In a jury trial against Detective Myles Cosgrove, in relation to the events that took place
in Breonna Taylor’s apartment on March 13, 2020, the prosecution would be able to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Cosgrove is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree under
Kentucky law.
According to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507.040 (West), “A person is guilty of manslaughter
in the second degree when he wantonly causes the death of another person” The first issue here
is whether Cosgrove acted wantonly. According to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 501.020(1) (West), “A
person acts wantonly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining
an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and
degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.” After the officers broke down Taylor’s door
they stood in the doorway and Cosgrove describes seeing flashes of bright light, and a distorted
shadowy mass. He also saw detective Mattingly who was standing in front of him fall to the
floor. Once the officer’s retreated Cosgrove told fellow officers to “unf--- yourselves and
reload”, while reloading his own weapon. Despite Cosgrove making statements that he does not
remember firing his weapon, the FBI ballistic report provides that it was Cosgrove who fired the
shot that took Breonna Taylor's life. The evidence here shows that he was coherent at the time of
the shooting as he can give a recount of the events providing details regarding when the shooting
started and when Mattingly fell to the floor. He also knew to reload his gun immediately to
replenish the rounds he lost in Taylor’s apartment. These facts show that Cosgrove acted with a
disregard for the risk that there were innocent people in the apartment. Not assessing the danger,
he was faced with as well as the danger he may have posed before turning to deadly force
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct expected from law enforcement.
The second issue here is whether Cosgrove caused the death of an individual, through his
action. Once again, the FBI determined that Cosgrove fired the shot that took Taylor’s life. This
was a direct result of him firing his weapon into Taylor’s residence.
It is likely that defense counsel would present a self-defense or defense of others
justification on behalf of Cosgrove. According to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 503.050(1) (West), “The
use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant
believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of
unlawful physical force by the other person.” This is followed by Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
503.120(1) (West) which states that “When the defendant believes that the use of force upon or
toward the person of another is necessary … but the defendant is wanton or reckless in believing
the use of any force, or the degree of force used, to be necessary … the justification … is
unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which wantonness or recklessness, as the case
may be, suffices to establish culpability.”
While it is true that Cosgrove may have believed that deadly force was necessary to
protect himself and his fellow officers, the Kentucky general provisions on justification provide
that, if the belief upon which a defendant’s use of force is based is so unreasonable as to
constitute “wantonness” then the defense is not applicable to an offense where the culpability
element is “wantonness”, such as manslaughter in the second degree. Given the circumstances
that took place in Taylor’s apartment, Cosgrove’s actions displayed a belief that was so
unreasonable it constituted “wantonness”. The police officers entered the apartment without
having a concrete plan in place. The evidence shows that there was some preparation that
included what was written on a white board. Further, all the officers who were present have
stated that they served the no knock warrant as a knock and announce warrant, but this is
inconsistent with almost every other witness. There is only one neighbor that corroborated the
officers’ story, but his language barrier shows a lack of credibility as to this fact. The officers
rammed the door down and did not consider that it’s residents were scared they were being
attacked by an intruder and took no steps to make their identity known to the residents. The lack
of preparation coupled with the fact that none of the officers at the scene, including Cosgrove,
stopped to assess the danger or to ensure there were no bystanders present before blindly firing
into the apartment prove that his belief regarding the degree of force required was based in
wantonness. There were reasonable steps that should have been taken given the circumstances.
Cosgrove could have relocated to get a better look at the scene to see that there was a bystander
present and acted accordingly by attempting to retreat and preserve the innocent human life. It is
because of this that a self-defense or defense of another justification is not applicable here.
The conduct displayed by Cosgrove at Taylor’s apartment show a gross overstep of force
used by the police and resulted an innocent life lost. A prosecution would be able to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Detective Myles Cosgrove is guilty of manslaughter in the
second degree under Kentucky law despite any justification that may be put forward by the
defense.