PEORIA, Ill. (WAND) - The murder trial of Sean Grayson, the former sheriff's deputy accused of shooting and killing Sonya Massey inside her Sangamon County home in 2024, started Monday in Peoria.
Grayson is charged with first-degree murder. Charges of aggravated battery with a firearm and official misconduct were dropped on Monday.
Below are updates from the WAND News team inside the courtroom. Make sure to refresh this page for new updates.
Jurors watch body-camera video again, professor analyzes
11:23 a.m. Friday, October 24 — Caryn Eisert
At 10:41 a.m., jurors watched Professor Stoughton’s synchronized video of the body-camera recordings. This is the second time jurors have seen the video.
At the beginning, Grayson watched the monitor. After about 7 minutes into the video, he looked towards the table and took notes.
Some of the jurors even leaned forward in their chairs as the video played on the large monitor.
Milhiser stopped the video almost 9 minutes in. This is after Massey was preparing to close the door, and the deputy’s prepared to leave. He asked Professor Stoughton about Grayson’s interactions.
Professor Stoughton detailed to jurors that, in his opinion, it seemed, based on Massey’s responses, there was a mental health issue.
The video resumed at the point when Grayson asked her about the car in her driveway.
The video was stopped almost 10 minutes into the call. Milhiser again asked Professor Stoughton about his opinion on Grayson’s actions.
He wanted jurors to know Massey again showed signs of mental health issues after she mentioned she was taking her medication.
The video resumed to the point when Massey called dispatch again. Professor Stoughton said in his opinion that the callback showed she wasn’t understanding what was going on.
The video resumed to the point when Grayson asked for Massey’s ID. Milhiser stopped the video almost 12 minutes in, and Professor Stoughton said, in his opinion, again, Massey wasn’t understanding what was going on.
Grayson watched the video as it resumed to the point when he pointed out the pot on the stove, and Massey grabbed it.
Professor Stoughton testified that Farley showed signs of creating distance.
“She’s not moving aggressively, but it’s important to manage all of the aspects.”
The video began to play when Massey said, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”
Professor Stoughton said Massey has the pot of water under the tap for less than 8 seconds. He also mentioned that Massey was saying things that, in his opinion, didn’t make sense.
“There is a risk, but there is no threat,” Professor Stoughton testified as Massey had the pot in her hands.
In the video, as Grayson unholstered his gun, Professor Stoughton began to analyze the former deputy’s actions for the jurors.
Grayson watched as the video played of him shooting Massey. One juror looked down as the video played, not taking notes.
The video was paused again after Grayson fired his gun. Professor Stoughton told jurors in his opinion, Grayson wasn’t using a tactical sound maneuver by walking in front of Farley.
“That was not professionally appropriate,” he testified.
This is the unedited version of the body-camera, so Massey’s injuries were not blurred. Members of the Massey family were visibly upset watching the video again.
Milhiser paused the video 16 minutes in as Grayson could be heard saying, “I’m not going to waste my stuff.”
Jurors then watched a short version of the body-camera video. This was the point when Grayson pointed out the pot of water on the stove.
Grayson watched the monitor as the video was played in open court.
Milhiser asked Professor Stoughton to again analyze Grayson’s actions frame-by-frame.
He told jurors in his opinion that at the time Grayson pulled his gun, Massey had not changed her position on the pot. He added that when she crouched below the counter, she did not have the pot. Then, at about 12 minutes and 15 seconds into the video, Professor Stoughton pointed out that Grayson moved closer to Massey.
Milhiser asked Stoughton to clarify to jurors that as Grayson fired the gun, Massey lifted the pot.
At this point, Grayson has leaned back in the seat.
Professor Stoughton made sure to point out that after the gun was fired, both deputies then backed away.
Milhiser asked Professor Stoughton, "Were the defendant's tactics professional appropriate?"
"No," he responded.
Court recessed for lunch before cross-examination. It will resume at 1 p.m.
State's expert tells jurors Massey wasn't a threat
10:33 a.m. Friday, October 24 — Caryn Eisert
The court resumed at 10:15 a.m., and the jury was brought back in. Professor Stoughton was still on the stand.
Professor Stoughton started by expressing the importance of the tactics police use. He referenced an NYPD lieutenant in the 70’s who studied the actions of police officers.
Milhiser asked Professor Stoughton about the importance of “time and distance.” The University of South Caroline professor said time is important.
“One common phrase you hear in policing is creating time.”
He testified that by creating time, an officer can create distance.
In his opinion, Professor Stoughton told jurors he believed Grayson’s actions were tactical “unsound”.
He went on to explain that a situation, like the one July 6, 2024, led to a lower level of compliance.
“The actions of the defendant threatening to shoot her in the f’ing face, was that tactically unsound?” Milhiser asked.
“Yes,” Professor Stoughton responded.
Professor Stoughton said Grayson should have created tactical repositioning. Meaning he could have created space. He also told jurors that Grayson made a mistake by stepping in front of his officer.
In his report, Professor Stoughton wrote that in his opinion that Massey didn’t pose a threat.
While Professor Stoughton explained his opinions on the deadly shooting, each juror had their chairs turned to the witness box and listened closely.
Professor Stoughton told jurors that Massey even reduced the risk of being a threat when she put the pot down.
Professor Stoughton added while Massey had picked the pot up, there was still time for Grayson to step back.
Milhiser wanted Professor Stoughton to remind the jurors that he not only looked at Grayson’s actions, but he also reviewed Massey’s.
When reviewing the body-camera videos, Professor Stoughton watched both deputies' cameras at the same time.
Milhiser presented Professor Stoughton with the videos he prepared to review the case. Jurors had the opportunity to watch.
Defense objects portion of professor's testimony, judge overrules
9:56 a.m. Friday, October 24 — Caryn Eisert
During the break and away from the jury, the defense expressed concern about the parameters of Professor Stoughton’s testimony. Fultz told Judge Cadagin, “his testimony could lead to jurors’ confusion.” The argument is that applying “generally accepted” standards shouldn’t apply to this case because Grayson worked for the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office.
Milhiser referred to his response when the defense first objected to portions of the testimony.
“This is generally accepted police policies and tactics.”
Judge Cadagin wanted the defense to clarify its objection to the testimony.
Fultz told the judge his concern that Professor Stoughton’s testimony doesn’t have anything to do with the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department’s policy.
Judge Cadagin explained to the defense, testimony from Dekmar on Thursday focused on Sangamon County policy, while Professor Stoughton’s testimony is focused on a broad overview of police policies and procedures.
Fultz again expressed concern that the testimony has no "tie in with Sangamon County Sheriff's Department."
Milhiser shared with the court that Professor Stoughton’s testimony will only focus on “nationally accepted standards.”
Judge Cadagin explained to Fultz that the testimony would focus on “national standards,” and he believes it is fair for the jury to know and understand those standards.
After more than 10 minutes of arguments, Judge Cadagin overruled the defense’s objection.
Court recessed for 20 minutes.
Professor details his process for reviewing the case
9:27 a.m. Friday, October 24 — Caryn Eisert
The court accepted Professor Stoughton as an expert in matters.
Professor Stoughton testified he reviewed both deputies’ body-camera videos and their reports. He did not receive the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office policies.
Instead, he looked at the “generally accepted” standard. Meaning, he looked at the time, techniques, protocols, and principles that various law enforcement organizations accept.
While Professor Stoughton described how he reviewed the body-worn camera recording and reports, Grayson leaned forward in his chair and watched the witness stand.
The professor explained his process to the jurors. He watched the video, took notes, and then watched the video again while reading the reports.
“That’s just a matter of figuring out what happened.”
Professor Stoughton said he looked at whether Grayson’s actions were the “generally accepted” standard.
Court recessed for a short break for defense's objection.
Law professor from South Carolina takes the stand
9:10 a.m. Friday, October 24 — Caryn Eisert
The State called its first witness of the morning. Professor Seth Stoughton, from Columbia, South Carolina, took the stand.
Law Professor Stoughton teaches at the University of South Carolina. He is a faculty director and oversees a program that provides training to police executives. This program touches on civil rights, critical incident reviews, and external communities.
Professor Stoughton detailed to the court that there is also a master’s program dedicated to police leadership.
In addition to those programs, the professor teaches classes in criminal law, criminal procedure, and police law and policy. He also explained that he studies policing, which includes culture, but he specifically looks at police use of force.
Professor Stoughton also shared that he was a police officer for Tallahassee for 5 years.
Court prepares for Day 5 to begin
8:37 a.m. Friday, October 24 — Caryn Eisert
Court is set to start at 9:00 a.m.
The state has a list of 19 witnesses they plan to call. Yesterday, jurors heard from the pathologist who conducted Massey’s autopsy. They also heard from the State’s expert witness, who shared his expert opinion that Grayson violated numerous Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office policies, and he “escalated” the situation with Massey.
Many members of the Massey family were lined up to enter court when the doors opened. There are about four people sitting on Grayson’s side of the courtroom.
Grayson is wearing a black suit and blue tie.
Examination of policing experts continue
4:40 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Sangamon County First Assistant State's Attorney Mary Beth Rodgers returned to re-question Dekmar after Wykoff’s cross-examination was continued. “She was in some sort of crisis,” testified Dekmar when speaking about Massey.
In addition, Dekmar said he found differences between the reports, which were made with FOP present, and the actions he recorded on the body cameras.
Rodgers asked if Massey’s reaction to hold her arms and the pot up was reasonable given the situation she encountered. Dekmar said in his years of professional experience Massey’s reaction made sense.
After the jury was dismissed, the judge shared that a juror was excused from service due to a personal emergency. All attorneys agreed the juror could be excused from service.
The court took a recess for the attorneys to discuss a pending motions.
Defense cross examination continues
4:33 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
The jury returned to the court room after a 10 minute discussion between attorneys.
Dekmar confirmed with Wykoff that he reviewed approximately 400 pages of documentation to reach his conclusion that Grayson violated several Sangamon County policies. Wykoff referred to the still images extracted from the body-worn cameras.
Wykoff asked Dekmar if he felt Grayson was acting out of fear when he pulled his gun and pointed it at Massey.
Dekmar said no because, “If someone is in fear they do not run towards the thing that is causing them fear.” Grayson’s actions were “Inconsistent of fear and threat,” according to Dekmar.
“He has a duty and a responsibility to obey his policy and his training and this clearly was not done in this case,” said Dekmar as he explained policies need to be considered in total, not by pulling sentences as a time.
The state objected to Wykoff’s continued questions as "badgering the witness.”
The judge agreed Wykoff had attempted to ask the same question several times and it was already answered. Wyhoff mentioned Dekmar’s previous statement on how the “value of human life” is sacred to the practice of policing.
Dekmar clarifies at Wykoff’s behest that policies are written to protect all lives, whether they are officers or citizens.
Defense cross examines policing expert
4:05 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Mark Wykoff steps up to cross-examine Dekmar.
The court learned that Delkmar wrote a 19-page opinion about Grayson’s use of force. Wykoff read a portion of the opinion that detailed how Grayson acted when he knocked on Massey’s door.
Dekmar concluded that Grayson violated department policy by impatient tone and actions in that moment.
“You don’t start an interaction with a citizen the way the defendant did,” said Dekmar. He added, “Any poorly handled call can turn into a use of force incident.”
Grayson leaned forward in his chair, looking at Dekmar as Wykoff asked him questions.
Wykoff repeatedly placed his hands on Grayson’s shoulder as he talks about his response to the call. Wykoff wanted to make clear that Grayson’s tone wasn’t the first interaction he had with Sonya.
The tone changed and the knocks got harder after two minutes of being at the door. The attorney reminded the jury that when Grayson asked if Sonya was doing okay, she responded, “Yes.”
Dekmar added that Sonya said “Yes, I’m taking my medication.”
According to CIT training, Dekmar believed the time it took Massey to answer the door and the fact that she acknowledged she was on medication should have indicated she was in crisis.
Wykoff also wanted Dekmar to admit that his perspective of reviewing the deadly shooting was different from Grayson’s perspective that early morning at Massey’s home.
Wykoff mentioned the first report Farley wrote, which detailed he was fearful of the pot of water.
Dekmar corrected Wykoff and said that Farley changed his report to say Grayson’s actions made him afraid, not Massey’s. Dekmar said waiting 72 hours after an event to write a statement is usually up to an union or an agency in collaboration.
Wykoff asserted that Deputy Farley’s first report should be seen as more accurate as it occurred closer to the incident, not weeks later. Wykoff questioned why Dekmar included in his report that Grayson violated the county’s “Moderate/High Risk Traffic Stop” policy.
Dekmar explained earlier in court that some de-escalation policies for the county were included in the traffic stop policy. Wykoff read portions of the county’s use of force policy.
He made clear that the policy said officers should warn that deadly force may be used. Dekmar agreed that Grayson did that by telling Massey he would shoot her in the head.
Wykoff continued to read the policy which said use of force could be used under imminent threat, including if someone is attempting to access a weapon or dangerous object.
The court was recessed for attorneys to discuss specific lines of questioning. The attorney’s started side-bar.
State concludes questioning of policing expert
3:30 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Dekmar said he often uses traffic stop policies as a way to see how a department trains officers on de-escalation. Dekmar said Grayson did not use “tactical patience” when interacting with Massey and “collapsed the distance” between him and Massey. He sped up the interaction, according to Dekmar.
He acted contrary to Sangamon County police and general policing standards, according to Dekmar. Dekmar reviewed the Sangamon County Use of Force policies.
This document included statements on “proportionate force.” Dekmar said Grayson’s actions were unproportionate according to the policy. Dekmar told the jury that pointing a weapon at someone is considered a “use of force.”
He said he didn’t see anything he would consider “threatening behavior” from Massey before Grayson pulled his gun.
Rodgers and Dekmar had the following dialogue.
Rodgers asked “Was she (Massey) a credible threat?”
Dekmar responded, “No.”
“Is that a violation of Sangamon County Policies?” Rodgers asked.
“Yes,” Dekmar responded.
Dekmar said he could tell from the video that Massey was disoriented and confused. He said her actions were aligned with that, not being threatened.
Human life is paramount in policing, according to Dekmar.
“You give immediate attention to the person that was shot,” said Dekmar. But Grayson did not do this, according to Dekmar.
He was slow to get his med kit and stated he would not waste it on Massey.
In total, Dekmar concluded Grayson violated several Sangamon County policies.
Court recessed after objection
3:00 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
The court took a short recess, where jury were led out of the room, because of an objection by the defense.
Wykoff objected to Dekmar’s expertise on “use of force.” The State made clear that the defense could question Dekmar on Sangamon County’s policies as well, including “use of force.”
Court took a 15 minute recess.
Policing expert testifies on Grayson's actions
2:50 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
After questioning Dekmar’s resume, Wykoff drew the conclusion that this was the first time Dekmar had testified as an expert in police policy in a criminal trial with a jury.
Wykoff objected to Dekmar being an expert in this case. The state told the judge that Dekmar had been used as an expert several times, regardless of what kind of case it was.
The judge ruled that Dekmar would be allowed as an expert witness on police policy. Sangamon County First Assistant State's Attorney Mary Beth Rodgers confirmed with Dekmar that he had reviewed the video from the body-worn cameras worn by Farley and Grayson.
Dekmar reviewed Sangamon County’s body-worn camera policy, their use of force policy, and their crisis intervention (CIT) policy. He also reviewed the department’s mental health awareness training. Dekmar also read the reports written by Deputies Farley and Grayson as well as the ISP report.
Dekmar explained to the jury that he always reviews policy and training to see how law enforcement officers follow what they’ve been taught and agreed to.
Dekmar said he’s determined through his decades of experience that CIT is beneficial in all interactions between officers and the public. Dekmar said in watching the video, he could tell pretty quickly that CIT training should have been used when interacting with Massey.
He believed Grayson could tell this too as in the video he asked “are you alright?”
Dekmar said the deputies should have been able to tell Massey was in crisis and responded appropriately.
This means talking slowly and clammy to determine the proper response. Dekmar said Grayson did not act in the way he was trained to respond in regarding to CIT.
He also said Grayson didn’t use proper de-escalation skills. Dekmar was puzzled why Grayson even went into the home, as this is uncommon during a “prowler” call.
The witness said Grayson should have asked Massey what she was looking for or why she was uncomfortable. He also should not have demanded she hung up the phone and instead tried to determine why she wanted the dispatcher to stay on the line.
Dekmar explained to the jury that when an officer enters a situation they need to use the “benefits of time and distance.”
In using proper distance training, he says ,Grayson should have stepped back, not towards perceived dangers. This is written in training as “repositioning” or “retreat.”
CIT trains officers that while someone is in crisis, what they say she rarely be taken as a threat. Officers through their trainings should know that people in crisis may struggle to process commands from officers.
Dekmar says Massey complied with Grayson when she lowered the pot and said “I’m sorry.”
He believes Massey only lifted the pot when Grayson pulled out his gun, and she used it to shield herself from harm.
Defense questions legitimacy of state's expert witness
2:20 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
The State called their next witness, a long serving law enforcement officer.
Louis Dekmar is a former police department chief, holding that title in two departments. He has 50 years of experience in law enforcement and has been involved in several law enforcement organizations in that time.
Dekmar shared his extensive resume, including expertise in internal affairs, training law enforcement leadership, and supervision. During his career, Dekmar has reviewed more than 2,000 use of force incidents.
He uses the policy of an agency to determine if a specific incident violates their policy. Before Dekmar could be entered as an expert witness on police policy and procedure, Wykoff wanted to ask follow-up questions about his 19-page professional resume.
The state clarified that Dekmar is only going to be used as an expert related to police policies and procedures, not related to use of force incidents.
Wykoff read through Dekmar’s resume in open court and shared with jurors that Dekmar wasn’t testified in a criminal trial, but has written opinions for cases throughout the country.
Dekmar clarified that many of the cases Wykoff listed are still pending. Dekmar has written opinions for cases throughout the country and has also testified in depositions.
Defense cross-examines crisis intervention instructor
1:35 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Attorney Mark Wykoff asked Rigiano if he thought crisis intervention was a skill. Rigiano agreed. Through Wykoff’s questioning, Rigiano said industries outside of law enforcement use crisis intervention.
Rigiano told the jury that Sean Grayson attended one of his crisis intervention training courses.
Wykoff asked Rigiano to clarify that crisis intervention training is not just used for mental health, or drug-use related crises.
Wykoff asked Rigiano if officers are warned that violation of the training could mean a use of force was not justified. Rigiano said no.
Sangamon County First Assistant State's Attorney Mary Beth Rodgers asked Rigiano if officers could experience crises like what they are trained to respond to. Rigiano said yes.
Jury learns more about crisis intervention
1:35 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Rigiano continued to talk to jurors about how important it is for officers to be patient and to give people space when they are in crisis. His material says, “Time passage has a calming effect which often times diffuses the situation by itself.” It’s also critical to use proper body language, according to Rigiano.
When discussing conflict resolution, Rigiano says, “The training point here is being able to pivot.”
To “pass” crisis intervention training at ILETSB, trainees go through two scenarios with an actor pretending to be in a crisis. If an officer can’t pass this, they get one more chance. If they don’t pass after this, they will be instructed that they did not pass the class and have to retake it.
While Rigiano was testifying, Grayson was writing notes on his notepad.
Crisis intervention instructor testifies
1:25 p.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Court is back in session after a two hour recess.
The State is calling their ninth witness in total, their fifth of the day. Anthony Rigano took the stand. He is a retired sergeant with the Elgin Police Department and a trainer for the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (ILETSB). He teaches crisis intervention at ILETSB, a class required for many law enforcement officers. He specifically trains officers on verbal de-escalation and tactical response.
Parts of Rigiano’s instructional material were shown to the courtroom. He shared the importance of conflict resolution and the “listen first model,” especially when talking to people facing mental health challenges or under the influence of substances.
Rigiano said he often tells his trainees conflict resolution is seeing the problem for what it is, having good communication skills, and using empathy. He said officers trained in conflict resolution are seven times less likely to be hurt while on duty and less likely to hurt others.
As part of his training, Rigiano also emphasizes the importance of maturity. He said immature officers don’t handle challenges to their authority well. He writes in his training material “confidence, not arrogance, shows maturity.” He often trains officers to treat each person their encounter as they would like their family or friend to be treated.
Rigiano shared with the jury that ability and motivation are key things to consider as an officer. His training material says “Our motivation should be guided by professional demeanor and the focus on the preservation of life.”
As Rigiano talked about his course and training materials, jurors could be seen taking detailed notes. Grayson would often glance back and forth between the power point presentation and Rigiano.
When an officer realizes the person they are speaking to is in crisis, Rigiano said officers should transition from responding to a call, to responding to a crisis.
Rigiano told the jury about “officer created jeopardy.” He describes this as something an officer does that triggers someone to escalate their behavior. He teaches officers to think through how someone in jeopardy may feel based on officer behavior. He encourages officers to start by asking questions like “What has upset you today?”
Pathologist concludes testimony, court breaks for lunch
11:10 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Wykoff talked to the judge about substances found in Massey’s blood that have effects he believes could have impacted Massey before her death.
The state withdrew their objection.
The jury was called back into the courtroom.
Wykoff asked Dr. Patterson to explain how he drew blood from Massey’s leg to complete toxicology screenings. The blood is sent out to a lab in another state for results, said Wykoff.
Dr. Patterson said Massey was positive for Delta-9 THC, a marijuana metabolite. Wykoff asked if THC can cause distorted perception, speech difficulties, confusion, and lethargy. Dr. Patterson said yes.
Dr. Patterson also said Massey tested positive for gabapentin, which he said is a central nervous system depressant.
Milhiser took the stand again and clarified with Patterson that the sooner medical attention is given, the better it is for someone when it comes to survivability. Patterson agreed.
Defense questions toxicology, judge order recess
10:55 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Mark Wykoff cross-examined Dr. Patterson. Wykoff established that Patterson is a medical doctor and could legally practice medicine.
Wykoff’s line of questioning focused specifically on Patterson’s claims that Massey could have survived the injury from being shot. Patterson said he couldn’t provide a specific percentage on the survivability of the wound, but said there are many cases where people survived a similar wound.
When Wykoff brought up sharing the toxicology reports from Massey’s autopsy, State’s Attorney Milhiser objected to the relevance of this report.
Court recessed so attorneys could discuss this with the judge away from open court.
Pathologist who completed Massey's autopsy testifies she could have survived
10:45 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
The State called their fourth witness of the day, eighth in total. Dr. Nathaniel Patterson, a Forensic Pathologist for the Sangamon County Coroner, took the stand.
Dr. Patterson walked jurors through his professional experience and what an autopsy is. He explained that this is an “incredibly detailed” process, examining the body inside and out.
The pathologist said he documented a gunshot wound just under Massey’s left eye. Throughout his autopsy, Dr. Patterson explained he took photographs to document what he saw.
Sonya’s mother, and children, stayed outside the courtroom for this portion of the trial.
While Patterson testified, Grayson kept his attention on the doctor and the State’s Attorney. The jury was shown some of the photos taken at Sonya Massey’s autopsy.
These depicted the injuries Sonya Massey had from being shot in the face. Dr. Patterson noted swelling on Massey’s face near the gunshot, which he said occurred because of blood loss.
The doctor walked the jury through his determination that the shot was fired from more than a few feet away as there was no gunshot residue or smoke evidence on her face.
More members of the Massey family left the room as the pathologist described the photos showing the exit wound in her neck and her brain with damage from the shot.
Grayson continued to look at the screen as the photographs were first shown, including those with significant amounts of blood.
The jury kept their eyes on the screen, with some pausing to take notes. One juror kept his head down after seeing the first few photos.
Dr. Patterson used more photographs to explain Massey’s left carotid artery was cut in half by the bullet. He explained how bullet wound damages were like the wake of a boat speeding through the water.
As photos of Massey’s brain were shown, Grayson looked either at the photos or the doctor.
Grayson’s families turned their attention from the screen to the doctor. Many members of the Massey family kept their heads down.The jurors were very attentive to what the doctor was saying and the remainder of the photos.
The doctor said the bullet “missed her brain.” He said the fact that the bullet hit Massey’s carotid artery was what led to significant bleeding. He said “she bled to death.”
He testified Massey could have potentially survived the wound if they could have slowed the bleeding.
If the bleeding was addressed it would have “given her a chance,” according to the doctor. “Sonya Massey could have lived if she had medical attention sooner?” asked Milhiser. “Yes,” said the doctor.
Attorneys determine which autopsy photos will be allowed
10:25 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Before the jury comes back into the courtroom, the State’s Attorney and Wykoff discussed what autopsy photos would be allowed to be shown to the jury. Wykoff objected to some of the photos being shown as he was concerned they could “enflame the passions of the jury.” Wykoff emphasized they were not trying to argue over the cause of the death, and showing all the photos were unnecessary.
Judge Cadagin considered if any of the photos were too similar to others and not necessary. With some of the sets of photos, the judge said all of the photos were different enough to be considered. With other sets, the judge asked the state to select one of two or three photos, as they were too similar.
Before the jury came back into the courtroom, the judge warned the gallery that the images and testimony that were about to be shown would be difficult to look at due to their nature.
Defense cross-examines scientist who examined gun
10:00 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Defense Attorney Mark Wykoff cross examined Carls-Miller. He asked specifics regarding how she tested cartridges and the gun itself.
He asked how she was able to ensure the cartridges that were found in the Massey home were from Grayson’s gun. She explained how she compared the cartridges that were found to samples she took upon firing the gun herself.
Wykoff questioned Carls-Miller and her certainty that the spent casings came from Grayson’s gun. She said based on her training and experience she could conclude that the casings and the gun matched.
Scientist who examined gun testifies
9:50 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Hali Carls-Miller, who works in the Illinois State Police crime Lab, took the stand next. She is a Forensic Scientist, who specializes in firearms.
Carls-Miller told the jury that she is responsible for examining bullet shells, fragments, and guns themselves. She explained how firearms leave specific markings on shell casings once they are fired.
The scientist said she was able to determine that the three shell casings found in the Massey home were all fired from Grayson’s gun.
She stepped down from the stand to show the jury the gun she received for analysis and explained how she used the magazine to test fire it.
Carls-Miller showed the jury the envelopes containing the shell casings that were found in Massey’s home.
State calls second ISP Trooper
9:42 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
The state has called their second witness for the day. ISP Trooper Emily Maulding took the stand. Maulding is also a crime scene investigator. She explained that she is trained to capture crime scenes via photographs and notes.
When Maulding took the stand, Grayson sat up in his chair.
Maulding said Trooper Markwell had given her Massey’s clothes after the autopsy. She took photographs of the clothing. The jury was shown a photograph of Massey’s robe, covered in blood.
The trooper returned with Markwell to Massey’s home a few days after their initial visit, after learning Grayson had fired three shots, not two. Maulding showed the jury the pot she had collected from Massey’s home on one of her return visits to Massey’s home.
Defense cross-examines ISP Trooper
9:25 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Mark Wykoff, one of Grayson’s attorney’s cross-examined Markwell. He asked Markwell to confirm that Grayson’s body-worn camera was located at chest level when he came to the sheriff’s office.
Markwell testified that he had also collected an ammo box with 41 bullets in it. This was located inside Massey’s home, on a countertop.
The court is in a short recess.
State calls first witness of the day
9:20 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
The state’s first witness of the day is Trooper Adam Markwell, who works within Criminal Investigations at the Illinois State Police. Markwell is responsible for processing crime scenes, including taking photographs.
Markwell took pictures of Deputies Grayson and Farley after the Officer Involved Shooting (OIS). Jurors saw pictures Markwell took of Grayson. They also saw the photos he took of Grayson’s clothing and gun.
Markwell went through a large evidence bag, which held everything Grayson had in his possession when he returned to the Sheriff’s office after the shooting.
Markwell also identified Grayson’s gun, which was shown to the jury. Markwell walked Sangamon County First Assistant State's Attorney Mary Beth Rodgers and the jury through pictures he took at Massey’s home as evidence. These included pictures of two shell casings, Massey’s driver’s license, a pool of blood, and a large pot.As jurors looked through the pictures, they got a view of the home as it was when the shooting occurred.
Their eyes were glued to the screen showing the photographs.
Markwell showed a medical bag, which was taken from the scene as evidence.
The trooper said he returned to Massey’s home a few days after his initial visit, after learning Grayson had fired three shots, not two.
He found fragments he believed were connected to the third bullet fired.Markwell attended Massey’s autopsy. He said he was present at the autopsy to collect evidence.
1 alternate juror not present in court
9:00 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Court has started.
Only two of the alternate jurors are in the courtroom this morning. The other 12 jurors are still in the jury box.
The state is calling their first witness for the day.
Court prepares for Day 4 to begin
8:40 a.m. Thursday, October 23 — Carlee Bronkema
Court is set to start at 9:00 a.m.
The state has a list of 19 witnesses they plan to call. Yesterday, we heard from four witnesses. Many of the remaining witnesses work for the Illinois State Police or Sangamon County Central Dispatch Center.
Many members of the Massey family were lined up to enter court when the doors open. There are about five people sitting on Grayson’s side of the courtroom.
A member of Grayson's family just walked up to Donna Massey, Sonya's mother. We overheard her say "I felt it in my heart to come over here." The two women hugged.
There is an evidence box and evidence bag at the front of the courtroom.
Grayson’s been smiling while talking to an attorney this morning. He’s wearing a black suit with an emerald green tie.
A big day in court on Wednesday in Peoria as Day 3 of the Sean Grayson murder trial started with opening statements.
State calls retired Deputy Chief as witness
3:15 p.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Court has returned after a recess. Retired Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy Chief Anthony Mayfield is the state’s next witness.
On the day Massey was killed, Mayfield was still acting as the Chief Deputy. He shared its standard practice to contact ISP to complete investigations into OIS.
Mayfield said he watched the body camera video with the Captain of Investigations and former Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell. He said the room was silent as the video was played and “everyone was shocked.” In his role, Mayfield was responsible for determining if a sheriff’s office employee violated policy.
Mayfield said Grayson violated several policies. This included standard of contact, use of force, medical aid response, and use of a video device.
Mayfield reviewed Grayson’s and Farley’s police reports. He assigned the case for further investigations. He reviewed the investigation along with former sheriff Campbell and determined policies were violated. He wrote a letter to Grayson and the FOP, as well as administration noting the policy violations.
The defense did not cross-examine Mayfield.
Court has adjourned for the day.
Jurors watch Grayson's bodycam video
2:38 p.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
The jury is now watching the video from Sean Grayson’s body-worn camera as he was inside her home. The video begins when Grayson draws his weapon. There is no audio until after Grayson appears to manually turn his camera on.
Grayson keeps his head down during this video. Most of his family watched the video.
The juror that did not watch the shooting in the last video kept his head down again for this portion. He continued to watch the defense table as the rest of the video played. Most jurors leaned forward and watched this video intently as well. Some jurors took notes while others kept their eyes on the screen.
The Massey family was visibly upset. Donna Massey kept her head down.
Reaction to bodycam video continues
2:35 p.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Many of the jurors stayed focused on the screen as the rest of the video played, showing Farley walking outside with his hands trembling. They looked concerned.
Most of the jurors' eyes never left the screen.
Donna, Sontae, and another member of the Massey family returned to the courtroom once the video switched to Farley outside of the home.
Grayson kept his eyes on the screen as the video played after Farley left the home. The women sitting on his side of the courtroom returned their focus to the screen. The men sitting on his side of the courtroom kept his eyes down.
Courtroom reacts to bodycam video
2:25 p.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Grayson put his head down as the video showed his interactions with Massey at her front door. He kept his head down for the remainder of the video being shown.
As the shooting was shown in the video, one jury member leaned back in her seat and another put his hand to his face.
A member of Grayson’s family looked noticeably upset after the video was played. The Massey family and those with them were stoic.
This changed after Sonya was shown after being shot. Sonya’s mother Donna began crying and another family member left the courtroom. As the video of Sonya bleeding on the floor played, one juror kept his head down. He did not look at the video.
Later Donna Massey, and Sonya’s cousin Sontae, left the courtroom. Donna was crying.
As the video was still playing of Sonya bleeding on the floor, Grayson glanced at the video several times. Members of his family looked away and did not return attention to the screen.
The video of Sonya, laying on the ground bleeding, was displayed on screen for several minutes, showing how long Farley was holding a towel to Massey’s head.
As the video continues to play, Grayson keeps his head down. His family is still looking away from the screen.
Grayson looks up once the video shifts to Farley walking outside.
Jury watches body camera video
2:15 p.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
The jury is being shown the body camera video, captured by Deputy Farley’s camera once he arrives at the scene.
This video is different from what was shared with the media and released to the public as it is not altered or cut in any way. It will show when Massey is shot, and the moments immediately following, which was not publicly released.
It will not include any blurring of Massey’s face after being shot, according to the Massey family. The jury is very attentive to the video and were leaning towards the screen.
Everyone in the gallery, regardless of the side they were sitting on, are focused on the video. Grayson is looking up and down from the monitor as the video is playing.
Grayson's partner cross-examined by defense
1:50 p.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Daniel Fultz, one of Grayson’s attorney’s cross examined Farley. Fultz emphasized that Farley was still on his probationary period and therefore could be fired for many reasons.
Fultz read part of Farley’s first police report, which said Massey placed the pot under the faucet and filled it with water. Farley said later he thought this was an assumption, and doesn’t remember if he actually saw water going into the pot. He did remember hearing the water running.
Due to the clarifications made when Farley spoke to ISP a second time, Fultz questioned Farley about the importance of being truthful when writing reports.
Fultz established that Grayson was indicted mid-July. He questioned Farley on if Grayson being charged with murder made him afraid he would be charged.
Fultz also told the jury Farley had declined the chance to do an interview with ISP before Grayson was indicted. Farley clarified for the court that the FOP declined the interview on his behalf, but he was aware it occurred.
Farley recalled to the jury the reason he wanted some of the statements clarified. He explained it was because he was concerned he had “tunnel vision” at the moment.
Fultz reminded Farley that in July 9, on his initial report, Farley wrote he had unholstered his gun because he was afraid of the steaming water causing him bodily harm. Four weeks after that first report, Farley said he reached out to clarify his statements after seeing the body camera footage again. He also said he was afraid the traumatic incident still impacted his memory in writing his first report.
Grayson was taking notes while Farley was talking. He leaned in to hear his former partner’s testimony.
Court went into a recess for 15 minutes. During the recess, Grayson was giving people in the gallery a thumbs up.
Grayson's partner takes the stand
1:30 p.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
We are returning to the courtroom after a long recess for lunch.
The State has called their third witness. Their witness is Deputy Dawson Farley, a Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy who responded with Grayson to Massey’s home. He started as a deputy in September of 2023 and was still on his one-year probation period on July 6, 2024.
Farley said he didn’t interact with Grayson outside of work and knew him only from work. Farley said he activated his body camera as soon as he arrived at Massey's home and clarified it is policy for deputies to turn on their camera whenever they interact with the public. Grayson did not turn his body camera on at this time.
After they checked the outdoor area around the home, they approached the front door. After waiting some time for Massey to come to the front door, Farley said she asked who they were. Massey said “please don’t hurt me” and also “please God, please God,” according to Farley.
Farley said he went to check on a car in the driveway that Massey said wasn’t hers. He assumed they would be leaving the home since they didn’t locate anyone.
Farley said when he turned back towards the house, he saw Grayson enter the home with Massey and followed them inside so he wouldn’t leave his partner alone. He said they spent time inside the home trying to identify Sonya.
Farley stepped into a side doorway. He recounted Grayson telling Massey there was something on the stove and to turn it off. Dawson was still in the doorway. When Sonya said “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” Farley said he didn't feel it was a threat, but was confused.
Farley said Grayson acted against their training when he stepped towards Sonya, putting himself in the line of fire of Farley. He said they are trained to never step in the way of their partner's line of fire.
After shots were fired, Farley attempted to get his medical kit to render first aid. Grayson told him it was a head shot and there was no need. Farley said “I was caught off guard by the comment, it wasn’t our training.”
Farley performed first aid while Grayson got his first aid kit. He mentioned Grayson did not return with his med kit immediately. Farley said Grayson returned with his med kit, but then heard a sergeant, who had since arrived to the home, say nothing could be done. Grayson said he wasn’t going to waste his medical supplies and threw the bag on the ground. Farley said Massey was still breathing while all of this occurred.
Milhiser asked Farley if there was anything Massey did that made him feel threatened. Farley said he wasn’t scared and did not feel any reason to pull his gun out. He only pulled his gun because he saw Grayson do it.
After all of this occurred, Massey was removed from the home by a medical team. Farley said in leaving the home, he was distraught. He said “I’ve never seen anyone get shot in front of me before.”
Farley said he wrote his police report 72 hours after the incident occurred. He watched the body camera video to ensure accuracy and was accompanied by both the FOP and his sergeant.
Farley said a few weeks after the incident, he reached out to ISP. He said he wanted to clarify the report. He called the FOP to tell them he needed to speak with ISP. They told him not to reach out to ISP and clarify.
Farley said he wanted to clarify that Massey wasn’t holding the pot at chest level, he instead realized it was the oven mitts on her hand. He also said initially that he wrote that he drew the gun because he worried about what Sonya did. He instead said I “drew my firearm out of fear from the defendant's actions”
When Milhiser asked why he did all this, even against the FOP’s advice, Farley said “I just wanted to do right by Sonya and her family and tell the truth."
Sean Grayson Murder Trial Courtroom Sketches
Sean Grayson sat in the courtroom, listening to the opening statements on the third day of the trial.
9-1-1 dispatcher takes the stand
11:10 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
The State called Katheryn Barton as their second witness. She is a dispatcher for Sangamon County dispatch. Sangamon County First Assistant State's Attorney Mary Beth Rodgers was responsible for asking Barton questions.
Barton explained what happens when someone calls 911. She detailed how the dispatch center locates where a call is coming from, how they connect with law enforcement, and who can see the information a dispatcher enters in their system.
Barton shared what a “prowler” call is. She said this is when a suspicious person is spotted where they shouldn’t be, usually after dark.
Barton said every emergency or non-emergency call is recorded before the dispatcher even picks up the phone.
Barton answered a 911 call from Sonya Massey the morning she was killed. Massey told Barton it sounded like there was a person outside of her home making noise. Based on this knowledge, Barton registered the incident as a “prowler” call. The call with Massey disconnected but Barton called her back.
Massey’s 9-1-1 call was played for the court room.
The defense did not cross-examine this witness. Court is in a recess until 1 p.m.
Court is in recess
10:50 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Court is in recess as we prepare for the second witness to take the stand.
The court room is full, with very few seats left open. Court staff have been checking the names of people walking in the courtroom against a list of allowed people.
Sonya’s mother, uncle, father, and cousins are all in the courtroom. They are joined by approximately 20 others.
The three alternate jurors are sitting in front of the jury box in individual chairs.
We just received a list of witnesses that will testify.
ISP Investigator cross-examined
10:35 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Mark Wykoff, one of Grayson’s attorneys cross-examined Weston for the defense. Wykoff wanted the jury to understand that an OIS isn’t always for a criminal investigation.
Weston explained that for OIS, ISP steps in to act as neutral investigators. Weston explained that in 2024, he had been investigating OIS for 11 years. He detailed his time as a patrol officer before he was promoted.
Wykoff confirmed with Weston that he was not physically involved in interviewing witnesses or executing search warrants, but usually reviews the final product of each process. He also gave the directions as to what each person should be doing.
Wykoff asked Weston for more details about Farley and Grayson’s body-worn cameras. Weston said the video was slowed down and analyzed frame by frame. Weston said slowing down the video didn’t change the way he saw the video or add any new details.
When Wykoff talked about Grayson’s body-worn camera, he placed his hand on Grayson’s shoulder.
Wykoff asked Weston about assumptions he made when he first arrived at Massey’s home. Weston emphasized that investigators can’t reach conclusions prior to investigations, but past experience will allow them to assume what happens.
Weston said they thought two shots were fired because they had retrieved two shell cases. He said they went to look for a third shell casing after they realized there were three shots fired in the video. The third shell casing was found two days after the shooting occurred.
Wykoff confirmed with Weston that when he arrived at the crime scene he was told Massey had a pot in her hand. Weston said his team didn’t collect that pot until approximately two weeks after the shooting occurred.
Weston clarified for the jury that Grayson’s employment as a law enforcement officer was consecutive. He said the move from part-time to full-time law enforcement work was “not uncommon.”
Many of the jury members took notes of the testimony Weston provided.
Milhiser had the opportunity to ask questions after Wykoff. He clarified with Weston that the OIS examination turned into a criminal investigation, even though it didn't start as that.
ISP Investigator testifies
10:10 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Weston said he determined Grayson took “crisis intervention training” which is mandated for officers. It teaches officers how to interact with people with mental illnesses or facing a crisis.
Weston told the jury that Grayson worked for 6 law enforcement agencies in a four year history, with some employment dates overlapping. He started working part-time in August of 2020, spending less than a year at the departments. He transitioned to full time work in 2021.
Grayson and Farley completed their reports of the incident the following day. Weston met with Deputy Farley to go over the report.
ISP Investigator takes the stand
10:00 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
The State called their first witness. Lieutenant Eric Weston, an ISP Criminal Investigator, took the stand.
Weston gave his background, including his involvement in investigating officer-involved shootings. He explained what an officer involved shooting (OIS) is.
When the shooting occurred, Weston was the Master Sergeant of the Springfield major crimes unit. He has been involved in more than a dozen OIS investigations.
Weston was called to Massey’s home after Grayson shot her. He assembled an investigative team to respond to the scene. He got to the home at 3 a.m. and saw the house taped off with crime scene tape.
When he arrived, he said “not a lot was known.” He was told an officer shot someone after a pot of water was thrown at him.
Weston explained that after an OIS, officers must complete blood and urine testing. They also give their uniform and body-worn camera to investigators.
Weston said he watched both Grayson and Farley’s body-worn camera videos on Sunday. After watching the video he said it was different from the assumption he made on scene. He noted it was a very short interaction, and there was no struggle between Massey and the officer. He said he “thought there had to be something more, verbal threats.”
After watching the video, Weston told the State’s Attorney he “thought it was something your office needed to be made aware of.”
The Monday after the shooting, Weston said he called “all hands on deck,” to investigate the case. This included sending an officer to attend the autopsy and se that the cause of death was a single gun shot wound.
This was of note because three shots were heard on the video, but only two shell casings were found.
Weston located the use of force policy from Sangamon County. He also received the training and employment records of Grayson.
While Weston testified, Grayson sat up in his chair and watched Weston closely.
Defense concludes opening statements, first witness to take stand
9:30 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Daniel Fultz, one of Grayson’s attorney’s, delivers his opening statement. He starts by reminding jurors that they should not form opinions at the beginning of the trial.
Fultz emphasizes that the state has to prove charges “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If they do not, he reminds the jury they must acquit Grayson.
He told the jury that Grayson acted lawfully when he shot Massey, and it’s a unique situation to have a law enforcement officer facing a murder charge. Fultz says just because Grayson is a law enforcement officer, that doesn’t mean he isn’t allowed to defend himself.
Fultz told the jury that Grayson instructed Massey multiple times to put down the pot of boiling water. Because she didn’t, he says Grayson shot her to avoid great bodily harm.
“It was at that moment and only at that money that Deputy Grayson chose to discharge his weapon,” said Fultz.
Now the jury has to decide if that was reasonable, said Fultz. He says Massey’s death was, ”a tragedy but not a crime.”
Grayson pays attention to both his attorney and the jury during the process.
The court broke for a 15 minute break. The first witness will take the stand when court resumes.
State's Attorney starts opening statements
9:15 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser delivered his opening statements first. He addressed the 12 jury members, along with the 3 alternates.
He shared the basics of the case, reminding the jury that Sonya was alone at home when she was killed. He emphasizes that all of Grayson’s actions are captured on his partner’s body camera.
Milhiser shares that Grayson doesn’t turn on his camera and says this will be an established pattern. He believes the jury will see that Grayson does not follow police policy and rules.
Milhiser details what is included in a first degree murder charge. He shares that premeditation is not a part of the first degree murder charge Grayson is facing.
Dawson Farley, the deputy that was in Massey’s home with Grayson, will testify on what he saw and experienced that day. The ISP officer who led the “officer involved shooting” investigation will testify. The pathologist that completed Massey’s autopsy will also testify.
Day 3 begins
9:10 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Judge Ryan Cadagin started court this morning by reminding the gallery that there cannot be any distracting behavior in the courtroom. He said he did not want cameras allowed in the courtroom because they are distracting and change the way people act.
Once the jury entered, Cadagin reminded the jury that any information they had from before they entered the courtroom could not be a part of their decision. Only materials provided in the courtroom should be considered. He instructed them to not post about the case or talk about it.
He asked the jury to “resist jumping to conclusions” regarding people’s race, gender, or other factors.
Day 3 is about to start
8:45 a.m. Wednesday, October 22 — Carlee Bronkema
Day 2 concludes
9:55 a.m. Tuesday, October 21 — Carlee Bronkema
The court heard arguments regarding evidence and expert witnesses. Motions filed brought into consideration what specific terms can be used in the witness box. Those terms are reasonable or unreasonable; justified or unjustified; and lawful or unlawful.
Both attorneys agreed that they would set parameters for their witnesses to not use these terms. Daniel Fultz, an attorney for Sean Grayson, told the court we will “have clear conversations with our experts.”
Both sides frequently referred to the case Graham v. Connor. This is a case frequently used to say excessive use of force can be analyzed through the Fourth Amendment within the legal system. Both sides agreed to not specifically cite the case, but to use the principles of the case as they’ve been used in many previous cases.
While there were motions filed, both attorneys made agreements about those motions. Judge Cadagin said he would consider the rulings regarding expert witnesses and allowed phrases and topics as “reserved.” This means an agreement was made between the parties, but if an issue comes up during the testimony, the attorneys can discuss further with the judge.
Court only lasted 43 minutes. It adjourned for the day and will start again tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.
Grayson looked confused as attorneys argued on specifics. Mark Wykoff repeatedly placed his hand on Grayson’s shoulder as he referred to him.
Day 2 begins
9:10 a.m. Tuesday, October 21 — Carlee Bronkema
Day 2 of the trial has started. Sean Grayson is in the courtroom today in a black suit and is clean shaven. He is wearing glasses and is visually engaged in the conversation between attorneys.
Sonya’s father, James Wilburn, is in court again this morning. He is joined by two others people.
Today we expect both sides to argue regarding the timeliness of motions that were filed. They also will likely discuss motions regarding expert witnesses and the evidence allowed in court.
Monday marked the beginning of one of the highest profile murder trials in Illinois history. WAND News brings you all the details from Day 1 of the Sean Grayson murder trial in Peoria.
Opening statements scheduled for Wednesday
5:00 p.m. Monday, October 20 — WAND News Digital Team
The jury has been dismissed and told to return Wednesday for opening statements that are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.
Tuesday morning, the judge will hear several motions on evidence and other issues.
Court is adjourned until 9 a.m. Tuesday.
Jury selection wraps up
4:40 p.m. Monday, October 20 — WAND News Digital Team
The jury of 12 has been selected along with three alternates.
The makeup of the jury includes eight women and four men. 11 of them are white and one is Black.
There are three alternates.
The judge has given the jury several rules; including social media use, not researching the case, or talking about the trial.
Defense questions potential jurors
4:20 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Daniel Fultz, one of Sean Grayson’s attorneys, spoke with the fourth group of potential jurors regarding the importance of sharing anything that could impact their ability to be fair jurors.
Fultz turned his attention to follow ups on the questionnaire the potential jurors were sent as well as the questions asked by Milhiser. This included questions about what jurors had connections to law enforcement or attorneys.
A recess was called for attorneys to make jury selections and the potential jurors left the courtroom. The attorneys held four jurors back to ask them follow up questions in private.
Grayson smiled at the jury when potential jurors made jokes about an upcoming vacation.
State's Attorney questions potential jurors
4:00 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
State’s Attorney John Milhiser’s questions were similar to what he asked the previous groups of potential jurors. He asked potential jurors to disclose any connections with law enforcement. He asked them if they had any reluctance to vote on a guilty verdict for a former law enforcement officer. Two potential jurors said they would not be able to deliver a verdict fairly because they had family who worked in law enforcement.
Fourth round of potential jurors enter courtroom
3:45 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Court has restarted. 12 new potential jurors have been called.
Presiding Circuit Judge of Sangamon County Ryan M. Cadagin is questioning jurors about their knowledge of the case. Several of the potential jurors acknowledged they had heard about this case prior to entering the building today.
Each potential juror was asked about their marital status, education, and career. They were asked about their spouse’s and adult children’s employment. They also were asked if they had ever been involved in a lawsuit or served on a jury.
Jury almost selected
3:30 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
12 jurors have been selected for the trial. A second group of 12 potential have been called into the courtroom to select alternates.
Defense questions potential jurors
2:50 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Daniel Fultz, one of Sean Grayson’s attorneys, spoke with the third group of potential jurors regarding the importance of sharing anything that could impact their ability to be fair jurors. He said jurors needed to be fully confident that they could be fair and impartial.
Fultz turned his attention to follow ups on the questionnaire the potential jurors were sent. This included questions about what jurors had connections to law enforcement and if they would be distracted by their job during the trial.
While asking questions, both Fultz and Millhiser agreed to a short recess and the potential jurors left the courtroom. The attorneys held two jurors back to ask them follow up questions.
James Wilburn, Sonya Massey’s father, is still the only family member present in the courtroom.
State's Attorney questions potential jurors
2:35 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
State’s Attorney John Milhiser’s questions were similar to what he asked the first and second groups of potential jurors, or based on facts they shared. He asked potential jurors to disclose any connections with law enforcement. He asked them if they had any reluctance to vote on a guilty verdict for a former law enforcement officer. Three potential jurors said they would not be able to deliver a verdict fairly because they had family who worked in law enforcement.
Milhiser asked the jury if they felt they would be able to judge others fairly. He additionally asked if anyone was concerned about the fairness of judging a law enforcement officer’s use of force. One juror said they could not fairly judge the actions of an officer after the fact.
Five jurors said they didn’t believe they were the right person to be on the jury or could not be fair.
Court is in recess
2:15 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
The courtroom has taken several short breaks and they haven’t provided any details on why this has occurred. We are in one of those breaks now.
Demonstrators continue to walk around the courthouse.
Jury selection continues with third group of potentials
2:00 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Court has restarted. 12 new potential jurors have been called.
Presiding Circuit Judge of Sangamon County Ryan M. Cadagin is questioning jurors about their knowledge of the case. Several of the12 potential jurors acknowledged they had heard about this case through the news. Two said they were influenced by the news and did not believe they could be fair and impartial.
Two jurors also said they knew other potential jurors and did not believe they would fairly weigh the opinions of all on the jury if the person they knew was also selected.
Each potential juror was asked about their marital status, education, and career. They were asked about their spouse’s and adult children’s employment. They also were asked if they had ever been involved in a lawsuit or served on a jury.
Eight people selected as jurors
1:30 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Court has resumed.
Of the 12 jurors in the second section, two were chosen to stay as the jury. The two jurors from the first round that were held, were also officially added to the jury. This brings the jury total up to eight.
Seven of the jurors from the second round were dismissed. Three jurors from the second section will remain potential jurors, although they were not selected in this round.
Court in recess
12:55 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Daniel Fultz has asked jurors if they have any time constraints for the next 7 to 8 days. He asks if there is any reason they cannot give their full attention to the case or cannot stay for the full time.
After questioning, Judge Cadagin recessed the potential jurors and told them that once back from recess they would know if they had been selected or dismissed. The attorneys and judge took one potential juror to the back to talk further.
Court is recessed for 20 minutes.
Defense questions potential jurors
12:45 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Daniel Fultz, one of Sean Grayson’s attorneys, spoke with the second group of potential jurors regarding the importance of sharing anything that could impact their ability to be fair jurors.
He questioned the group regarding their response to a questionnaire they all completed after being called to jury duty. These questions were more personal and related to their ability to attend court each day. Fultz asked about past interactions with law enforcement or family members that work in the justice system.
During this process, Grayson moved in his seat frequently, looking at his attorneys’ notes, the judge, and the jury.
While asking questions, both Fultz and Millhiser agreed to a short recess and the potential jurors left the courtroom.
State's Attorney questions potential jurors
12:25 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
State’s Attorney John Milhiser started his questions to the new group of jurors by providing a brief summary of the case. His questions were similar to what he asked the first group of potential jurors, or based on facts they shared. He asked potential jurors to disclose any connections with law enforcement. He asked them if they had any reluctance to vote on a guilty verdict for a former law enforcement officer.
Two jurors said they did not believe they could sit on the jury in judgement of another person. One of those jurors also said they were not in the right frame of mind to serve fairly on the jury.
Jury selection continues with second group of potentials
12:10 p.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
The 12 new jurors made their way to the jury box. Judge Ryan Cadigan asked the group if they had heard of the case. 10 of the jurors said they had heard about it. Many said they had heard about the case from friends or from news coverage of the case.
Three jurors said they could not be impartial because of the information they had about the case before entering the courtroom.
During Judge Cadigan’s preliminary questions to the jury, Grayson was leaned back in his chair and looking at each juror as they acknowledged the judge.
Each potential juror is being asked about their marital status, education, and career. They were asked about their spouse’s and adult children’s employment. They also were asked if they had ever been involved in a lawsuit or served on a jury.
First four potential jurors selected from first group
11:45 a.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Court has returned after a short break. The first section of 12 potential jurors returned to the courtroom. Four people from the group were selected. Six were dismissed. The other two remain as potential jurors, although they were not selected in this round.
The next section of 12 potential jurors has been called into the courtroom.
Defense questions potential jurors
11:15 a.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Defense attorney for Sean Grayson, Daniel Fultz, took the lead in questioning the jury on the defense’s behalf. He led his questioning by emphasizing the importance of the jury being truthful and honest.
Questionnaires were given to potential jurors regarding their past or other experiences. Fultz asked certain jurors questions about the responses they had given in the questionnaires.
Those questions were in regard to their interactions with law enforcement or members of the criminal justice system. He asked several people if their previous interactions with the criminal justice system left them with a “bad taste” for the process or a mistrust in the system.
For several of the potential jurors Fultz questioned, he asked hyper-specific questions regarding personal situations, including medical history or jobs.
One juror was very transparent in saying they had moved from Decatur in the last few years and had seen videos and stories related to the case. They told the court they had “seen a lot” regarding it.
One juror shared concerns about their safety because the case is “high-profile.”
State's Attorney questions potential jurors
10:40 a.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
James Wilburn, Sonya Massey’s father, is the only family member present in the courtroom. Sean Grayson does not have handcuffs on while in front of the jury, but does when exiting the courtroom.
State’s Attorney John Milhiser asked potential jurors to disclose if they were friends or family with law enforcement officers or had previously been an officer. Milhiser also asked jurors if they could put their relationship with law enforcement aside to deliver a fair verdict. One potential juror said “absolutely” to this question. Milhiser also asked if they were concerned how the officer they knew would react if they knew the verdict.
State’s Attorney John Milhiser asked jurors to disclose if they had given any money to law enforcement based non-profits or organizations or volunteered with one. Only one juror said yes, explaining they volunteered for a local organization.
State’s Attorney John Milhiser asked several hyper-specific questions related to law enforcement and how they are judged in the courtroom. This included asking jurors if it was unfair to judge an officer’s response to a specific moment. He also asked if they believed it was fair for officers to use any amount of force in their positions as officers, or if there should be restrictions.
Jury questioning begins
10:15 a.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Attorneys are keeping a close eye on the jury as they answer questions. They are taking note of the way each person is responding. Grayson is also looking closely at the jurors and occasionally rocking back and forth in his chair.
Each potential juror is being asked about their marital status, education, and career. They were asked about their spouse’s and adult children’s employment. They also were asked if they had ever been involved in a lawsuit or served on a jury.
Court proceedings begin
9:45 a.m. Monday, October 20 — Carlee Bronkema
Media were allowed into the courtroom at 9:45 AM. Grayson is wearing a dark navy blue suit and is clean shaven. He is wearing glasses and has a serious demeanor as he looks around the courtroom.
Presiding Circuit Judge of Sangamon County Ryan M. Cadagin is questioning jurors about their knowledge of the case. Ten of the 12 potential jurors acknowledged they had heard about this case through the news.
Follow along with our live blog coverage as the trial gets underway.
Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom.
Below is a list of key players in the case:
- Presiding Circuit Judge of Sangamon County Ryan M. Cadagin
- Prosecutor and Sangamon County State's Attorney John Milhiser
- Prosecutor and Sangamon County First Assistant State's Attorney Mary Beth Rodgers
- Prosecutor and Sangamon County Assistant State's Attorney Ryan Harding
- Defense attorney for Sean Grayson, Mark Wykoff
- Defense attorney for Sean Grayson, Daniel Fultz
How we got here:
According to police, the 36-year-old Massey called 911 to report a suspected prowler in July 2024. It ended with her being shot inside her home. The incident was captured on police body camera.
Another Sangamon County deputy, whose name has not been publicly released, responded to the call with Grayson. That deputy's body camera recorded their interactions with Massey.
Her death sparked protests, calls for justice and prompted changes within the Sangamon County Sheriff's Department.
The trial was moved to Peoria County, Illinois, due to publicity in the case, which garnered worldwide attention.
More Sonya Massey Coverage:
Pritzker signs bill requiring stricter police hiring practices in honor of Sonya Massey
'She said she would change the world': Sonya's Massey's family remembers her one year later
A look at what happened and what's to come following Sonya Massey's death
Sean Grayson appears in court for final time before trial begins in Peoria
Copyright 2025. WANDTV. All Rights Reserved.
