Jury decides officer did not shoot in self defense

In the minds of Snohomish County Superior Court jurors, Everett police officer Troy Meade’s deadly use of force in response to a drunk driver, Niles Meservey of Stanwood, was not criminal.

A day later, the same jurors decided the officer’s actions could not be defined as self-defense under a “preponderance of evidence” burden of proof, the standard for civil matter rulings.

The verdict denies Meade compensation for legal expenses provided by the state.

The 41-year-old officer was acquitted on charges of second-degree murder and firstdegree manslaughter last Monday in the first line-of-duty fatal shooting trial in the county.

For the Meservey family, the jury’s decision on Tuesday may afford some leverage in civil court.

In February, Paul Luvera of Luvera Law Firm in Seattle filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the family against the city of Everett seeking up to $15 million in damages.

“The Everett jury’s finding today that Officer Troy Meade did not act in self-defense is consistent with our position in the civil damage case,” said Luvera in a prepared statement. “We are confident that the jury in the family’s civil case will come to the same conclusion.”

During the criminal phase of the trial, Meade testified that he felt threatened when Meservey’s vehicle lurched toward him in reverse in the parking lot of the Chuckwagon Inn on June 10 of last year.

The incident resulted in Meade firing eight rounds into the rear window of the vehicle; seven clustered shots hit Meservey from behind, killing him.

Meade testified that he shot the uncooperative driver after repeated attempts to sub- subdue Meservey with non-lethal tactics including a Taser.

Steven Klocker, a fellow officer on the scene, testified that Meade’s decision to fire his service weapon was not appropriate.

Meade questioned Klocker’s perception of the event in his testimony and challenged the officer’s ability to gauge use-offorce scenarios.

Prosecutors with the county argued that Meade failed to assess the situation properly and disregarded other non-lethal options to control the situation. Prosecutors needed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Meade’s actions were not justified.

After five hours of deliberation, jurors exonerated Meade on both murder and manslaughter charges by a 12-0 vote.

During the civil stage of the trial, the burden of proof shifted to Meade and the standard was less critical than beyond a reasonable doubt, known as preponderance.

The jury had to decide which version of the facts, causes and testimony held more weight or significance regarding Meade’s self-defense claim.

Eleven members of the jury were not convinced the officer proved he acted in self-defense. The verdict did not have to be unanimous and held no bearing on the previous not-guilty rulings in the criminal trial.

After Tuesday’s verdict, Meade said he was disappointed but respected the jury’s decision.

A large portion of Meade’s defense in the criminal trial was based on testimony that he felt an immediate threat from Meservey and was frightened for his safety and the safety of others.

Although Meade has said he wants to get back to work, his future with the department has not been made public.

He has remained on paid administrative leave since the incident last June.

Staff Reporter Adam Stewart: 629-8066 ext. 115 or astewart@scnews.com.