I want it to be perfectly clear that the legal principles discussed below are valid only in TEXAS and your state may have very different interpretations of the right/use of self defense. In particular, many states DO NOT hold that a person is under no obligation to retreat from a threat to avoid using force to defend himself, as Texas does.

Since the case is over with, I am free to discuss any and all aspects of it at this time.

Like many, I have successfully avoided juror service several times over the years, mostly by answering preliminary paper questions or voir dire (when both sides question the potential juror pool) honestly. One time I had an important to me reason not to serve, but that reason was not a valid excuse, I went in talked to the judge and told him I was not going to be "fair and impartial". I suppose he could have held me in contempt but instead he let me go. This time it was the same judge, an acquaintance(but just barely)of mine, and I to talked with him and told him that I couldn't hear worth a damn anyway, but that I had some fluid in my ears that made it worse and, in particular, understanding some female voices was especially difficult. He said, "I know you'll do things right if you serve and I can move you to the closest corner of the juror's box. Besides, there's 50 possible jurors and we're only going to use 13. You probably won't be selected anyway." Wrong.

The voir dire was pretty exhaustive, taking several hours, and both sides went into great detail about how and what a juror was supposed to do. The defense attorney, at one point, put up a power point that said basically,

"Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." Thomas Jefferson

1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. Slightly Agree
4. Slightly Disagree
5. Disagree
6. Strongly Disagree

and he asked us to individually orally indicate by choosing a number what our feelings were in relation to that quote.

I was potential juror #15 out of 50, and the 14 in front of me fell in like trained pigs on #s 1 or 2. Got to me and I said #4. Then the dam broke and quite a few following me said 3 or 4. I don't believe anyone said 5 or 6. I thought that answer would get me out, wrong again.

At any rate, in the final result, I and 12 others were selected and I was one of the main jury body, not the alternate. So this is my first experience with the criminal justice system from the inside out, so to speak. I want to be clear at this point that the following description is, IMO, a fair presentation of what occurred but is not meant to cover every tiny detail that came to light in testimony. I'll be glad to answer any questions that someone has, if any.

The case began the next morning with opening statements by the prosecution and defense. Without going into painstaking details on every word, the case involved 4 people that were on the scene Feb 25 and 26, 2012, the timeline was somewhat cloudy and remains so because they were all to one degree or another impaired on a mixture of dope (marijuana), pills, and/or alcohol. The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, to wit that he did shoot one of the other 2 men 4 times with a firearm (.357 5 shot Taurus revolver loaded with 4 .38 Spec +P and one RP .357 JHP, the 4 +Ps were the fired shots). The man who was shot was left paralyzed from the mid-chest down and from the testimony, it was apparent that the first shot was the one that did the damage.

Very basically the defendant (age 50, I think), who was a small man about 5'2", was in the habit of physically, verbally, and mentally abusing his live-in girlfriend (age 57, I think, who was probably taller but of slight build herself) (who he has since married) and they got into a verbal fight on the 25th and he left to go to the store he owns to cool off or whatever. As it turns out, he spent the night there, drinking beer and sleeping in a chair, intermittently communicating with gf (and probably threatening her but that was not totally clear in the testimony) by phone. In the interim, gf goes over to one of her old boyfriends house and asks them to come back to her house to "beat his (her live-in and the owner of the house they lived in)ass" so he won't beat up on her anymore. Both men said they would come over to talk with defendant but they would not attack him, only warn him that if he beat up on her anymore they'd whip his ass.

They returned to defendant's home, spent the night with gf, possibly having a threesome with her, but possibly only the old bf had sex with her. (I'm posting this now so if my computer blinks I won't lose all this content, more to follow).

At any rate, the 2 guys are about to leave midday on the 26th when gf comes out and says m/l, "Bf just called and is on his way home", so she again asks them to stay to protect her and the other 2 elected to stay and "talk" with him about beating up on his gf. Bf comes home, sometime in the next 15 to 45 minutes (time elapsed was never clear and there were no external ways to determing time involved) one of the men, the one shot, gets in a minor scuffle with bf over his "messing" with other man's Harley, they make up, the 2 men tell him not to beat up on his gf anymore or he'd have to deal with them, defendant walks inside, maybe to get himself or all 3 a beer, 2 men are about to leave but instead follow gf into game room, which is immediately adjacent to open garage where the scuffle occurred sometime earlier AND the door from garage into game room is basically one step to a door that opens into kitchen. About to be shot man, closely followed by other man (probably not visible from inside kitchen and not a relevant factor) takes a step to door that opens into kitchen, and is immediately shot by defendant who is probably about 10-12 feet away, while he is basically in the kitchen entry door frame, immediately collapses (since he was paralyzed at that point) and falls to floor. Shooter takes one or two steps towards downed man, and says m/l, "There ain't going to be no next time...." and fires 3 more shots, two of which hit defendant in arm, one probably grazing his stomach, but none doing any serious damage, which had already occurred.

That was basically the facts as presented. What happened afterwards, including statements and actions of 3 individuals, shot man was down and unresponsive, police arriving on scene all stepped over him, believing he was dead, went towards establishing whether shooting was self defense or not, but is not really part of charge.

Defense, which was presented by lawyer that is probably one of better defense attorneys in our area of NE Texas, not court appointed, had 2 points, one, that defendant acted in self defense, and two, that defendant acted in self defense under the Castle Doctrine law of Texas. More later......

So at end of first day of actual trial, we have heard most of testimony of witnesses with the doctor who initially treated shot man and a detective to go and, as it turns out, the defendant, who testified in his defense, but was obviously not required to do so. In retrospect, his testimony was probably a small plus for his defense. As an aside, it was clear to us, the jury, that all 4 of the people who were present, lied to one degree or another. Probably the non-shot 4th man, appeared to be the most truthful, probably because he really had no dog in the fight. As a jury, individually, we all put much more credence in what was said and done on the day of the event than on testimony roughly 16 months after the event. We are released to go home while being told, not for first or last time, not to discuss case with ANYONE including spouse or to access any press or other media accounts related to case.

Next day, we hear remaining testimony and, after being allowed to go ex-courthouse for an early lunch independent of each other, we hear closing statements and are sent to juror room to begin deliberations at roughly 1 PM. We are instructed by judge to choose a jury foreman who would sign documents, including guilty or not guilty, send any questions to judge, etc. I was selected, mostly by default, de fault of no one else really wanting to do it. I began by reiterating a point that was made clear in jury instructions in voir dire, that whatever anyone's opinion was, whether guilty or not guilty, that that was their opinion and they had an absolute right to hold it, even if they could not articulate their reasons for it, and we were not going to bully or attempt to intimidate them into changing their opinion, if it did change, it had to be a voluntary change on their part. As you will see, this became an important point, and we did this very well IMO.

To make it shorter, initial vote before any real discussion was 9-3 guilty, after just a few minutes vote changed to 11-1. We sliced and diced the occurrence continually for hours, with most jurors presenting their opinions of why defendant was guilty. The first of the two points of defense, the Castle Doctrine, which basically, in part, says that homeowner has right to shoot anyone who enters his home, "unlawfully and with force". I, both in the voir dire and as one of jurors asked for a Texas legal definition of "force" and did not receive a satisfactory answer. Defense attorney stated that simply turning door knob of unlocked door (the door from open garage to inside home's game room) constituted "use of force". Hmmmmm, well, maybe.......Judge answered "see my charges to jury", which I read EXTREMELY thoroughly, 5 or 6 pages, and there was no definition or answer to question. However, in the juries collective opinion, it really became immaterial as it relates to this case (so I dropped it, but haven't forgotten it), because the presence of gf in the actual room and doorway where shooting happened, who invited the 2 others into their home, negated the "unlawful" entry part of the Castle Doctrine in our opinions, meaning the 2 others were there by her invitation as a resident of that house and therefore, legally.

The first point of defense, that defendant shot in self defense was not quite so clear cut. It gets pretty complicated but the main points that applied, as far as the jury was concerned, was that a)words alone are not enough for a successful self defense defense,in other words a verbal threat, no matter how violent, is not sufficient for a self defense claim unless said threat is followed by some overt threatening action b) that a conditional threat is not enough for a successful self defense defense. If someone says "I'm going to come back here and cut your head off on Thursday", and it's Tuesday, and he takes no further aggressive actions, you can't shoot him on Tuesday. Of course, if he shows up on Thursday with a knife, it probably would be different. and c) that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to your actions, in other words, drunk, or otherwise under the influence, you own your actions and your physical state of intoxication is not a self defense defense. Finally, just as a point of interest to my readers, but not really pertinent to this case, Texas law is quite clear that there IS NO OBLIGATION TO RETREAT FROM A THREAT.

All the believable testimony indicated that there was no real imminent threat to the shooter, that the shot guy was not "going after him", that all threats were conditional (Don't beat up on gf or we'll come back and make you sorry), and c) while defendant was probably intoxicated on beer, pills, or marijuana, or some combination of the above (we wondered why no toxicology tests were presented but defendant "lawyered up" very shortly and I suspect that lawyer prevented it but that is just a wild ass guess) he was not so intoxicated that he didn't knowingly shoot the victim.

Bottom line, was that to 11 of us, it was clear that he was guilty. The other jury said he had reasonable doubts for hours as we discussed case over and over. I sent 2 notes to judge a couple of hours apart, saying that we were locked at 11-1 and the second said that IMO, the "1" was not going to change his vote. Judge said "keep deliberating". Along about 7 PM, bailiff comes in and says, more or less, "Judge says it took 3 days to try it and I'm going to allow the jury 3 days to reach a verdict. Welcome to being sequested." Texas law says that once a jury begins deliberations, at least in this type of case, they must remain together until a verdict is reached. We all ate fried catfish in jury room and about 8:30 were transported in mass to local Holiday Inn, with instructions to meet next morning at 8 AM. As an aside we were the first sequestered jury in at least 25 years in Bowie County, Texas. Lucky us.

We all had separate rooms, I slept fine from 11 to 4 and then it was over for me, lying awake thinking about trial. I was first downstairs for free breakfast and coffee at 6:30, mostly coffee. Between then and 8, holdout juror, who had been showing numerous signs of emotional trauma the day before, approaches me and says something to the effect of, "It's not just reasonable doubt, I can't sentence anyone to jail, as it turns our. I thought I could going in, but I can't. I am about to have a nervous breakdown or a heartattack over this and I have to be removed. I didn't sleep a wink last night." (this circumstance was SPECIFICALLY covered in the voir dire and we were all told that we might have to find a sentence of up to 20 years and if we couldn't do it, to ask to be excused, obviously this juror thought he could but when faced with actual reality, could not) and he looked bad, pale and sweating, and was obviously in mental distress. I approached judge, told him that I had thought of one thing that was in testimony that MIGHT have some influence that we had not discussed the day before, and he told me to discuss it, and see what hold-out did.
We go back to jury room just after 9 and I start my new point discussion, hold out is sitting next to me and we're not 5 minutes into it, when he grabs my arm and says, "You've got to send that note, I have to leave." So I sent one. As an aside, I read all my notes to be sent to judge out loud to jury so we'd all be on same page and would ask if anyone had any suggestions of additions or corrections.

Judge asks that juror come talk to him, and shortly alternate juror #13 is seated in jury room. He heard all testimony, etc but was isolated from us the day before and, of course, had heard nothing of what we said, thought, or voted. So, I started off, as soon as he came in,before any real discussion or votes, with something like, "without trying to influence your position, are you leaning towards a guilty or not guilty verdict?"He answered instantly "100% guilty" and I said, "Well, that kind of solves this problem." I polled remaining jurors again, twice to be certain that we were all on the same page, filled out form saying we had found defendant "guilty" and rang bell twice, meaning we had reached a verdict, and bailiff came, picked up form, and we were back in courtroom probably before 10 AM with verdict in hand.

More to come, I'm sorry about all the minute details, but it was a serious responsibility and all the small details made a big difference.

I'm kinda getting tired of typing, so I'm going to cut to the chase and probably come back and fill in details later.

We go to courtroom, judge asks for and gets verdict sheet signed by me, and reads it to defendant.

We then enter the sentencing stage of trial. I'm not knowledgeable about when or how often the jury does this in Texas, but in this case, at least, we, the jury, had to decide both sentence and fine, if any. Minimum was 2 years and no fine, possibly with community service instead of jail time. Maximum was 20 years and $10,000 fine. Minimum was any sentence UNDER 10 years, fine amount, if any, immaterial, the jury COULD but did not have, to recommend supervised probation and community service, that is no actual prison time. I, as the jury foreman, had to fill out two sections, one the sentence and fine, and two, whether or not we recommended community service instead of prison time.

Of course the defendant's lawyer requested community service. However, in the roughly 2 hours of sentencing testimony, we heard substantially more evidence that could not be introduced in the main trial, that basically indicated that defendant was a 24 hour a day intoxicated threat to others who always carried a pistol in his pocket (no CCL apparently as that fact was never introduced)(a walking loaded gun, so to speak), who had threatened to kill his gf and others on numerous occasions, once shooting his own stereo, etc etc. Had been arrested at least 3 times for domestic violence, the latest about 1 month before trial's events. It's too bad he didn't learn something from the prior events, if he hadn't of been carrying he would very likely still be a free man today.

Jury went back and we opened discussion, I ventured 15 years and 5 thousand dollar fine, one other agreed and everyone else was at 20 and 10. We discussed the parole situation, how the victim was forever more ruined (testimony indicated that for any given year a victim in his condition was 20 times more likely to die than a "normal" individual). We arrived at 20 and 10, in spite of it being a first offense and went back in and the sentence was handed down and defendant was immediately taken to jail. He had been out on bond all during trial.

It wasn't fun, I am not happy to have sent a man up, but I and the others did our duty as we saw it. I can honestly say that going in, without any testimony, that I felt sure that the defendant would be found not guilty. I am more likely to serve as a juror again, than before I had actually served. Questions?

As a final note, we all more or less agreed that IF the defendant had only fired one shot, it would have been a lot grayer and it very well MIGHT have resulted in a different verdict. I and most of the jury thought the defense attorney did a fine job, all in all, but he just didn't have much to work with.

Good writeup Gato, thanks for taking all the time and effort to do a proper job of it. Your comments are very insightful as well.

Gee, ya think that same thing happens a few hundred times a year in the States?

Ever wonder why?

Any idea what 20 years means? Two years until parole?

And 10 g's! Wonder how the guy is suppose to pay that. And what does the "state" do with that money assuming they get it? Use it for the gunshot victim? Build an addition onto the courthouse? Petty cash for the city employee picnic? New Suburban for the judge?

Assuming this guy doesn't have much cash on hand (ya think?) what does this fine really mean or accomplish? Since the g/f probably isn't a high-paid financier on Wall Street, who's going to pay this dude's taxes?

Taxes? Oh yeah, the perpetual catch.

The "state" confiscates the murderer's house for delinquent taxes plus whatever, if any, assets this dude had.

I figure the "state" comes out ahead and the cost of the prison incarceration gets funded by the next bond vote.

The victim becomes a ward of the "state" in a veggie hospital? Also funded by another tax increase?

Yikes. Seems like the trial is quite a simplistic event compared to all the repercussions of some stupid and violent you-know-what shooting some other stupid and violent you-know-what.

And once again excuses are made for what the rest of us have to pay for.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Any idea what 20 years means? Two years until parole?

And 10 g's! Wonder how the guy is suppose to pay that. And what does the "state" do with that money assuming they get it? Use it for the gunshot victim? Build an addition onto the courthouse? Petty cash for the city employee picnic? New Suburban for the judge?

Assuming this guy doesn't have much cash on hand (ya think?) what does this fine really mean or accomplish? Since the g/f probably isn't a high-paid financier on Wall Street, who's going to pay this dude's taxes?

Taxes? Oh yeah, the perpetual catch.

The "state" confiscates the murderer's house for delinquent taxes plus whatever, if any, assets this dude had.

I figure the "state" comes out ahead and the cost of the prison incarceration gets funded by the next bond vote.

The victim becomes a ward of the "state" in a veggie hospital? Also funded by another tax increase?

Yikes. Seems like the trial is quite a simplistic event compared to all the repercussions of some stupid and violent you-know-what shooting some other stupid and violent you-know-what.

And once again excuses are made for what the rest of us have to pay for.

Since you seem to know all the answers, it hardly seems worth bothering, but in case someone else wants to know:

By Texas law (which is the only applicable statutes in this trial), at least in this case, he is specifically only eligible for parole after he has served at least 1/2 of his term, not counting good time. I don't know if this law applies to all sentences or maybe only the more severe ones. In fact, with the crowded prison system in Texas, they seem to be paroling prisoners (of course, not all) with about 1/4 to 1/3 of time served. How they are doing this or if they can do this in his particular case/sentence I don't know. Drug offenders are causing most of the crowding. If you really want to substantially lower prison costs in your, or any, state, reduce or eliminate drug laws. I don't know the ratio but I feel fairly certain that there are many more drug cases than ones for aggravated assault.

As a matter of fact, as jury foreman, when we got to the sentencing stage of the trial, I asked the judge "What is the disposition of fine monies, if any are imposed." The answer: "All fines go into Bowie County general funds." The "state" doesn't get any of it. He owns a house and a business which can probably pay the fine. Somehow he came up with the money to pay an expensive attorney, and, in case you don't know, they don't work on the cuff nor on IOUs. Just the one extra day of sequester and hotel rooms cost Bowie County $2500. It was the general feeling of the jury that he should defray/pay the costs of his trial and be held responsible in the only way we could hold him for the costs involved for the victim. Whether he will be able to pay the fine or not, was not ours to determine.

The victim certainly didn't choose to be paralyzed, nor shot, and he will likely be a drain on "our tax dollars" in one form or another for the rest of his life.

The rest of your rant seems to indicate that you are opposed to the American system of justice, which is the bed rock of ALL of our rights. Bill of Rights, Second Amendment?? No system of justice, no way to guarantee them.

I think anyone that has much to do with the justice system will admit that ours is deeply flawed, especially when it comes to civil cases, but it is still probably the best one out there.
We, as a jury, worked hard at coming up with a verdict and a sentence. We all felt the weight of having a man's life in our hands. I believe we all started with a presumption of innocence. I am certain that I did. The defendant was able to avail himself of all of his rights, bail, attorney, and a trial by his peers. I am assuming, but have no knowledge of such, that he was probably offered a plea bargain at one time and chose to take his chances in a trial.

Finally you don't know much about Texas' tax system. We don't have income taxes, bonds are usually for a specific item and paid for either by that item or from general revenues.

Just for instance, let's say the sheriff's son is drunk, breaks into your house, and you kill him. Without our system and a trial such as we just had, you'd likely be rotting in jail forevermore or beaten to death by some goons the sheriff asked to do him a favor in return for shorter time.

I hope you're smarter than your post indicates or that you were under the influence (voluntary intoxication) when you wrote it, because it is drivel. If your books read like this post, they're useful for toilet paper.

Perhaps you should stick to selling wallets?

Gato, great write-up. It certainly shows that you and your fellow jurors took things seriously and thoughtfully. Kudos. I wish the fine could go to the victim, but not. It appears to be a case of 1) who is the most stupid and 2) way too much macho. By that, I mean, don't go tell the guy that you will beat his ass if he beats up the girl that chooses to stay with him, but rather counsel her on getting away.

Oh well, lots of stupid going on.

Thanks for sitting on the jury and relaying the story.

We were all in agreement that the best that could be said of the 4 people involved is that they are on the fringes of society. However, all people are equal before the law, at least in theory, and regardless of history, financial ability, or social status the victims deserve for the alleged criminals to be tried.

Not that it matters to the result, but there really wasn't much "macho" on display. These guys were all friends, or, at least, friendly acquaintances for a while. However, you are right that, in our opinion, the defendant "snapped" and simply decided that he was going to shoot the first one he saw after that moment. Part of the testimony was that he took the pistol out of his pants pocket and put it in his shirt pocket as he went into the kitchen. Probably if the other 2 men had gone home at that time, there wouldn't have been a case unless he injured his gf, which was a habit with him, but, of course, they didn't. There were a lot of bad choices but bad choices don't make one fair game to be shot without specific actions allowing self defense.

Again, because of the various circumstances, IF the defendant had only fired one shot with the same physical results to the victim, the jury generally believed that it would have been much more difficult to come to a point "beyond reasonable doubt" and, even if everything else was exactly the same, the verdict, if there was a trial, could very well have been different.

There is no speaking to possible circumstances as they might apply to a self defense shooting, but shooting or shooting at (because there probably won't be a reasonable way to determine sequence of shots) a downed and non-threatening opponent is probably a very bad idea.

Again, as a local commercial says, "the fair only comes once a year", and no one who knows much will believe that an indigent defendant will have the same chances that a financially well off one who can hire the best of legal defenses will have, but, I believe that the majority of time, justice is served.

I also have a lot more respect for the police depts and especially their crime scene personnel and detectives. There is an incredible amount of work involved, even in a relatively simple circumstance such as this one. I also think it would be damn hard for one of the actors in a potential crime to successfully physically alter the evidence IF the crime was hot, that is police arrived not too long after it happened. The old saw of "shoot him and drag him into your house" would get you into the iron bar hotel post hast IMO. Evidence collection and what it tells about what happened is far ahead of even 25 years ago.

Completely unrelated to this case, one of the detectives who testified both in the trial and the sentencing portion of the case had been up all night, or nearly so, the night before his sentencing testimony because a fellow officer was run over and subsequently died while attempting to control/disperse a partying crowd. There is a suspect in custody.

That was most interesting and thanks for posting it.

You may not know that here in Britland whilst we, too have juries, which we gave to the USA, things aren't quite the same.

1) The jury is never allowed to disclose what went on in their deliberations. Even when the case is long over and done and finished.

2) The jury can ask questions of witnesses etc., during the trial, although this is, actually not encouraged.

3) The jury is there, to paraphrase what a judge will say, "Only to decide on the matter of guilt it being for me (the judge) to decide on the sentence should you, the jury, convict the defendant..."

Again thanks for sharing your experience. Do you get paid for this, as in loss of earnings, as jury members do here in Britland?

The pay is fairly low, unless one is retired on very limited means it would almost certainly be a reduction in pay. It varies from place to place, so I can only say what we got for our service. Jurors and potential jurors in Bowie County, Texas get $6 for the first day, showing up to be possibly chosen as juror, they lose the $6 but get paid $25 for the first day if the actual trial starts, and $40/day thereafter if they serve on a jury. This trial started as a potential jury pool on Tues, actual trial started Wed morning, and was over on Fri, with the jurors receiving $126 total. I need to go to Las Vegas!

I believe that the jury deciding the sentence is fairly rare but that's what was done in this case.

Good write up. Sounds like you all did the right thing.

.

Hey, I'm not ragging on you. Just curious as to what happens and what might happen after everyone packs up their legal pads and go home!

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

I hope you're smarter than your post indicates or that you were under the influence (voluntary intoxication) when you wrote it, because it is drivel. If your books read like this post, they're useful for toilet paper.

My post had nothing to do with you. How you interpreted it that you were the subject I have no idea. You are just way too sensitive.

How you interpreted that I interpreted that I was the subject of your rant is the real question? I didn't, and my opinion as re-posted by you above stands.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

Again, because of the various circumstances, IF the defendant had only fired one shot with the same physical results to the victim, the jury generally believed that it would have been much more difficult to come to a point "beyond reasonable doubt" and, even if everything else was exactly the same, the verdict, if there was a trial, could very well have been different.

I didn't post about this when I first read it - Just trying to not say anything.

But, since you mentioned this again, I'll say:

That logic is total bullshit!

If the shooting was justified - Multiply shots are justified. If you relied on this point - You just railroaded an innocent to jail.

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

Again, because of the various circumstances, IF the defendant had only fired one shot with the same physical results to the victim, the jury generally believed that it would have been much more difficult to come to a point "beyond reasonable doubt" and, even if everything else was exactly the same, the verdict, if there was a trial, could very well have been different.

I didn't post about this when I first read it - Just trying to not say anything.

But, since you mentioned this again, I'll say:

That logic is total bullshit!

If the shooting was justified - Multiply shots are justified. If you relied on this point - You just railroaded an innocent to jail.

Well, since you weren't there, nor were you at the trial, you obviously don't know what the fuck ALL the testimony was, nor ALL the relevant law, so there is no doubt that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, now do you? In fact, by inserting your uninformed opinion and saying that 12 men and women "railroaded" an innocent man because you don't know WTF you're talking about shows extreme stupidity on your part IMO.

In fact, the first shot probably was not justified, but there was enough "space" in the testimony that there MAY have been room for reasonable doubt (as you may know, a guilty verdict requires that there is no reasonable doubt), but when he fired the next three, the doubt was gone and it definitely became aggravated assault. In addition, one of the factors that was a major consideration and a point of the law was, were his actions those of a reasonable and prudent man in his position? We, the jury, found they were not. In fact, the shooter may well have thought he was threatened in his fogged angry state, but we, the jury decided that his actions were not those of a reasonable and prudent man under the same conditions. That alone would have convicted him.

One shot or more may or may not be justified, but when the threat is obviously removed and the shooter keeps shooting, it becomes aggravated assault or murder (as a point of law, the prosecutors decided to go for aggravated assault instead of attempted murder because they had the same penalty and using an attempted murder charge there has to be proof that the shooter intended to murder the victim. Difficult to prove intent.). Under your "logic", if a threat went down, and you went up and put one in his ear, it would still be a justified shooting (wrong).......so fuck your "logic".

I and, I feel sure, all the jurors considered ALL the law, ALL the testimony, ALL the actions, and ALL the circumstances that were brought out in the trial and we, the jury, found him guilty. Your half-assed, no knowledge of the actual facts, assessment of what we did is typical of the kind of "logic" fucking idiots that have access to the internet post. In case you haven't figured it out by now, your statement that we "railroaded an innocent" did not sit well with me, since I and the jury, a group of his peers, listened to all the testimony and all the facts and came to our verdict based on the law, not some ignorant opinion.

We, the jury, didn't "railroad" anyone. The defendant did it to himself.

Very interesting reading. Thank you for perfoming your civic duty. Thank you for sharing with us. Being a Federal employee I get full pay for jury duty and serve as often as I am called and make the cut. I like to remind my co-workers that use every excuse they can think of to get out of jury duty just what kind of people are left that don't have any "excuses", should they ever ask for a trial by jury. It would seem from the testimony presented the threat was neutralised by the first shot and follow up shots were not necessary. This was a human-not an elephant, buff, hippo, lion, or leopard. It also appears that there was no forceable entry nullifying any Castle Doctrine.

As an aside, I wonder how many individuals without substantial training would be able to fire only one shot in a stressful innebriated condition?

As far a money/fines going to a victim....a civil suit many times follows a criminal case and anything the defendant has left may likely go to the plaintiff-in that case the man paralyzed.

quote:

As an aside, I wonder how many individuals without substantial training would be able to fire only one shot in a stressful innebriated condition?

I dunno, but being inebriated (voluntary inebriation) is not a legal excuse for any actions, at least in an aggravated assault trial.

Several of the jurors were federal employees (Red River Depot) and received their regular pay while donating the county juror pay.

I am not in the least saying being drunk or otherwise impaired is ever an excuse.

I understand, but the point is, if someone is drunk or doped, or both, and has the least amount of mental and physical control left, that person had better double check his actions BEFORE he starts shooting or whatever aggression he might be contemplating, because he will still own them when he sobers up.
May not be easy to do in the heat of the moment, might, in fact, be impossible, but his intoxication won't help his defense if he crosses the legal lines.

In addition, what our internet expert may have overlooked in his not so astute analysis of the event was that the shooter fired the first shot at somewhere around 10 to 12 feet, then ADVANCED 2 steps while holding fire, and fired 3 more DOWN into victim from roughly 5 feet. There was no question that the victim was not exhibiting any threatening actions from the first shot and his collapse due to spinal cord damage. Actually there was no real evidence that there was EVER any threatening actions by the victim in that time frame. Really it was a damn sad event for the two men involved. One, basically lost his life as he knew it, and the other lost his freedom for being stupid.

Gato
Thank you for the great write-up! I may have read Will's posts differently, but I thought he was speaking in more general terms(not commenting on your case).

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Really it was a damn sad event for the two men involved. One, basically lost his life as he knew it, and the other lost his freedom for being stupid.

And all of this over a stupid, drugged-up "woman of loose morals".

It seems that a lot of this stuff happens on the fringes of society. I have a hard time feeling sorry for the defendant or the victim.

Gato, thank you for your service. I try cases to juries and would like to have a man like you on every one of my juries. I've been enpaneled many times, but unfortunately never been picked. I think it would be very informative and educational/enlightening.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

Again, because of the various circumstances, IF the defendant had only fired one shot with the same physical results to the victim, the jury generally believed that it would have been much more difficult to come to a point "beyond reasonable doubt" and, even if everything else was exactly the same, the verdict, if there was a trial, could very well have been different.

I didn't post about this when I first read it - Just trying to not say anything.

But, since you mentioned this again, I'll say:

That logic is total bullshit!

If the shooting was justified - Multiply shots are justified. If you relied on this point - You just railroaded an innocent to jail.

Well, since you weren't there, nor were you at the trial, you obviously don't know what the fuck ALL the testimony was, nor ALL the relevant law, so there is no doubt that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, now do you? In fact, by inserting your uninformed opinion and saying that 12 men and women "railroaded" an innocent man because you don't know WTF you're talking about shows extreme stupidity on your part IMO.
.....

OK, since you want to cuss me and do your IMO thing - Here's mine back at you:

You post this thread with an air of pompousness and seem to be gloating on how well you handled the jury and judge.

AND I disagree – I think you and the other jurors did a very poor job!

I'm reading way too much character assessment into your description and not enough analysis of simply facts. Even to the point that you arranged to change your recommended sentence based on an additional after-the-fact character assessment.

First, Yeah, I wasn’t there when he started shooting,

BUT NEITHER WERE YOU or any of the others jurors!

Here’s what I would have wanted to do, Deliberate these:

1) What was the threat
2) How did he perceive this threat at the point he started shooting
3) AND did his perceived threat justify him to start shooting = YES, MAYBE or NO

The above 3 point would have been SIMPLE! I don’t read enough description of these into your story. Plus, I read too much character assessment and “after-the –fact” justification of your verdict and sentence(s).

Note to moderator: Might be best for AR to delete this thread now than to have it get mixed up in any future appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

Again, because of the various circumstances, IF the defendant had only fired one shot with the same physical results to the victim, the jury generally believed that it would have been much more difficult to come to a point "beyond reasonable doubt" and, even if everything else was exactly the same, the verdict, if there was a trial, could very well have been different.

I didn't post about this when I first read it - Just trying to not say anything.

But, since you mentioned this again, I'll say:

That logic is total bullshit!

If the shooting was justified - Multiply shots are justified. If you relied on this point - You just railroaded an innocent to jail.

Well, since you weren't there, nor were you at the trial, you obviously don't know what the fuck ALL the testimony was, nor ALL the relevant law, so there is no doubt that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, now do you? In fact, by inserting your uninformed opinion and saying that 12 men and women "railroaded" an innocent man because you don't know WTF you're talking about shows extreme stupidity on your part IMO.
.....

OK, since you want to cuss me and do your IMO thing - Here's mine back at you:

You post this thread with an air of pompousness and seem to be gloating on how well you handled the jury and judge.

AND I disagree – I think you and the other jurors did a very poor job!

I'm reading way too much character assessment into your description and not enough analysis of simply facts. Even to the point that you arranged to change your recommended sentence based on an additional after-the-fact character assessment.

First, Yeah, I wasn’t there when he started shooting,

BUT NEITHER WERE YOU or any of the others jurors!

Here’s what I would have wanted to do, Deliberate these:

1) What was the threat
2) How did he perceive this threat at the point he started shooting
3) AND did his perceived threat justify him to start shooting = YES, MAYBE or NO

The above 3 point would have been SIMPLE! I don’t read enough description of these into your story. Plus, I read too much character assessment and “after-the –fact” justification of your verdict and sentence(s).

Note to moderator: Might be best for AR to delete this thread now than to have it get mixed up in any future appeal.

You're a fucking internet idiot who, if you could read AND comprehend, would already know the answers to your questions and your note at the bottom of your above post proves that you really are a fool. In case you haven't figured it out, I don't give a damn how you read or interpret my posts, they're mine, not yours. If you want to serve on a jury and post your experiences, feel free. But just to answer your questions, which have already been answered above:

1)None 2)It's not a matter of how he perceived a threat, moron, it whether there was a real at that moment threat (the jury decided there was not, all threats that we put credence in were conditional) and, how would a reasonable and prudent man respond.3)No

They were simple, that's why we found him guilty, it there was any reasonable doubts, he would have been found "not guilty". If it hadn't of been for the juror who had problems with sentencing a man, reaching a verdict would likely have taken less than an hour, certainly no more than 2. Have you ever served on a criminal jury? You obviously don't know the applicable laws and are simply talking out your ass like the internet fool that you are.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Bf comes home, sometime in the next 15 to 45 minutes (time elapsed was never clear and there were no external ways to determing time involved) one of the men, the one shot, gets in a minor scuffle with bf, they make up, the 2 men tell him not to beat up on his gf anymore or he'd have to deal with them, defendant walks inside, maybe to get himself or all 3 a beer, 2 men are about to leave but instead follow gf into game room, which is immediately adjacent to open garage where the scuffle occurred sometime earlier AND the door from garage into game room is basically one step to a door that opens into kitchen. About to be shot man, closely followed by other man (probably not visible from inside kitchen and not a relevant factor) takes a step to door that opens into kitchen, and is immediately shot by defendant who is probably about 10-12 feet away, while he is basically in the kitchen entry door frame, immediately collapses (since he was paralyzed at that point) and falls to floor. Shooter takes one or two steps towards downed man, and says m/l, "There ain't going to be no next time...." and fires 3 more shots , two of which hit defendant in arm, one probably grazing his stomach, but none doing any serious damage, which had already occurred.

If you think that the shooting was justified you need to go back and read this.

To my other readers, I want to apologize for my language in a couple of the above posts to the internet idiot. I'm pretty blunt on my best day and when some moron suggests that we as a jury, and I, personally, did not do our duty and "railroaded" an innocent man, to put it bluntly, he is now on the fighting side of me. We and I, as the jury worked hard, and while I may have not have made it as clear as possible in my posts, the final verdict was really pretty clear cut. It reminds me of the numerous threads about African safaris where some idiot says, "Well, if I'd have been there, I'd have done it better." Easy to say sitting behind a keyboard, not so easy to do in the midst of the event. Again, my apologies and I'll try to maintain better control in the future.

Thanks for the insight into the jury's end of a trial.

Personally, it sounds to me like you guys went out of your way to find any mitigation for the eight ball defendant. You just could not find it. This is in my opinion what a jury should do.

On the other hand, it does bother me that in a trial for criminal culpability, you guys were wondering where the money goes from the fine... All you should have been worried about is it a just punishment, not where the money goes. It is kind of a pet peeve of mine when people try and justify punishment with what the victim or society deserves in compensation. It doesn't surprise me it came up, but I think it wrong.

Thanks for doing the right thing and not finding some excuse to get out of the jury pool.

I think it is a normal human response to want to know where the money is going. I'm that way with my money. The question was really more a result of normal human curiosity, "What do they do with fine money?", not involving this case in particular. Since we were there, and had the ability to ask the question, we did. Of course, I pay taxes and we don't really know how that money is actually disbursed except in the most general terms. Unless the answer was completely ridiculous, I don't think it would have made any difference to the fine. I mean, if it went to a home for wayward women, I'd have said I contribute directly.

I don't know if you've ever served on a jury or not, but it isn't like TV, once sworn in, jurors are what amounts to independent evaluators of the law and the facts. They each individually can choose to believe all, part, or none of any of the testimony and are specifically instructed not to discuss their reactions or thoughts about any testimony with anyone until deliberations begin. Also they are not supposed to evaluate or introduce facts that are not in evidence or testimony in the actual trial. But people are people, and controlling a group's thoughts is like herding cats through a fish market, it ain't an easy process if it can happen at all.

In response to your "worried about just punishment", a jury, or for that matter, modern society is limited by law and custom in the choices. What is just punishment for a man who paralyzes another unlawfully? 20 years and 10K fine? Would you trade being paralyzed for 20 years (probably more like 10 with parole) in jail and a $10,000 fine for being in a chair for the rest of your almost certainly severely shortened life, having to have your bowels massaged everyday to go to the toilet, no sex, no bladder control, etc.etc. Neither is pleasant obviously, but the choice would seem clear to me, which means our maximum punishment under Texas law was not really "just" in this case, but it is the law and we abided by it. Just as another example, I think all child molesters should be killed, and, in many cases, they get off with relative slaps on the hand everyday. I am not sure I could fairly serve on a case involving child molestation.

I suspect that fines in general are a way that groups, whether city, county, state, or federal have evolved to compensate for or at least defray the costs of enforcement and "punishment" is a side benefit. In some cases, there is a "profit" involved, like in most speeding tickets for example, and in some cases, there is a "loss" such as in this case. I'm not sure what a total costs for this case to the city and county would be, but it would greatly exceed $10,000 I'm sure.

IMO compensation and punishment go hand in hand. For example, if someone is drunk, drives his car, and backs over a lawn chair worth $25, or same scenario and he backs over a lady in a wheelchair and injures her, do you think the punishment should be the same? It's the same crime and the same actions but the results and the costs to society are obviously quite different.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by RaySendero:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

Again, because of the various circumstances, IF the defendant had only fired one shot with the same physical results to the victim, the jury generally believed that it would have been much more difficult to come to a point "beyond reasonable doubt" and, even if everything else was exactly the same, the verdict, if there was a trial, could very well have been different.

I didn't post about this when I first read it - Just trying to not say anything.

But, since you mentioned this again, I'll say:

That logic is total bullshit!

If the shooting was justified - Multiply shots are justified. If you relied on this point - You just railroaded an innocent to jail.

Well, since you weren't there, nor were you at the trial, you obviously don't know what the fuck ALL the testimony was, nor ALL the relevant law, so there is no doubt that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, now do you? In fact, by inserting your uninformed opinion and saying that 12 men and women "railroaded" an innocent man because you don't know WTF you're talking about shows extreme stupidity on your part IMO.
.....

OK, since you want to cuss me and do your IMO thing - Here's mine back at you:

You post this thread with an air of pompousness and seem to be gloating on how well you handled the jury and judge.

AND I disagree – I think you and the other jurors did a very poor job!

I'm reading way too much character assessment into your description and not enough analysis of simply facts. Even to the point that you arranged to change your recommended sentence based on an additional after-the-fact character assessment.

First, Yeah, I wasn’t there when he started shooting,

BUT NEITHER WERE YOU or any of the others jurors!

Here’s what I would have wanted to do, Deliberate these:

1) What was the threat
2) How did he perceive this threat at the point he started shooting
3) AND did his perceived threat justify him to start shooting = YES, MAYBE or NO

The above 3 point would have been SIMPLE! I don’t read enough description of these into your story. Plus, I read too much character assessment and “after-the –fact” justification of your verdict and sentence(s).

Note to moderator: Might be best for AR to delete this thread now than to have it get mixed up in any future appeal.

You're a fucking internet idiot who, if you could read AND comprehend, would already know the answers to your questions and your note at the bottom of your above post proves that you really are a fool. In case you haven't figured it out, I don't give a damn how you read or interpret my posts, they're mine, not yours. If you want to serve on a jury and post your experiences, feel free. But just to answer your questions, which have already been answered above:

1)None 2)It's not a matter of how he perceived a threat, moron, it whether there was a real at that moment threat (the jury decided there was not, all threats that we put credence in were conditional) and, how would a reasonable and prudent man respond.3)No

.....

See - Your proving my point. Your more focus on character (in this case mine) than deliberating the important issues.

Your wrong on point 1)!
There was a threat acording to your story:

In the interim, gf goes over to one of her old boyfriends house and asks them to come back to her house to "beat his (her live-in and the owner of the house they lived in)ass"

You're still a fucking idiot. This is my last reply to you because it is clear that you don't have any idea what you're talking about, don't know any of the relevant laws, and don't have any knowledge about what actually occurred beyond my abbreviated account, but let me inform you that a gf asking someone to beat up on her boyfriend, and that person(s) declines is not a threat, especially when bf is not present. Obviously you don't even know what constitutes a threat. Damn, you're dumb.

All I can say is that you're damn lucky that showing how stupid you can be on the internet is not a crime.

PS: Why don't you post a thread with your experiences as a criminal juror?

How many pre-emptive strikes does the defense get in Texas? From the little I know about you I wouldn't consider you an ideal juror for the defense. (but I don't know what the rest of the jury pool looked like either) In PA I'm pretty much guaranteed to never serve as a juror in a criminal case) Thanks for serving.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
How many pre-emptive strikes does the defense get in Texas? From the little I know about you I wouldn't consider you an ideal juror for the defense. (but I don't know what the rest of the jury pool looked like either) In PA I'm pretty much guaranteed to never serve as a juror in a criminal case) Thanks for serving.

I don't know how many they get. (addendum: I just looked it up on net, so these are PROBABLY right, but I'm not swearing by them, in misdemeanor case, 3, felony, 10, capital, 15) Those were done while we were not present. AFA your opinion of my adequacy as a juror, I strongly disagree, and, of course, obviously so did both sides in this case. As a matter of fact, all the times I've been "perempted" in prior cases over the years, it has been by the prosecution. In this particular case, my opinions were never substantially different than the majority of the rest of the jurors, so, ideal or not, I was more or less in step with the other's opinions. Actually, I was probably one of the less vehement in my "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict, describing it as being a 9.1 on a 10 pt scale and 9.0 being "beyond reasonable doubt".

Referring to criminal cases, I don't think you can have an "ideal" juror for one side or the other, all they want is a fair and impartial juror who goes in with the knowledge that the prosecution MUST prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or the verdict MUST be not guilty. Interestingly "reasonable doubt" is not defined in Texas law.....this was brought out in the voir dire.

I ddn't mean that you were actually a poor choice for the defense, merely that your demographic is probably not ideal in general. Voir dire is usualy not exhaustive enough to exactly pigeonhole a potential juror. I know from personal experience that defense attornies don't regard me with favor, even though they don't really know much about me beyond the obvious.

No offense taken. At least you phrased it in a reasonable manner, unlike one on this thread.

AFA demographics go, all people involved in crime scene were white. The jury, including alternate(white), was 10 white (prob one or two hispanic descent in that) and 3 black. 2 of the whites were females, ages roughly 22 and 45. Blacks were roughly 30, 60, 65. White males were one in 20s, mostly in 30s and 40s, one or 2 50s, and 2 in 60s, including me. Several of the jurors knew each other from work, I didn't personally know any of them.

Not that it matters, but a few years back I was in voir dire as a potential juror and defendant was a middle aged black man charged with "burglary of an uninhabitied building". I don't remember all the details but prosecutor said something to effect that, "normally sentence for this would be 1 to 5 years, but, in this case, because defendant might be a multiple repeat offender, he might be subject to being sentenced to life in prison. It may not be the case but if you can not sentence him to life in prison, please speak with the judge." I sat there and thought about that for about 2 minutes, thinking I know one woman who flat out murdered her live in and got 7 years (druggies) and this guy is stealing from an uninhabited building and they want me to sentence him to life? I don't think so....I mean I hate thieves but.....so I raised my hand, approached the bench, told Judge what I was thinking and he said, "Thank you, you're dismissed."

Gatogordo-you seem to be a very honest man, and a man that can be honest with himself is a rare thing. If I ever have to go before a jury I would hope that I would get the same considerations that you have expressed.

I too have served as foreman on a jury that had long term federal prison time attatched (drugs), but what took me by complete suprise was when we started deliberations one of the women on the jury stated very forcefully "That lead Investigator is lying". I had been thinking the same thing and was trying to come up with a discussion point on that matter. I polled the rest and we all voted to toss the police version of events out the window.

Didn't do the defendants any good, there was too much other proof that they were in fact guilty. Several kilo's were introduced into evidence and the defence never denied ownership.

It is a hard thing to look someone in the eye and tell them you have voted to send them to prison. I understand why you were released from the earlier jury I would have had a problem with life in prison for burglary if no violence was involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
You're still a fucking idiot. This is my last reply to you because it is clear that you don't have any idea what you're talking about, don't know any of the relevant laws, and don't have any knowledge about what actually occurred beyond my abbreviated account, but let me inform you that a gf asking someone to beat up on her boyfriend, and that person(s) declines is not a threat, especially when bf is not present. Obviously you don't even know what constitutes a threat. Damn, you're dumb.

All I can say is that you're damn lucky that showing how stupid you can be on the internet is not a crime.

OK, I guessing you would have used these same bullying tactics your using on me with the other ones on the jury, too. And didn’t deliberate these much:

1) Bf wasn’t there cause “he left to go to the store he owns to cool off” – Your words.

This shows that defendant was willing to back away from a hostile situation by his actions.

2) If things were that bad for gf, She could/should have taken this opportunity to pack her bags and leave. Well…She did leave to go round up 2 of her thugs wanting them to come over and “beat his ass” when he returned.

Gf had the same opportunity as defendant to back away/get out, but instead, her actions shows she chose to scheme a revenge plan.

3) The 2 thugs said they weren't going to “beat his ass” – Yeah right!

But their actions shows different!
They not only CAME over to the defendants home, where they had NO BUSINESS – They stayed to screw defendant’s gf all night. These thugs, if they were genuinely concerned with her safety, should have gotten her out of there! They had plenty of opportunity to pack her out that morning. And how concerned were they really for gf’s safety, when they were planning to leave and leave her there by herself before the defendant called mid-day.

So what did they do? They should have gotten her out of there right then and there after they knew defendant was on his way home, but All 3 stayed to confront the defendant in his own home!

Damn-it this was a real threat to the defendant and y’all didn’t even discuss it much (if at all)!

Gotta love the internet. Everybody that hears the evidence thinks one way and somebody that reads about it is convinced they are all wet. Haven't I heard this story about thousand times already.

Gatogordo,
You are to be truly commended for your service and undoubtedly the anguish and sole searching you did to reach the decision you did with the remainder of the jury. I can tell by your comments you served your position with honor and followed the judges instructions as they were given.
Many will have the natural tendency to second guess the jury. They do so without seeing and hearing the many non-verbal or non-responsive communications the witnesses manifest when testifying. Undoubtedly there will be conflicting testimony and opinions. You and your fellow jurors had to determine the weight,if any, to be given the testimony and credibility of the witnesses.
Bottom line, it is impossible to second guess the jury (and blatantly unfair to them) without actually hearing/seeing the testimony and having the jury instructions one must follow.
Many thanks to you and the countless other jurors across our free land that forestall their time and lives to perform this community service. We truly would not have the freedoms and system of justice we enjoy here in the USA under our constitution without good people like you serving. You and your fellow jurors nationwide are to be commended for your service.
As a trial court level judge my utmost respect goes to our jurors and their dedication to their calling. The best to you sir.
Sincerely,
Jerry

They have trials in Idaho??? I thought it was "get a new rope, boys, we done stretched the last one."


Seriously, thank you, your honor, for your kind comments and insight. I really do deeply appreciate them and all the positive comments in this thread and hope it encourages others to serve on a jury. As I mentioned earlier, if called, I would do it again.