Zwerner vs. Parker, Day Five

See here a report on the first day of the trial, here for day two, and here for day three, and here for day four.

Closing arguments from both sides were heard on November 5, 2025, in the courtroom in Newport News, Virginia.

Plaintiff closing argument

“A gun changes everything,” said Abby’s Zwerner’s lawyer, Kevin Biniazan. “At least, it should. It changed one young woman’s life forever. Except it didn’t change the actions of one person. It didn’t change the actions of Dr. Parker. Those choices that she made to treat January 6, 2023, like any other day, even though a gun should change everything, is why we’re here today.”

“Her job is safety,” he said of the defendant, Dr. Ebony Parker, the black assistant principal accused of negligence after a black first-grade student shot his 25-year-old white teacher, Abby Zwerner. Mr. Biniazan said that when a driver gets on the road, he makes a tacit promise that he will observe traffic rules to keep everyone on the road safe. By accepting the job of assistant principal, Dr. Parker had a similar, unspoken duty to keep her staff and students safe.

Dr. Parker’s defense team had spent the weeklong trial saying that none of the school staff believed the boy (referred to by his initials, “JT”) had a real gun, because even the staff members with decades-long careers had never encountered a first-grader who brought a firearm to school. They claimed many times that Dr. Parker did not have enough information.

Mr. Biniazan countered, “Ignorance is no defense.” He said it was Dr. Parker’s job to investigate and to act. The school’s written policy is: “Any school administrator, upon receiving information that a person is threatening to commit an act of violence, shall: Assume threat is credible until and unless analysis suggests differently.”

Mr. Biniazan reviewed for the jury the witnesses’ testimony. Several staff members spoke with Dr. Parker throughout the day about the possibility that JT was hiding a gun, first in his backpack and later in his jacket pocket. It was suggested to Dr. Parker three times that the boy be searched, but the assistant principal insisted on waiting until the child’s mother came to pick him up at dismissal time. Dr. Parker heard of a suspected gun for the first time at about noon; Miss Zwerner was shot at 1:58 p.m., 32 minutes before dismissal. For nearly two hours, the assistant principal had taken no action. “Every minute matters,” Mr. Biniazan told the jury.

Despite the defense’s claim that Dr. Parker did not have enough information to act, Mr. Biniazan pointed out that she knew the Who (JT), the What (he might be hiding a gun and bullets), the Where (he was easy to find in his classroom and on the playground), the When (that moment, as Dr. Parker was working in her office), and the How (he was hiding the objects in his bag or on his person). One of the reports from the staff was that JT had threatened to shoot another little boy and that that child was crying. Mr. Biniazan asked, “What more do you need to act when a gun changes everything?”

Every second that a gun is in the possession of a six-year-old, who — I agree — has totally unpredictable behavior. If anyone has dealt with six-year-olds, it’s totally unpredictable. All the more reason to find the gun! All the more reason! That gun could have been popping up and down in his jacket and gone off. Handed it to a friend and gone off. . . . Dropped it on the floor and gone off. You do not have to foresee the precise injury that was caused, only that some injury or damages might probably result. . . . For two hours, this thing was beeping on her radar.

The defense’s expert witness had suggested that everyone believed the boy had only a squirt gun, so there was no emergency. “If you’re willing to gamble on a real gun or a squirt gun at an elementary school, you’re indifferent to what comes next,” Mr. Biniazan declared.

He said the defense was playing a “blame game.” They had pointed their finger at everyone else while minimizing Dr. Parker’s responsibility. “Each of those people that they’re trying to point the finger at had a piece of the puzzle on January 6th. . . . Each had a piece of the puzzle, but you know who had the whole puzzle? Dr. Parker. What they’re saying is Dr. Parker dropped the ball, and they want somebody else to pick it up for her.”

Mr. Biniazan explained to the jury that the burden of proof in a civil trial is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a criminal trial. In civil cases, a jury decides based on the “preponderance of the evidence,” the evidence that they find more persuasive. He defined gross negligence as “that degree of negligence which shows indifference to others . . . amounting to a complete neglect of the safety of another person.”

He said that Miss Zwerner should have seen a police officer after Dr. Parker had called 911 about a possible firearm in her school, “not when she was laying on her back in the administrator’s office.”

Miss Zwerner sued for $40 million, and Mr. Biniazan told the jury she was entitled to monetary compensation based on four categories:

Bodily injuries
Physical pain and mental anguish
Disfigurement and deformity
Inconvenience

He reminded the jury that they had heard evidence from three doctors on the severity of Miss Zwerner’s injuries and their likely duration. The jury should consider those factors when deciding on compensation. He showed them an animated video that illustrated how the bullet had passed through Miss Zerner’s hand, into her chest, through a rib, and through her lung, collapsing it. Her lung has scar tissue that is permanent and will always affect her breathing. Her hand was damaged to the point that she will always have limited motion, weakness, pain, numbness, and tingling. The wound to the hand has still not healed, and a metal plate in it will need to be removed in a future surgery. He reminded the jury that one of the doctors had likened this injury to the type usually encountered in war zones. He told them that the bullet did not exit Miss Zerner’s body; it stopped only two centimeters from her aorta and was too dangerous to remove.

“Her wounds will never go away,” Mr. Biniazan said, and even when her physical pain decreases, her mental anguish will remain. Her choice of career has been taken from her. “She had a purpose; she knew what she wanted and she was chasing it.” Mr. Biniazan told the jury that when you have a cold, there comes a day when you realize that you’re all better. Abby Zwerner will never have a day when she wakes up and it’s all gone. Her body is permanently changed, and she will always replay the moment she was shot in her mind. Any time she sees someone with his hand in his pocket, she is reminded of it.

Defense closing argument

Ebony Parker’s lawyer, Sandra Douglas, started by emphasizing that a six-year-old first-grader shooting his teacher was an unprecedented event. She reviewed school safety expert Amy Klinger’s testimony that Dr. Parker’s response had been appropriate and the shooting had been unforeseeable.

She said Dr. Parker did not have a legal duty to protect Miss Zwerner, and she never volunteered to protect her. When Abigail Zwerner was questioned on the stand, she admitted that she never personally told Dr. Parker that JT might have a firearm. The only time she communicated directly with Dr. Parker on the day of the shooting was when she went to the office to tell her about JT’s bad behavior during lunch.

Miss Douglas also reviewed the definition of gross negligence, but she said the evidence proves that Dr. Parker was not indifferent. She then proceeded to assail the testimony of many of the plaintiff’s witnesses.

Amy Kovac, a reading specialist who worked with JT every day, was the first to hear about a gun when two girls from JT’s class told her that he had one in his backpack. She then confronted JT, but he held onto his bookbag and said, “No one’s getting this bag.” Mrs. Kovac stayed with him for half an hour before going to Dr. Parker. Miss Douglas said that at various times in her testimony, Mrs. Kovac had said she believed it was a toy gun, and sometimes she said she thought it was a real gun. What did she believe, and what impression did she give when she talked to Dr. Parker that day?

Miss Douglas showed a text message that Amy Kovac sent Dr. Parker after the shooting. Mrs. Kovac wrote: “You are an amazing person and educator. No one could have ever predicted this. We all did our best! We did what a true teacher will do in this situation — be there for our children and school. As I look back, I should have sent JT out of the room with a note and a job to deliver it around the school and I could have gotten that bookbag. But I didn’t. We can’t look back we can only move forward. I love you both and am proud to work with you both!”

Miss Douglas told the jury, “That Amy Kovac didn’t come to trial. She sat here, and she threw shade at Dr. Parker! She dissed her work, and she threw shade. Remember that.”

Miss Douglas reminded the jury that two schooldays prior to the shooting, JT had thrown Miss Zwerner’s phone to the floor, and she had removed him from her class. Why didn’t she remove him this time?

When the guidance counselor, Mr. Rawles, spoke to the boy whom JT had threatened to shoot, he did not remove JT from Miss Zwerner’s classroom either. Miss Douglas told the jury that Mr. Rawles had not even known about a shooting until he encountered the janitor in the hallway. (That conflicts with his actual testimony, where he said he had heard a gunshot while still in his office.)

Miss Douglas then tried to discredit the testimony of Dr. Shufflebarger, an expert witness experienced in many areas of education. She said Dr. Shufflebarger had been introduced to the case through a relative of one of Miss Zwerner’s lawyers and that she had never been an expert witness before.

(Note: I don’t believe that discrediting the education expert did the defense much good. The defense brought in their own education expert, who did not stand up to cross-examination well. The witnesses who really had the most impact were the doctors who described Abby Zwerner’s injuries, and the defense could not refute them.)

Miss Douglas told the jury, “Indifference is not inadequacy.” She tried to persuade them that Dr. Parker’s failure to prevent the shooting did not mean she did not care. Dr. Parker was shocked that the gun turned out to be real, and even the police officer who responded to the 911 call said he was “taken aback” when he saw that the shooter was such a young child.

Miss Douglas did her best to reduce the compensation Miss Zwerner might receive by emphasizing the former teacher’s success at earning a cosmetology degree, in spite of her hand injury. A psychiatrist who never actually treated Miss Zwerner himself claimed that she had become reclusive, but she was going out to concerts and sending text messages to celebrities within months of the shooting.

In closing, Miss Douglas said, “Dr. Parker did not assume a duty to Miss Zwerner. She did not breach a duty to Miss Zwerner, and she certainly was not grossly negligent or indifferent to Miss Zwerner. What happened was a terrible tragedy on so many levels. . . . It was unprecedented; it was unthinkable; and it was unforeseeable. I ask that you please not compound that tragedy by blaming Dr. Parker for it.”

Because the plaintiff is allowed the last word, Mr. Biniazan returned to the jury with a few additional statements. He noted that when Miss Zwerner sent her fan message to Taylor Swift, she had written, “I am the teacher who was shot by a student.” He told the jury to imagine being defined that way. He also told them that Miss Zwerner’s life expectancy is about 53 more years and that they won’t get a chance to come back in 20 years to ask her how she’s doing and change the result of the case. Their decision would be for the rest of her life.

Verdict

The jury began deliberation right after the lawyers’ summations, but they did not reach a verdict until the next day. They spent a total of five hours and 15 minutes deliberating. In the end, they found in favor of Miss Zwerner and awarded her $10 million.

Judge Hoffman had warned everyone in the courtroom that there should be no outbursts, and everyone stayed calm when the verdict was read. Dr. Parker was expressionless. Miss Zwerner’s expression was, as usual, somewhat downcast. Although winning the case, she knew that she still faced a lifetime of medical bills and uncertainly whether her injuries would permit her ever to use her cosmetology training.

Dr. Parker on hearing the verdict.

Miss Zwerner and her attorney Jeffrey Breit (r) on hearing the verdict.

In a press conference immediately following the verdict, Miss Zwerner’s lawyer, Diane Toscano, said, “We’re very happy that Abby’s story got to be told. . . . hearing from a jury of her peers that they think that this tragedy could have been prevented — We’re very happy with the outcome today. . . Safety has to be the first concern at schools.”

This verdict is unusual because the person being held liable did not pull the trigger herself. Mr. Biniazan told the press, “We have to acknowledge within our civil justice system that accountability comes from anyone who contributed to the ultimate outcome, and some of these things are foreseeable, and if we can take the appropriate measures to prevent them, we can save lives.”

Miss Zwerner’s lawyer Jeffery Breit explained that Ebony Parker will not be paying the $10 million award from her personal funds. “There is an insurance policy that’s covered for the school board, and the defendant Parker is insured.”

Dr. Parker has other worries, however. She was charged with eight counts of felony child neglect for this incident, and her criminal trial will begin on November 17. The school principal and the district’s superintendent were cleared by a judge and will not face charges.

JT shot Miss Zwerner with his mother’s gun. His mother, Deja Taylor, was charged with felony child neglect and pled guilty, for which she was sentenced to two years in prison. She also pled guilty to federal charges related to the firearm, including having it in her possession while using a controlled substance and making a false statement while purchasing it. For those, she was sentenced to an additional 21 months.

JT’s father, Malik Ellison, faced no charges in connection with the shooting of Miss Zwerner. In 2020, he was convicted of assault and battery after he forced his way into Deja Taylor’s apartment and hit her in the face. Although there was a protective order prohibiting Mr. Ellison from contact with Miss Taylor and their son, when he was stopped for speeding in April 2021, Miss Taylor and JT were with him. The police found marijuana edibles within reach of JT, who was four years old at the time.

As of January 2024, JT was living with his great-grandfather, Calvin Taylor, a retired U.S. Army drill sergeant. Mr. Taylor told the press that a year before JT shot his teacher, the then-five-year-old took his mother’s car keys, started her car, and crashed into two parked cars. Perhaps we’ve heard the last of JT, perhaps not.

Another black-on-white trial

The topic of race was not mentioned at any time during this trial, which is typical when the victim is white. We can only speculate about what might have gone on in JT’s home prior to the shooting. Had he heard anti-white remarks that might have led him to shoot his white teacher? We have no way of knowing.

Some Court TV viewers, however, shared their thoughts on social media about the racial angle: