Update: Former WCSO Deputies Tyler Poe and Zachary Fadely Found Not Guilty on Charges Related to 2022 Death of Ralph Ennis

(Writer’s note: A response to the verdicts from Prince William County Commonwealth Attorney Amy Ashworth received after publication has been added at the end of this story. As has been reported, in the wake of the recusal of the Warren County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office due to professional familiarity with the defendants, the Virginia State Police investigation into Ralph Ennis’s death was handed over to Ashworth’s office for further action.)

After five-and-a-half days at trial, seeing all the evidence presented by prosecutors and two defense teams representing defendants Zachary Fadely and Tyler Poe related to the aborted April 2, 2022 arrest of 77-year-old dementia victim Ralph Ennis and Ennis’s death 13 days later, a Warren County Circuit Court jury took just a half hour of deliberations to announce a unanimous verdict had been reached.

That verdict delivered at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, February 11, was not guilty on charges against both former Warren County Sheriff’s Office deputies. After the prosecution dropped Felony Homicide charges against both defendants on Friday (Feb. 7), Fadely, 32, was left facing a Malicious Wounding charge and Poe, 28, one for Unlawful Wounding, both felonies, the malicious charge the more serious one. The jury was also given the option of conviction of both defendants on a lesser misdemeanor count of Assault & Battery.

The verdict came after a lengthy debate over Jury Instructions to begin the day at 8 a.m. with the jury still sequestered. After the jury was called in, Judge Clark Ritchie read and explained as necessary those 25 finalized jury instructions. Two jury alternates chosen randomly were excused and thanked for their time and attention to the case. Both departing jurors were women, leaving a nine-man, three-women jury of 12 to decide the legal fate of the defendants.

Those 12 jurors then heard Closing Arguments beginning at 10:50 a.m. with lead prosecution attorney Matthew Sweet. Sweet was followed by first, Fadely attorney William “Beau” Bassler, then Poe attorney Justin Daniel, before Sweet returned to the dais to rebut what had started and continued as pretty contentious closing arguments.

“A badge does not give the authority to do what was done to Ralph Ennis,” Sweet began with still photos of Ennis in the hospital featuring his bloody head wounds, adding of his perspective of the defense cases, “Admit what you can’t deny and deny what you can’t admit.”

The Special Prosecutors’ from the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office of Prince William County portrayed the defendants as inexperienced but aggressive young officers wanting to prove themselves by “getting in the game”. Prosecutors pointed to Poe’s somewhat aggressive initial attempt to cuff Ennis, during which the older man’s head bumped the back of his pickup truck. Much time was then spent analyzing Fadely’s charge at both men with hands out to push them both out of a High-Risk Stop “Danger Zone” at the rear of an as yet-cleared of additional occupants suspect vehicle.

The Ennis stop had been declared High Risk by a ranking involved officer in the slow speed pursuit over four-to-five miles. Their actions were portrayed by the prosecution as an indicator of the defendants’ disregard for a chain of command at the scene in order to make their mark among co-workers.

“In conclusion, their decisions created this … tell them it is not acceptable,” Prosecutor Sweet urged the jury.

However, defense counsels countered that the preponderance of evidence, from training for such High-Risk or Felony Stops to the defendants’ actions after Ennis was injured in the fall over onto the asphalt parking lot due to a tripping over a trailer hitch, which Fadely had not seen from his perspective at the scene, indicated a lack of malice, and even concern for the injured Ralph Ennis following the group fall over the trailer hitch. Both defendants were involved in helping administer first aid to Ennis at various points after his injuries, defense counsels noted.

In parrying the prosecution’s closing argument, Fadely attorney Bassler wondered at the lack of prosecution evidence indicating an “intent to kill, maim, or disfigure” Ralph Ennis for either defendant. “It’s not there,” Bassler told the jury, adding of a defense “theme” that, “This was young deputies decisions responding to a bad situation” by departmental labeling as a High-Risk Stop defense counsel asserted.

“Life is decisions, we’d all like to go back and do something better,” Fadely’s attorney told the jury. He noted how much time over the course of the trial the body cam videos of the defendants interactions with then High-Risk Stop suspect Ennis had been shown and reshown. However, at the scene on April 2, 2022, the defendants had to make decisions based on their training in seconds after perceiving a threat or threats to other officers at the scene from Ennis’s behavior in not complying with verbal instructions intended to bring him safely into custody.

And as reported earlier, neither Fadely nor Poe, nor anyone on the site, had IDed Ralph Ennis as an elderly, confused citizen suffering from dementia. He was first perceived in the post-1 a.m. semi-lit, response WCSO vehicle emergency lighting as a large man, 6-2, 220 pounds was estimated, of unknown age and unknown intent. And he was a High-Risk Stop suspect who was advancing on primary scene Deputy Christopher Pontious within a danger zone of eight to 10 feet.

And with all the variables involved, as presented by both prosecutors and defense counsel, the Warren County Circuit Court jury quickly agreed on a lack of malice intent on the part of both defendants, as well as apparent agreement the deputies were, in fact, just trying to do their jobs as prescribed in their training to be road deputies. And as was noted in the jury instruction debate, when law enforcement officers are performing “lawful duties” within the scope of their jobs they are offered “Special Protections” under the law.

Defense counsels also pointed to the official autopsy report, which ruled that Ralph Ennis died of natual causes. Defense witness testimony indicated the possibility that Ennis was recovering from the brain bleed suffered in the fall in the 7/11 parking lot with Fadely and Poe while in Winchester Medical Center for nearly two weeks. But that Ennis was prone to brain bleeds as a result of his dementia condition. Consequently he may have died as a result of consequences of his mental condition, as opposed to the incident with the deputies.

But one observation offered in his closing argument by Poe defense counsel Justin Daniel that all sides may be able to agree on was that this was “a tragic case on multiple levels”.

In closing his defense case, Daniel told the jury, “Beyond a reasonable doubt on the measuring stick of proof is what you need to convict on the charges here. There is a big difference between a questionable decision and committing a crime. Could it have been done better? Probably. We ask you to find Tyler Poe not guilty.”

And with all these variables at issue it was an across the board victory for the involved defense teams of Tyler Poe and Zachary Fadely. We got a response from Poe attorney Daniel on the verdict: “I felt the jury saw the case correctly and delivered the just verdict. I’m happy for my client and his family. The family is grateful for the jury’s verdict.”

Royal Examiner was directed by lead Special Prosecutor Matthew Sweet to Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Amy Ashworth for comment on the verdicts in the Fadely and Poe cases. With deadlines looming that inquiry went out after submission of this story for publication. Here is the Special Prosecutor’s Office ranking member’s reply to that inquiry:
“Our office respects the jury’s decision and appreciates the time and effort jurors dedicated to evaluating the evidence presented in court.
“As Commonwealth’s Attorney, it is my duty to uphold the law impartially and without bias. This includes prosecuting individuals — whether civilians or law enforcement officers — when the facts and evidence support bringing criminal charges to the court system for a legal resolution.
“Our office remains committed to seeking justice, ensuring accountability, and upholding public trust in the legal system,” Ashworth concluded.