This story was originally posted on MyNorthwest.com
The City of Seattle is requesting a new trial as it plans to appeal a $30.5 million verdict that found the city negligent in the fatal shooting of Antonio Mays Jr., who was at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) in 2020.
In January, a King County jury ruled the city was negligent during its emergency response to the shooting inside the protest zone, and the city’s failures were a cause in Mays’ death, according to The Seattle Times.
Seattle argues jury should have split blame with unknown shooter
Mays’ father, Antonio, and his estate were awarded $30.5 million. In the city’s request for a new trial, it argued there was at least a 90% chance that Mays was going to die from his wounds, regardless of any medical care.
“Unfortunately, it’s par for the course. There’s been no apology,” Mays family attorney Evan Oshan said. “There’s been no acknowledgement of what they did wrong, and it’s more of the same, and we’re going to fight them every step of the way.”
The City of Seattle is also arguing the jury should have been instructed to divide the blame between the city and Mays’ shooter, who has yet to be identified. Additionally, the city argued Mays’ father’s attorney should not have been allowed to encourage the jury to consider “deterrence,” which prevents something similar from happening again, when it considers damages.
“The trial contained multiple errors affecting the substantial rights of the City,” Seattle City Attorney Erika Evans’ office wrote in asking for a new trial, according to The Seattle Times. “These errors led to an award of excessive damages.”
Notably, the trial only addressed the City of Seattle’s response to the shooting and did not include the creation of CHOP.
The request to appeal goes to the same King County Superior Court judge, Sean O’Donnell. If O’Donnell denies a new trial, the city also filed a notice for its plans to appeal the ruling in the state Court of Appeals.
Being awarded a new trial is a difficult process for the party requesting it, as Judge O’Donnell must view all available evidence in a way that favors Mays. The judge would award a new trial only if “there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict.”
“To ask for a new trial at this point is just gamesmanship,” Oshan said. “The attitude the city has taken on this is morally unforgivable.”
No arrests made despite multiple witnesses
Roughly six years later, the investigation into Mays’ shooter remains unsolved, even though several bystanders were in the immediate area of the early morning shooting on June 29, 2020. No arrests have been made, nor have officials named any suspects. Seattle Police has repeatedly declined to provide updates on the case but has said the investigation remains open and active.
Mays, along with another teenager who survived, was in a stolen Jeep when they were shot. Witnesses of the shooting claimed that armed protesters, informally known as “CHOP security,” had shot and killed Mays.
The City of Seattle also accuses Mays’ father of misrepresenting the health status of Robert West, the other teenager who was in the vehicle when they were both shot.
Oshan represents both Mays and West. West filed his own lawsuit against the city, though it was dropped last year. West was listed as a witness in Mays’ civil trial, but on the day he was scheduled to testify, Oshan told the court he was “unreachable,” and doctors had advised him not to testify.
Parts of West’s deposition were played for the jury instead, and the city argues that it never had a chance to question West. Once the verdict was delivered by the jury, Oshan then refiled West’s lawsuit, noting he “wants to go forward,” according to The Seattle Times.
In a court filing, Oshan and his co-counsel called the city’s request a “Hail Mary” and urged the court to deny the “scattershot” requests.
“The City hopes to evade responsibility by attacking this Court’s legal determinations, plaintiff’s counsel, and the jury’s decision,” Oshan and co-counsel Phillip Talmadge wrote. “This Court and the jury got it right.”
Blame-splitting could have reduced penalty
After deliberating for 12 days, the jury ruled that the city was negligent in its emergency response and the negligence was a cause of Mays’ death. Of the 12 jurors, 11 voted that the negligence was a cause in Mays’ death. In Washington, civil trials only require 10 of 12 jurors to agree.
In interviews following the trial, jurors said they were convinced the city had failed to follow its own protocols for an emergency at CHOP. Some jurors noted a recording of a 911 call that was placed by a bystander at the scene, which said dispatchers and emergency responders failed to instruct her on where volunteers should transport Mays.
The city argued that O’Donnell should not have asked the jury whether the city’s actions increased the risk of harm to Mays after he was shot.
“Mays lost, at most, a 5-10% chance of survival, which is mathematically incompatible with a finding that the City more probably than not caused Mays’ death,” the City of Seattle wrote, according to The Seattle Times.
The city also said the jury should have been asked to assign a portion of blame to the city, and another portion to the unknown shooter or shooters. The city believes the penalty would have been much smaller if that had been done.
©2026 Cox Media Group
