OAKLAND, Calif. — The dismissal of the criminal case stemming from the 2020 killing of Steven Taylor has ignited sharp controversy after a nationally recognized civil rights attorney formally opposed the move, arguing that the case should have proceeded to a jury.
Civil rights attorney S. Lee Merritt filed an amicus curiae opposition brief this week challenging Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson’s motion to dismiss People v. Fletcher, a voluntary manslaughter case against former San Leandro police officer Jason Fletcher. The filing framed the district attorney’s decision as legally and ethically disputed, even as the court ultimately granted the dismissal Friday.
“This moment is one of the most solemn and difficult in my career, and I know it is infinitely more so for the family and loved ones of Steven Taylor,” Jones Dickson said in a statement announcing the dismissal. She said she had met with Taylor’s family multiple times, most recently this week, and described their grief as “palpable.”
The Anti Police-Terror Project highlighted Merritt’s opposition brief which represented additional pushback in the long-running legal battle over Taylor’s death.
The organization said the brief argued that dismissal was neither legally permissible nor consistent with principles of justice and maintained that the evidence surrounding Taylor’s killing required evaluation by a jury, not termination through prosecutorial discretion.
Taylor, 33, was killed April 18, 2020, inside a San Leandro Walmart. Fletcher was charged with voluntary manslaughter later that year. According to APTP, the case lingered in the courts for more than five years, during which Taylor’s family endured 43 separate court hearings.
Jones Dickson said her office filed the motion to dismiss on Dec. 9, 2025, and it was heard and granted on Friday.
She characterized the decision as the product of a “meticulous, objective evaluation of the evidence and the applicable law,” stressing that she would “never play politics with justice” or “put my finger on the scales of justice to engineer an unjust result.”
The dismissal, however, came amid active legal opposition and community resistance.
APTP emphasized that Merritt’s filing built on a letter motion submitted the day before by Taylor’s grandmother, Addie Kitchen, which is now part of the court record.
That filing outlined what the family described as serious irregularities in the district attorney’s handling of the case, including alleged violations of Marsy’s Law, which guarantees specific rights to victims and their families within the criminal legal process.
According to APTP, Merritt’s brief also cited police tactical failures and constitutional standards reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. Felix, arguing that those standards required a jury determination of responsibility for Taylor’s death.
Jones Dickson said the case was inherited by her administration and was originally charged in September 2020. She noted that during the July 2021 preliminary hearing, the judge found probable cause but expressed doubt that a jury would find Fletcher guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard required for conviction.
She also pointed to what she described as a deeply compromised procedural history.
On March 22, 2024, the prior administration under then-District Attorney Pamela Price was recused from the prosecution after being found to be operating outside its appropriate legal function.
Following Price’s recall and Jones Dickson’s appointment, the recusal was reviewed and withdrawn on Sept. 12, 2025, returning the case to the district attorney’s office.
Jones Dickson said her office’s subsequent review uncovered what she called a fundamental ethical violation, alleging that exculpatory evidence had been withheld from the defense by prosecutors under the previous administration.
She said prosecutors had consulted with at least three expert witnesses, two of whom concluded the killing was justified due to the threat of imminent harm, while a third expert also found Fletcher’s actions reasonable when presented with all the facts. She said those opinions were not disclosed to the defense and that the defense’s own expert reached the same conclusion.
She added that the prosecutors responsible for the alleged ethical breach no longer work in the office and that, during a recent hearing prompted by a defense motion to dismiss, those former prosecutors invoked their Fifth Amendment rights when questioned about their handling of the evidence.
APTP disputed the district attorney’s conclusions and highlighted a Nov. 14, 2025, ruling by Judge Thomas Reardon finding no Brady violation, no materiality and no prejudice to the defense sufficient to justify dismissal at that time.
The organization argued that the district attorney’s decision disregarded that ruling and undermined judicial continuity in a homicide case involving police violence.
“It is an absolute truth that the loss of Steven Taylor’s life is a tragedy,” Jones Dickson said. “However, this office cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.” She said the evidence, taken as a whole, was insufficient to sustain the charge.
APTP characterized the dismissal as a “profound breach of public trust” and reiterated its solidarity with Taylor’s family, including his grandmother, his son and community members who have supported the case for years.
Jones Dickson said the decision reflected a commitment to the rule of law rather than a lack of compassion and expressed hope that all parties involved could find a path toward healing.
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.
