He pleaded guilty to murder last year, but says it was self defense. Huguenot High School graduation shooter wants another chance in court

RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) -- The Richmond man who pleaded guilty to the deadly shooting of a student at Huguenot High School's graduation ceremony in 2023 is now seeking an appeal to his conviction.

Last year, Amari Pollard pleaded guilty to shooting and killing 18-year-old graduating senior Shawn Jackson. However, just months after formally entering that plea -- and receiving a 25-year sentence -- Pollard seemed to already be re-thinking the decision and motioned to withdraw his guilty plea. A judge denied that effort.

Pollard didn't give up there, however, now acting on his right to appeal and hoping for another chance to explain what he feels went wrong at his initial trial.

On the week of Feb. 26, 2024, a 12-person jury and a full room of onlookers heard from 18 witnesses. Counsel from both sides brought forward -- and later publicly released -- lengthy FBI-compiled security footage collecting different pieces of video documenting various perspectives all from the day of the shooting.

"I thought they were going to kill me," Pollard can be heard saying on one responding officer's body camera footage.

8News also had the chance to hear from one of the witnesses in the courtroom and in a separate interview last year. When asked if they believed Pollard had seemed genuinely scared, the witness said, "I do," maintaining consistent with her account in court prior to the guilty plea.

The plea came abruptly. Pollard had maintained that the shooting was an act of self-defense from day one. Also coming abruptly was Pollard's apparent regret for that plea. His former attorney, Jason Anthony, motioned to withdraw the plea just a few months later, suggesting that he had misled his client into an overly grim outlook of his options, seemingly unfairly prompting a desperate plea. That motion was denied and Pollard was taken into custody.

On Wednesday, 8News obtained access to appellate records from October 2024. The records indicated that Pollard believes the trial court made four core mistakes:

• Denying the defense motion to introduce evidence of self-defense
• Denying the defense motion to strike
• Denying the defense motion to introduce character evidence
• Denying the defense motion to withdraw guilty plea

8News spoke with legal analyst Russ Stone for insight into this new filing.

"Every defendant has a right to appeal," Stone explained. "You have that right under the constitution."

However, he clarified that the constitutional nature of this right means it exists whether or not there are actually legitimate grounds to appeal.

Stone also described the type of brief Pollard's new counsel filed. He explained why lawyers tend to file a specific type of brief called an "Anders brief."

"Lawyers are not supposed to file frivolous motions, so it puts the lawyer in kind of a minefield where you have to file what's called an Anders brief," Stone said.

This form of brief exists within the appellate court system largely to ensure defendants' rights are maintained, but also to prevent retained lawyers from filing motions they may not believe in per se.

"If the lawyer does not see any merit to the arguments, the lawyer must still file an Anders brief that says, 'These are the arguments my client wants to make. I don't see any merit to them, but I'd like the court to make a decision as to whether there should be an appeal in this case,'" Stone explained.

In February, Virginia's Office of the Attorney General responded with their "Appellee" brief, which reiterated their standpoint that, last February, by accepting the deal, Pollard admitted guilt, acknowledged satisfaction with his attorneys, signed and understood his plea agreement.

Moving forward, a three-panel Appellate court will review what happened in Pollard's trial last year. They only look at what happened in the lower court. This means that no new or additional testimony or evidence is presented.

According to Stone, if the court finds that mistakes were made and there is merit to Pollard's appeal, they can appoint a new lawyer to argue for the defendant. Therefore, this update could lead to the court sending the case back for a brand new trial or it could be, essentially, the beginning of the end of the road for Pollard's legal fight.

Both Virginia's Office of the Attorney General and Pollard's new attorney told 8News that they do not comment on ongoing cases.