A home-security recording became central to a trial over whether Willis Ellis reasonably believed deadly force was necessary.

JOLIET, Ill. — A Will County jury convicted 58-year-old Willis Ellis of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of his neighbor, 60-year-old Lyndon Hunt, after jurors considered Ellis’ claim that he feared Hunt and acted in self-defense during a confrontation outside the apartment building where both men lived.

The July 14 verdict ended a case that moved from a neighborhood shooting to trial in little more than two months. Prosecutors initially charged Ellis with first-degree murder after Hunt died from a gunshot wound suffered May 8. Ellis acknowledged firing the shot but maintained at trial that he believed Hunt posed a threat. The jury did not accept his conduct as lawful self-defense, yet it returned the lesser second-degree murder verdict rather than first-degree murder. Under Illinois law, second-degree murder may apply when a killing otherwise meeting the elements of first-degree murder is accompanied by a recognized mitigating circumstance, including an unreasonable belief that deadly force was justified.

The confrontation unfolded during a family cookout on the Friday before Mother’s Day. According to courtroom reporting cited by Law&Crime, Ellis was grilling for his wife and in-laws while Hunt was nearby working on fishing equipment. The two men lived at the same Nicholson Street apartment property and began exchanging insults and threats. A recording from Ellis’ home-security system showed portions of the argument and the shooting, giving jurors evidence of the men’s movements and conduct instead of requiring them to rely entirely on competing descriptions. Prosecutors said the footage showed Hunt leave the porch and move into the yard while continuing the verbal confrontation.

Authorities had offered a more detailed account in court filings before the trial. Prosecutors said the first part of the security recording showed Ellis at the grill and Hunt arguing with him without either man making physical contact. Hunt went down the steps into the yard and appeared to challenge Ellis to fight, according to prosecutors’ description of the video. Prosecutors alleged that another segment showed Ellis moving from the top of the stairs toward Hunt and firing. They also said Hunt was not advancing on Ellis when the shot was fired and that investigators found no evidence that Hunt had been armed. Those assertions were part of the state’s case and were tested against Ellis’ self-defense account at trial.

Ellis testified in his own defense. He said he believed Hunt could follow through on threats made during the confrontation and maintained that his reaction was driven by fear. Prosecutors challenged that explanation with the video and with Ellis’ behavior during the exchange. Courtroom reporting said prosecutors pointed to footage showing Ellis laughing during part of the confrontation. Ellis said the laughter was a reaction to fear rather than evidence that he felt safe. He also acknowledged making threats himself. The dispute therefore presented jurors with a question broader than whether threatening language had been used: they had to evaluate whether the circumstances justified the use of deadly force and, if not, how Illinois homicide law applied.

Other evidence indicated the May 8 confrontation was not the first source of tension between the neighbors. According to prosecutors, Hunt’s wife told investigators that her husband and Ellis had experienced recurring disagreements while living in the same building. She described disputes involving noise and said Ellis sometimes stomped on the floor from the upstairs portion of the property in response to what he believed was noise below. Prosecutors also cited a witness who was attending a nearby prom gathering. The witness said she saw men near Hunt before the argument intensified and heard a statement about getting a gun if Hunt continued the confrontation. She turned away and soon heard a gunshot, according to the court filing.

Police were dispatched to the 200 block of Nicholson Street late that afternoon. Accounts from Joliet police placed the initial response at about 4:38 p.m., while later court filings cited a shots-fired dispatch several minutes later. Officers found Hunt in the front yard with a gunshot wound to the abdomen. They provided medical assistance until Joliet Fire Department paramedics arrived and transported him to Ascension Saint Joseph Medical Center. Hunt died after reaching the hospital. An autopsy the following day determined that the gunshot wound caused his death. The precise differences in the reported dispatch times did not alter the central sequence established by investigators: the argument occurred outside the shared residence, one shot was fired and Hunt was critically wounded.

Ellis did not flee. Authorities said he had called 911 himself and reported that he had shot someone. When police arrived, he remained outside and directed officers to the handgun near the stairs, prosecutors said. Police detained him and took him for questioning. Investigators recovered the weapon, canvassed the area and obtained video evidence, including the Blink security footage supplied by Ellis’ wife. Prosecutors later said Ellis had an active Illinois firearm owner’s identification card and a concealed-carry license. Those licenses did not resolve the central issue at trial because the case concerned whether the shooting itself was legally justified under the circumstances confronting Ellis at the moment he fired.

The criminal case changed quickly after Hunt’s death. Ellis was first accused of aggravated battery with a firearm while Hunt’s condition and the investigation were developing. After Hunt died and prosecutors reviewed the evidence, the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office charged Ellis with first-degree murder. A judge granted prosecutors’ request to keep him detained before trial. Less than three months after the shooting, the case went before a jury. The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office said jurors heard testimony, reviewed physical evidence and considered Ellis’ self-defense argument before convicting him of second-degree murder. State’s Attorney James Glasgow said after the verdict that the right of self-defense has legal limits and that the jury had weighed Ellis’ claim before finding him criminally responsible.

The distinction between complete self-defense and second-degree murder is significant under Illinois law. The state’s second-degree murder statute applies only after the elements of first-degree murder have been established and a statutory mitigating circumstance is found. One such circumstance exists when a person believes conditions would justify a killing under the state’s self-defense principles but that belief is unreasonable. Another involves sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation. When evidence of a mitigating factor is introduced, Illinois law places the burden on the defendant to establish that mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence, while prosecutors retain their burden on the underlying elements of murder and the absence of circumstances that would legally exonerate the killing.

Second-degree murder is classified as a Class 1 felony in Illinois. State sentencing law provides a prison range of four to 20 years for second-degree murder when imprisonment is imposed. The verdict therefore carries consequences substantially different from an acquittal based on lawful self-defense and from a first-degree murder conviction. The public record reviewed for this report does not establish the precise mitigating theory on which the jurors unanimously settled, and the verdict should not be read as a finding that every allegation advanced by either side was accepted. What is established is that the jury convicted Ellis of second-degree murder after considering and declining to fully accept his contention that the shooting was justified.

Hunt’s death also left a record beyond the criminal case. An obituary described him as a Chicago native known by the nickname “Lightbulb” and emphasized his relationships with relatives and friends. The court proceedings, meanwhile, focused on a short confrontation that turned a family gathering and an ongoing dispute between neighbors into a fatal shooting. Video evidence allowed jurors to see important portions of that confrontation, while testimony supplied context about the prior friction between the men and Ellis’ claimed fear. Together, those materials formed the basis for a verdict that held Ellis criminally responsible without convicting him of the first-degree murder charge prosecutors originally filed.

Publicly available reliable sources reviewed for this report did not confirm that Ellis had been sentenced as of Aug. 22. The state prosecutor’s July announcement said sentencing would be set for a later date, and subsequent publicly indexed reporting identified a post-verdict court hearing without establishing a final punishment. Ellis’ sentence therefore remains the principal unresolved step in the case based on the verified record available for this update.

Author note: Last updated August 22, 2026.