Champaign man convicted of second-degree murder in fatal shooting at pop-up party

Apr. 7—URBANA — A Champaign County jury Thursday accepted a man's contention that he was trying to save his own life when he took another man's last summer.

Neilmyer Anderson, 32, who listed his address as 70 E. Washington St., faces up to 30 years in prison for the second-degree murder of Oscar Mallet, 36, of Champaign. Had he been convicted of first-degree murder, he faced up to life behind bars.

The two men were among dozens of people who had gathered about 3:30 a.m. Aug. 27 in the parking lot of three Champaign businesses in the 700 block of North Neil Street to drink alcohol and socialize after the closing of local bars.

Instead, the socializing went from fun to mean-spirited alcohol-fueled taunts between two strangers.

Witnesses said Mr. Mallett was trying to break up a "roasting" between a male friend of Anderson and a woman and to calm the participants when Anderson shot him.

But Anderson maintained he fired because Mr. Mallett was reaching for a gun on his right side.

"I was no problem," said Anderson, noting that witnesses agreed he was not involved in the roasting. His friend was bothering the woman, but Mr. Mallett had approached Anderson in what he described as an aggressive manner.

"Ask yourself: Someone I don't know. Why would I shoot him? I walked away. The shooting came when his hand dropped to the gun," Anderson argued. "My life was in danger. That's how I felt, and I reacted."

Assistant State's Attorney Toby Ortega argued that none of the eyewitnesses who testified saw Mr. Mallet going for a gun prior to being shot.

Evidence revealed that Mr. Mallett did have a gun and got off five shots after Anderson first fired three at him. After Mr. Mallett returned fire, Anderson fired another three rounds.

Mr. Mallet was hit four times. Two of the wounds were considered fatal.

The arguments by Ortega and Anderson, who was representing himself, focused on video surveillance clips from the three businesses that showed different angles of the confrontation, some up closer than others and some more distinct than others.

Both men played the videos during closing arguments, and the jury asked to see part of them again early in their deliberations. It took them about six hours to reach their verdict.

"Clearly, I turn my back on Oscar, and he follows me. The roasting is over. There is nothing to defuse," argued Anderson. "There's only one reason Oscar approached, and that's to start a confrontation."

Because Anderson testified that he was defending himself, Judge Adam Dill agreed to instruct the jurors that they could consider the less serious offense of second-degree murder. Ortega and fellow prosecutor Troy Lozar objected.

Ortega argued that the videos showed that Anderson's behavior "does not match up" with a person whose life was being threatened.

"The defendant, who fired three shots, is standing over Oscar Mallett, and he did not even put his cup down. And he's going to tell you he feared for his life?" the prosecutor asked, incredulously.

"Everybody reacts to trauma situations differently. The state was not in my shoes. At that moment, I felt my life was in danger, and I reacted. It was instantaneous," Anderson said.

Ortega said that if Anderson truly believed he was justified in shooting Mr. Mallet, he would have stuck around and told the police what happened. Instead, he drove off and "goes about his day," even driving by the crime scene later.

When approached by Champaign police hours later that same day, he ran from them. That, Ortega argued, was consciousness of guilt. Then, in an interview with Detective Steve Vogel, Anderson "lied and denied," the prosecutor said, quoting Anderson's testimony.

"The only evidence of self-defense comes from the defendant, and it's false. It's a self-serving statement to save his neck," Ortega argued.

Dill set sentencing for May 18.

Anderson has two previous convictions for financial institution robbery, which makes him eligible for sentencing as a Class X offender, meaning a maximum of 30 years in prison.

Because he testified, the jury was told about those prior convictions so they could use that information to weigh his credibility.