By Vanguard Staff
OAKLAND, CA — The judge denied the motion by the defense Friday to dismiss the case and said on the record that the case should be decided by a jury.
The ruling came as the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office signaled it would not oppose dismissal of all charges against former San Leandro police officer Jason Fletcher, who shot and killed Steven Taylor inside a Walmart on April 18, 2020. The development has alarmed Taylor’s family and community advocates, who say the DA’s position represents a failure to pursue accountability in a police killing case that has already faced years of delay.
Friday’s hearing unfolded against the backdrop of more than five years of legal setbacks, turnover among prosecutors and stalled progress. Attorneys and court observers noted the unusual posture of the case: the defense argued for dismissal while the prosecution declined to contest it, and the judge ultimately rejected that position.
Family members of Steven Taylor attended the hearing, including his grandmother, Addie Kitchen. Kitchen submitted a written objection to dismissal under Marsy’s Law, asserting the family’s legal right to be heard in court before any attempt to end prosecution.
In her filing, Kitchen wrote, “My name is Addie Kitchen, and I am the grandmother of Steven Taylor, who was killed on April 18, 2020, inside the San Leandro Walmart. I write to the Court today because our family’s rights under the California Constitution, Article I, Section 28 (‘Marsy’s Law’) have not been fully honored, and because we strongly object to any dismissal of this case without our voice being heard.”
She stated that the family had been excluded from crucial developments in the case. “Throughout this time, our family has faced delays, inconsistent communication, and limited involvement in the decisions shaping this case,” she wrote. “We were not provided timely notice of expert interviews, internal evaluations, disclosures, or investigative actions.”
Kitchen also raised concerns about investigative actions taken by prosecutors during a period when the office was recused, writing, “We also did not know that from April 2025 through September 12, 2025, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office took investigative actions at a time when they were legally recused under Penal Code §1424.”
She rejected the defense argument that the case should be dismissed based on expert commentary, writing, “There are no written opinions. There are no finished reports. There is no analysis under California criminal law. These informal remarks do not meet the constitutional standard for a Brady violation and do not justify dismissing a homicide case.”
The emotional toll on the family, she wrote, continues to deepen. “Steven left behind a son who was only eleven years old when he lost his father. He is now sixteen, trying to grow into adulthood while living with uncertainty, legal complexity, and the emotional burden that comes from waiting so long for answers.”
She concluded, “Under Marsy’s Law, we have the right to fairness and respect, to timely and accurate information, to confer with the prosecuting agency, to reasonable notice of hearings, to be heard before any decision involving dismissal, and to a prompt and final conclusion of the case. These rights are not optional—they are constitutional. And in this case, they have not been upheld.”
Fletcher, who has remained free while the case proceeded, was the first officer in Alameda County in more than a decade to face charges for an on-duty killing. Now, with the judge denying dismissal and a jury trial still legally possible, the next steps rest with the District Attorney’s Office.
Advocates say they expect public scrutiny and pressure to intensify as the case proceeds.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
