Court hearings on Friday shed light on a physical altercation in a college community back in September that allegedly escalated to a home invasion and the arrest of two individuals.
22-year-old John’tavius Christopher Wesley Manning was arrested by the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office on September 6 after an incident in Burkhalter Plantation. At least part of the incident leading up to Manning’s charges was captured on camera, which showed Manning walking up to a home with a plate of food before another individual, 27-year-old Michael Flaherty, lunges at him and punches him. BCSO deputies charged Manning with Home Invasion (1st degree), Terroristic Acts (felony), Criminal Trespass, and Disorderly Conduct. Warrants alleged that Manning entered the residence with a shotgun, made threats to shoot and kill Flaherty, damaged the vinyl siding of the home, and entered the home with a firearm in a violent and intimidating manner.
Flaherty was also arrested, initially for misdemeanor Battery, but his case was bound up to Superior Court for felony prosecution by the State Court Solicitor earlier this month. Read previous coverage.
Represented by Statesboro defense attorney Francys Johnson, Manning appeared in Bulloch County Superior Court before Judge Lovett Bennett Jr. on Friday for a preliminary hearing and a bond hearing.
Preliminary Hearing
A preliminary hearing is an opportunity for the defense to gain a better understanding of what evidence the state currently has against a defendant. It’s also a criminal proceeding in which a judge determines whether or not probable cause exists to bind the case over to Superior Court for grand jury consideration.
Deputy Derek Richmond of the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office was called to the stand by Assistant District Attorney Ben Edwards. He said deputies responded to a physical altercation with possible shots fired. They were told a black male wearing tan shorts and no shirt was outside the home. Upon arrival, deputies confirmed that no shots were actually fired, detained Manning, and began questioning the parties. He said tensions were still high and there was arguing back and forth, but the parties had been separated.
Richmond testified that there were two separate incidents on September 6. The first incident was captured on Ring doorbell camera and published on social media – depicting Flaherty assaulting Manning upon his arrival. A second incident, Richmond said, involved Manning going to his home across the street, returning with a shotgun, entering the house, asking why he got jumped and making threats toward people inside, racking the shotgun off in the house, and being escorted outside. The entirety of the second incident was not video recorded, but Richmond testified that portions of the incident were captured. One video is reportedly a doorbell clip and another video was shared on SnapChat.
Richmond spoke with two males who stated they attempted to get Manning out of the house and get the shotgun away from him. They unloaded the shotgun and placed it on the back of a truck across the street while waiting for law enforcement.
Cross Examination by Johnson
Johnson asked Richmond if Manning was known to the parties, if he was invited to the residence, if he had been lured there via texts, and if the parties had been socializing at a party earlier in the evening. Richmond stated that the parties on the porch appeared to know Manning, but he did not know about any text messages or activities earlier in the evening.
Richmond explained that he was one of the responding deputies, but he was not the investigating deputy and did not conduct most of the interviews on scene. Those were done by Deputy Walter French, who was not present in court Friday, and therefore, he was unable to answer many of Johnson’s questions.
Johnson played the video clip previously posted on social media for both Judge Bennett and Richmond, who acknowledged that Manning was holding a cheeseburger when he was ‘suckerpunched’ by Flaherty. Johnson then asked Richmond about the charges against Flaherty and inquired about whether or not any of Manning’s charges stemmed from that incident. Richmond stated that they did not – that they were separate incidents. He said the fight ‘seemed to conclude,’ before Manning went back to his home two doors down and across the street, brought back a shotgun, and went into the home. The time between the two incidents was ‘minutes.’
Johnson asked to review the report prepared by Deputy French and brought to court by Richmond.
Johnson then resumed questioning and asked if Manning ‘forced entry’ into the home. Richmond said Deputy French was the one to investigate the inside of the house. Johnson asked if anyone said Manning forced his way into the house or that the door was locked. Richmond replied that the two male witnesses said he forced his way in, but whether he broke in, kicked a door, or if they meant something else by ‘forced,’ was unknown to him. He testified, however, that it appeared that everyone was under the influence of alcohol.
Johnson then told Richmond that the charge of Home Invasion requires ‘intent to commit a forcible felony inside,’ before asking what the forcible felony was in this case. Richmond replied that entering the home with a shotgun might be plausible to suggest there was some intent.
Richmond was asked if anyone told him that Manning pointed a gun at him. He stated he did not know as he did not speak to Deputy French about the specific allegations. The firearm, however, was not stolen and Manning was otherwise lawfully in possession of the gun. Johnson asked if it was a crime to walk into a residence with a shotgun. Richmond testified that the gun was racked and a shell was expended, but the gun was not fired.
Johnson asked if he knew whether or not the damage to the vinyl siding was there before the incident. He stated he did not know, but that the two male witnesses told him Manning ‘did that’ with the butt of the shotgun when they were trying to get the weapon from him. Johnson asked if it was possible that the damage to the siding was unintentional and Richmond stated that he did not know.
Johnson asked if the parties inside the home were in bed when Manning returned and Richmond stated that they were awake.
“Is it possible that he went home to retrieve a firearm for his own protection?” Johnson asked. Richmond replied ‘No.’ Johnson asked why not and Richmond replied, “Because why would he return to the home to protect himself?”
Johnson asked if Richmond viewed any video taken from inside the home. He stated that he did not. Johnson asked if Richmond had knowledge of what was said inside the home and he stated he did not know. Johnson then asked Richmond about when the threats were made. Richmond said the threats were made outside the home before Manning went home to retrieve the shotgun. He asked Richmond to refer to the report by French to see if there is any mention of what was said while Manning was inside the home.
“According to Deputy French’s report, the only thing that was testified to happening inside the home was Mr. Manning waving the shotgun around and yelling and multiple witnesses stated that Mr. Manning pointed or cocked the firearm while inside, causing them to fear for their safety,” Richmond said.
In arguing before the court, Johnson asked the court to dismiss the most serious charges Manning was facing. He said that there was a fight that began because of the provocation of another party and that words were exchanged in a fight. He said the words stated by Manning were not made to terrorize. He also argued that it was not clear from the evidence presented that Manning intentionally damaged the side of the house with the shotgun. Johnson also relied on the argument that Manning did not force his way into the home.
ADA Ben Edwards told the court to focus on the fact that there were two separate incidents. He said the first fight occurred when Flaherty was the aggressor and a second fight where Manning appeared to be ‘getting the better’ of Flaherty. Edwards said after that, Manning went home to retrieve his shotgun and return. He said that the burden for the Home Invasion charge had been met because there was damage to the door.
“He kicked the door in while armed, pointing it and racking it…” Edwards told the court as Johnson interrupted. “Your Honor, did he say ‘kicked the door in?’ I never heard him [Richmond] say it. I was waiting for him to say something like that.” Judge Bennett replied that he remembered the facts of the testimony.
Ultimately, Judge Bennett determined that probable cause existed to warrant grand jury consideration. The case was bound over to Superior Court.
Testimony Challenges Claims Made on Social Media in Early September
Deputy Richmond testified that they determined that no shots were fired, which contradicts a statement made on social media by the father of Flaherty and one of the females inside the home who stated “He shot it one time and pointed the gun towards my daughter and her friend.”
He also posted multiple times on social media that four people “jumped” Flaherty, though no reference to any such incident, any other individuals which would make up the ‘four guys,’ or any video of such an incident were mentioned by the deputy, by the prosecutor, or by the defense attorney on Friday.
Another family member posted that Flaherty was jumped, but no testimony was offered Friday about such an incident.
Richmond’s testimony also dispelled social media rumors that the parties were sleeping inside the house when Manning entered the home.
On the Issue of Bond
Johnson told the court that witnesses were present to testify on Manning’s behalf on the issue of bond. Judge Bennett said the witnesses would not be necessary as he was going to set a bond in the amount of $10,000. Manning was subsequently banished from Bulloch County unless he was meeting with his attorney or appearing in court. He’s also barred from contacting any witnesses – directly or indirectly.
Manning posted bond and was released from the Bulloch County Jail Friday.
The next step is for the case to be presented to the grand jury.
