Jonesboro, AR – (JonesboroRightNow.com) – June 11, 2024 – A Craighead County grand jury decided this week not to indict former Bay police officer Christopher Shull in the pursuit death of Stephen Kyle McMasters in October of 2023.
According to Shull’s lawyer, Russell A. Wood of Wood Law Firm, Shull was “completely vindicated.”
The case went before a grand jury on Wednesday and Thursday, June 5 and 6.
In Arkansas, the grand jury process involves a panel of citizens convened to evaluate the merits of criminal charges. Unlike in a trial, where both the prosecution and defense present their cases, here, only the prosecutors present evidence.
For an indictment to be issued by a grand jury, a significant majority consensus is required. Specifically, at least 12 out of the 16 jurors must agree that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with formal charges.
Unlike in a trial, where the charges are publicly disclosed, in grand jury proceedings, they remain strictly confidential until an indictment is issued. If an indictment isn’t issued, specific charges are not released.
The family of Stephen McMasters strongly disagrees with Wood’s assessment of the grand jury decision and released a statement regarding it through their attorney, Jeannette Robertson.
It reads, in part:
“Of the 16 member panel of grand jurors, 8 voted that they found sufficient probable cause to indict Christopher Shull with a serious felony for his actions that resulted in Kyle McMasters death, another 8 voted not to find sufficient probable cause to indict on one of two charges. Arkansas law requires 12 of the 16 members of the grand jury panel must vote to find sufficient probable cause to indict.
Attorney Russell Wood, Christopher Shull’s attorney, released a statement to the news media that intentionally misrepresented the grand jury’s authority and actions. Mr. Wood’s claim was “…the Grand Jury agreed that former Bay police officer Christopher Shull’s pursuit of Stephen Kyle McMasters was legal, justified, and necessary.” This statement is completely untrue. No such “finding” was made by the Grand Jury.
Mr. Wood has also made the claim that “… the Grand Jury voted to not charge Christopher Shull with any crime and that he was completely vindicated.” This statement is also untrue. Arkansas law grants authority to a grand jury solely to arrive at a decision on whether, based on the evidence and testimony it is presented, in secret, provides sufficient evidence to find, what the law terms as probable cause, for a prosecutor to move forward to file serious felony criminal charges against a defendant. A grand jury has no authority and does not make findings of fact as to guilt or innocence of the defendant nor does it have authority to make findings of fact as to any civil liability of the defendant. The evidence and testimony presented is chosen solely by the prosecutor’s office with no representative of the victim present in the grand jury process to pursue cross-examination of the witnesses or present evidence or testimony. However, the defendant is allowed to present testimony without challenge by the victims attorney, who is also excluded from the grand jury room.
The grand jury in this case came to a split decision of 8 to 8 as to a finding sufficient probable cause to indict Christopher Shull on one of the two charges. It is this attorney’s opinion that this split decision does not rise to the level of any type of vindication of Christopher Shull.
The undeniable facts are that Christopher Shull, while on duty October 21, 2023, as a Bay Police Officer and after arriving at the completely erroneous decision that the ATV was stolen, chose to ram his 5200 pound unmarked police vehicle into the ATV driven by Stephen Kyle McMasters multiple times, with the last hit a PIT maneuver at 68 miles per hour, ultimately killing Kyle McMasters at the scene. These facts along with many others will be presented in a civil lawsuit against Mr. Shull, where a jury of his peers will be asked to decide his culpability in the death of Kyle McMasters.”
In a separate statement, Mrs. Robertson also told JRN that “1 juror voted for the indictment on the specific criminal charge and 15 voted against that indictment. Because the grand jury process is almost completely secret, all we can conclude from the 2 “no true bill” documents is that there was evidence and testimony presented for both serious criminal charges and in this case one was 1 to 15, for and against and one was 8 to 8, for and against.”
She went on to say “the grand jury DID NOT vote for or against guilt or innocence, it merely voted as to the sufficiency of the probable cause evidence it was presented. That is why I state in the family statement that no factual decisions were made by the grand jury except to the extent that it was evaluating probable cause.”
The grand jury documents Mrs. Robertson is referencing can be viewed here.