How Georgia law complicates the case against Colin Gray

Caption

Colin Gray, 54, the father of Apalachee High School shooter Colt Gray, 14, sits in the Barrow County courthouse for his first appearance, Sept. 6, 2024, in Winder, Ga.

Credit: AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File

Opening arguments began today in the trial of Colin Gray, the father of the teenager accused of killing four people in a shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Ga., in September 2024. Colin Gray faces 29 counts, including two counts of second-degree murder, stemming from the allegation that he gave his son a weapon even though he knew his son had wanted to harm people. This case is one of several in which parents are held accountable for actions connected to their children’s acts of gun violence and could set precedent in Georgia. For more on this, GPB’s Peter Biello spoke with Michael Moore, a former U.S. attorney and partner at Moore Hall in Atlanta.

Michael Moore: Great to be with you. Thanks for having me on.

Peter Biello: Prosecutors say Colin Gray knew his son Colt was obsessed with school shooters, even had a shrine in his bedroom to another school shooter, but he didn't think his son's interest was serious enough. How does something like this — which defense attorneys might say amounts to just a misjudgment, something parents do from time to time — amount to something criminal?

Michael Moore: That's ultimately that's going to be the case and the question as they move forward for the jury. I mean, this trial presents a picture of a troubled young man who apparently was fixated on shootings and this type of thing. And then a parent who may have ignored that, certainly even in providing him a weapon. The question will be whether or not the parent had enough suspicion and belief — and was it a reasonable belief or fear or concern that his child would do something like this — or is it going to be just, "Hey, I was giving my child a gun so we could hunt." That's the question on these. And ultimately, those are tough questions that a jury will listen to and make a decision on the specific factors that were available for knowledge to the parent who provided the gun.

Peter Biello: And what is the biggest challenge do you think as far as burden of proof for the prosecution?

Michael Moore: You have to remember that criminal cases have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And one of the elements of any crime would be an intent element. And so they've actually got to look and decide: Did the actions of the parents, in providing the gun under these particular circumstances, was that enough to cross over the threshold that leads us from maybe civil liability, which is a lesser standard, into criminal liability? And so I think it will be, probably, likely, the question of: Were there any prior reports made? Were there any specific concerns expressed to other people? Were there emails or texts out there about concerns about the child? And proving those things, I think, in showing that that amounts to a level of criminal culpability, that's going to be the biggest hurdle, I think, for the state going forward. It was interesting, in the case at the start, you heard the prosecutor say this was not about the actions, really, of the shooter, of the child, the young man who did the shooting, but then he spent a great deal of time in his in his opening talking about specifically those acts. I think that makes the state's case a little tougher, and frankly it's going to make some questions about the law, if not during the course of trial, but certainly if there's a conviction and some appeal proceeding.

Peter Biello: Do you think Colin Gray case faces an uphill battle here in Georgia for any particular reason?

Michael Moore: The state in this case will have a difficult time prosecuting Colin Gray because it is a unique case in the sense that they're having to pull together different statutes — and different parts of the statute — to make their case. And they will need to come in and show both that the child cruelty statute, in fact, and the child endangerment statute, that those apply in a way that supports or becomes the predicate offense for the murder charge. And that can be a difficult burden. But remember that they have to defend this and actually defend this case on appeal if they're successful, so they not only have the issue of convincing a jury that a parent should be liable for this, but they also then have to show that on appeal, they have to support, in fact, that this was the legislative intent and what the statute meant as they move forward. So they've really had two burdens and two hurdles to cross.

Peter Biello: So if he is convicted and the convictions are upheld, what do you think the implications of this in Georgia would be?

Michael Moore: So if Mr. Gray is convicted in this case, and his conviction is upheld throughout any appeal process, I think what you will see is an argument that our gun laws in the state that they exist are currently sufficient, by one side of the aisle. And on the other side of aisle, I'll think you'll hear an argument that we should move forward with more common sense reform that's much more clear on the intent of the state legislature, to say that a parent who does this should in fact be held criminally responsible. So you'll have both a push for the law to be strengthened, and then I think you'll also see sort of a counter — that the law, as it stands, is sufficient to both protect the public and also not infringe on any claimed arguments about the Second Amendment.