinions on the excessiveness or “lack thereof” in the officers’ use of force against Jayland. In other words, unless Chief Mylett heard “from the ‘horse’s mouth‘” that the grand jurors determined the level of force was not excessive solely based on their decision not to indict the officers on criminal charges, then he can’t ethically make that claim as anything more than his personal opinion [which, by the way, is subject to biases he may have in favor of his officers].

A Few Side Notes About the Grand Jury…

Additionally, from my understanding, the special grand jury’s job was not to determine *IF* the level of force used was excessive or not; I believe that would be up to a trial jury to determine if an indictment had followed. A grand jury determines whether *enough evidence* exists to charge someone with a crime, and if so, it produces an indictment. According to the Ohio Bar, “The grand jury’s decisions are based merely on probable cause. The grand jury’s decisions are not held to the much higher standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that must apply to convict a person at trial. Further, the nature of the evidence the grand jury may rely on is quite different, and little if any defense information is presented.“

The grand jury process varies greatly from criminal trial proceedings. In a grand jury proceeding, which again, is completely secret, the accused person(s) are not present unless they are called as a witness, nor is their counsel present even if their client is called as a witness. Additionally, witnesses are not cross-examined and not even a judge is present in the grand jury room, though a judge will be available in the event a witness refuses to answer a question and the prosecutor requests the witness be cited for contempt. It is the prosecutor who presents the state’s case by asking the witness questions. (Ohio Bar)

Professor Margery Koosed wrote in an article for the Ohio Bar that, “Information obtained by an illegal police investigation, unconstitutional surveillance, or by unreliable means, can be heard and relied upon by grand jurors, even though that information would not be admissible if the case proceeded to trial.” Again, since these proceedings are secret, there is no ethical or legal way for the public to know what information the prosecutor presented, nor the way they presented the information either.

Consider it another way—have you ever watched multiple documentaries on the same case or subject? You might notice that while many documentaries appear to present all sides of an argument about a case in an attempt to provide an “unbiased perspective,” however, many times there ends up being a clear narrative that the filmmakers are implying by the end of the film. Depending on the narrative they are supporting, the documentary could humanize or vilify various subjects of the documentary. These humanizing or vilifying aspects are usually very subtle, and when they aren’t—a clear bias exists. The way a narrative is presented matters and absolutely has an effect on how it is received and interpreted by the audience. The same goes for a prosecutor, who serves as the storyteller; and the grand jury, who serves as the audience.

It’s also important to consider that prosecutors have a mutually beneficial and codependent relationship with law enforcement, which has the potential to affect how they present potentially damning evidence against police officers to a grand jury when they are called on by the state to prosecute them. According to Erik Luna, Professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law at Arizona State University and Dr. Marianne Wade, the Director of the Institute of Judicial Administration and the Co-Director of the Centre for Crime, Justice and Policing of the UK, in their 2012 publication, “The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective,” they stated “Police and prosecutors may act independently, but they also depend on each other. In the United States, neither office has sufficient power or resources to carry out the entire law enforcement task from investigation to punishment. Police officers conduct the investigation and make arrests, but they are not able to end the case on their own; prosecutors must accept the case and move it from its investigatory phase to a conclusion. Similarly, prosecutors may dominate the judicial processing of the case, but they have neither the resources nor the expertise to conduct investigations of everyday crime. Regardless of their formal autonomy, police and prosecutors find themselves mutually dependent members of the same team, working together to address crime.” On the contrary, they go on to explain that while they are teammates in the criminal justice system, their relationship is complicated in that they don’t always see “eye-to-eye” when it comes to the outcome of cases, particularly when plea deals are involved. Their mutually dependent relationship can often have points of friction and disagreement as well.

Luna and Wade go on to say, “Because American prosecutors depend on police to bring them evidence and witnesses that are crucial to the successful prosecution of their cases, and given the existing tensions that often characterizes the relationships between prosecutors and police, American prosecutors often find themselves reluctant to alienate police officers. Prosecutors need to work with the police on an ongoing basis. They need to have police officers find the witnesses and evidence necessary to put on a convincing case, and to show up in court and act as persuasive witnesses when necessary. Unsurprisingly, prosecutors do not wish to jeopardize relationships with their colleagues in law enforcement. Thus, prosecutors may reject any inclination to insist on better or more evidence for a particular case, or, for that matter, to insist on better police practices overall, as this might adversely affect their effort to get along with police in the short term.“

In the Jayland Walker case, a special prosecutor was appointed by the Ohio Attorney General to present this case to the grand jury, who would then determine if there was enough probable cause to indict the eight police officers who killed Jayland Walker on criminal charges. Though the special prosecutor may have not been local to Akron if they were assigned by the Ohio Attorney General, who operates out of Columbus, but does that really matter when these criminal justice actors are intertwined across jurisdictional lines and the overall culture and nature of these relationships are widely established and often influenced by politics?

Think about it this way—a prosecutors main job is to gain convictions and often, the success of their career is measured by those convictions. In order for prosecutors to gain convictions, they rely on maintaining a relationship with law enforcement so that they will have cooperating and helpful witnesses in criminal cases against civilians. To put it another way—a successful career for prosecutors, requires convictions and prosecutors rely on police officers to gain those convictions. If you have an understanding of police culture, one could imagine that the “piss off one of us, piss off all of us” mentality generally applies. So, the point that I’m trying to get to is that the success of a prosecutor’s career heavily relies on maintaining a positive relationship with the police, so how is it a fair or just system when “friends” of the police are the ones presenting cases to grand juries that could potentially tarnish not just the reputation of police officers, but the reputations of entire departments, thus bringing into question every case those officers were ever involved with? We should consider how these codependent and mutually beneficial relationships between prosecutors and police could affect their ability to present the facts in a way that could damage the reputation of police officers and what that means for prosecuting cases against police officers.

Now, the grand jury selection and procedural process is not exempt from being influenced by bias, and to reiterate—the grand jury process is secret from the public so we will never know if cases are presented in a truly fair, honest way devoid of political or interpersonal agendas. Again, I am not a lawyer and I am not an expert in this field, but I do take great interest in procedural law and according to the ACLU of Ohio, a grand jury is made up of nine randomly selected registered voters of the local community, however, unlike jury selection for a criminal trial, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other potential issues. I don’t know about you, but I, personally, have so many questions about this “random selection process.” What procedures are in place for “randomly selecting” grand jurors? Who is in charge of this process? How do we know that grand jurors aren’t being chosen deliberately based on political affiliation? By that, I mean, police accountability is often viewed as a political non-issue to conservative and republican voters—and since a person’s political affiliation is easily google-able with all the data broker websites out there, how do we know for certain that whoever is in charge of selecting these jurors aren’t influencing the results by unofficially screening potential jurors based on their political affiliation? I don’t have answers to these questions, and likely neither will you because again, the grand jury process is secret.

It should also be noted that only seven of the nine members of a grand jury must agree to produce an indictment and that a grand jury decision does not have to be unanimous. As the ACLU puts it, “Basically, jurors must agree that using the information they currently have, do they—as prudent and cautious people—think that it is probable that this person committed this crime?” and as Professor Margery Koosed puts it, “A grand jury issues a bill of indictment if it finds probable cause to believe both that a crime has been committed and that the accused person is responsible.” An issue I imagine jurors could have been confronted with in the Jayland Walker case is that there were eight officers involved, who fired a collective 94 rounds at Jayland—and I imagine that it would be near impossible to determine of the 46 rounds that struck Jayland, which officers precisely delivered the fatal shots that ended Jayland’s life. So, if the purpose of the grand jury is to determine that a crime has been committed and that the accused person is responsible—what happens if a grand jury believes a crime has been committed but they are unable to determine who is responsible for it? Hypothetically, I imagine that scenario would result in a “no bill,” but again, I am not an attorney, nor an expert on grand jury procedure.

Another issue that I imagine the grand jury could’ve potentially been met with was—what charges they had to choose from, which I presume are chosen by the prosecutor [though I’m not entirely sure on that]. What if the only charges the grand jury had to choose from were related to the death of Jayland Walker and not the physical assault of his person? What if there were no options for charges related to the level of force that was used? Since the grand jury proceedings are secret, the public has no way of knowing what charges were on the table for consideration by the grand jury. I imagine that it could be completely possible that if a grand jury did believe a crime was committed but they could not determine which eight officers were responsible, that the grand jury could have reached a “no-bill” [no indictment] decision that way.

As I think I’ve made it clear, I have many doubts about the integrity of our current grand jury process and its potential to be influenced or manipulated by corruption and political agendas, but that’s really a conversation for another day. Since there are so many unknowns in the grand jury process that the public will never have knowledge of, one can assume that this grand jury proceeding is in alignment with that standard and we [the public] have no way of knowing what facts were presented, how they were presented, what charges the grand jury had to consider, who was on the grand jury, how the grand jury was selected, and if all members of the grand jury approached their decision from a neutral, unbiased standpoint. All the public will ever know is that this grand jury was not presented enough evidence to meet probable cause standards for the charges that were presented for consideration. The grand jury “no bill” decision does not mean that a crime was not committed—it just means that they could not determine or agree if the particular crime(s) presented to them were committed and/or by whom they were committed.

Now let’s get back on track with the internal investigation findings…

Another reason Chief Mylett cited for why he found the officers’ conduct to be justified, reasonable, and within policy is that he claims any of the policies that were violated, were done so “unintentionally,”—as if intention matters more than impact, especially when the taking of a person’s life is involved…[insert eyeroll].

One might ask how they came to the conclusion of “unintentional-ity,” and the “obvious answer” [sarcasm] is that they simply asked the officers directly because they certainly have no motivation to lie [also sarcasm]. Think about this for a moment—they asked the officers who violated policy directly if they had malicious intent to violate department policy or if it was simply accidental, knowing full well that the former could potentially put their careers, therefore their livelihoods and family’s financial security, at risk. Imagine if the police handled criminal investigations of civilians the same way they handle the internal investigations of their officers. Imagine that they’d go to the perpetrator directly and simply ask them if they intentionally or unintentionally violated the law, and if they answer “unintentionally,” they get a free pass from consequences….

After taking a moment to reflect on that, I hope you found it to be as absolutely absurd as I did. This is another example of how police officers are held to much lower standards than the citizens they’re paid [and allegedly “highly trained”] to serve. In most circumstances when civilians violate laws, especially when it results in the loss of life, they’re still prosecuted to some extent whether they violated the law intentionally or unintentionally. They are still held accountable, even if for merely negligence or recklessness. So, why is it that these officers get a pass for “unintentionally” violating department policy? You’d think that an agency whose purpose is to enforce the law would have strict, zero tolerance policy for their own when they violate department policy, but I suppose not…?

Make no mistake—there isn’t a single finding from this internal investigation that is a surprise to me. Myself and I presume—the community of activists that have worked diligently for Justice for Jayland, have been mentally preparing for the grief and disappointment of the day the internal investigation findings would be released for seventeen months at that point; yet if I’m honest, none of that preparation softened the blow for me personally [not even a little bit]. How could anything ever soften the blow of discovering that the Akron Police Department has officially ruled that it is completely acceptable, within policy, and standard practice to shoot nearly 100 rounds of ammunition at a single human being for any reason, but especially for one that was unarmed and running away at the time a gang of what I would consider—rogue cops—emptied or nearly emptied their guns into the body of a young man.

It shouldn’t even be a question worth considering that firing nearly 100 shots at a human being should be a violation of law and policy. We should also consider the precedent this is setting for use of force not just for the City of Akron, but for police departments and law enforcement agencies everywhere. The Akron Police Department has essentially set the expectation and standard that nearly 100 shots at a person is…reasonable. That should shock your conscience.

A little bit about me…

Hi! If you’ve read this entire piece, thank you. There is no better way to love on me than to read my lengthy captions and posts. If you’re new here, you might be wondering who the hell is this girl and why is she qualified to speak on this issue. Well, I’m Destinee and for starters, I’m qualified to speak on this because it’s a human rights issue and I am…well, human. I am also an early 30s civil rights activist, digital educator, and multi-passionate human and entrepreneur with a deep love of research and learning. After dropping out of college at the age of 19 due to some undiagnosed disabilities, I am currently back in school pursuing a bachelor’s degree. I am double majoring in Criminal Justice and African American Studies, as well as pursuing a minor in Community Action and Social Change. I am deeply passionate about law, as well as the social and racial components of the criminal justice space. In addition to my academic study, I also conduct my own research on the side and use that research in my writing and to create educational content online about various topics that fall under the umbrella of criminal justice and/or race. One great thing about our constitutional right to freedom of the press, is that anyone can be an independent journalist and I suppose now that I’m putting more efforts into my writing, that’s a title I can proudly claim as well. Thank you for being here. Thank you for taking time to listen to my voice.

If you have questions or need to reach me, you can send me an email at hello@destineestark.com or fill out my contact form.