Guilty on assault.
Guilty on criminal mischief.
Guilty on aggrevated assault on a police officer.
The first two were easy the aggrevated assault on the police officer was very tough for us. We actually deliberated for over 3 hours on this on verdict. There are 7 criteria that have to be met in order to render a guilty verdict on this count and we were agreed on all but one that took almost the entire time to hammer out.
It dealt with the officer feeling threatened for his own personal safety by the actions or words of the defendant.
The police officer put two rounds in the chest of the defendant after being called to a burglary in progress call that turned out to be a domestic dispute. Upon reaching the residence the officer spotted a female inside a bedroom bracing up against a closed door clutching a baby in one hand and a butcher knife in the other. The officer heard pounding and saw the door was being jolted from the other side. The officer enters the appartment clears the kitchen, clears the livingroom and spots at the end of the hall the defendant pressing against the bedroom door some 18 feet away. Testimony by the officer said he shouted "Police, hands up" and then repeated a second time. Officer said defendant turned at which time the officer saw a knife in the defendants hand and the officer said he shouted "Drop the Knife" twice. The officer said the defendant completed his turn and said "come on man" and then moved forward at which time the officer put two rounds in the defendant.
The problem was through testimony it was obvious the defendant wasn't telling the whole truth. It was also pretty evident that the police weren't being completely honest either. I mean let's face it if we were to find the defendant not guilty of the aggrevated assault on the police officer then the defendant has a very good case in a civil suit against the police department.
I had a problem with the Crime Scene officers testimoy as to where the 2 spent 40 cal. cassings were in relation to where the officer said he shot the defendant. During jury selections we were asked if any of us owned guns and not surprisingly all the jury members selected do not own guns. I guess if we were ignorant about how guns opperate then it helped both the defense and the prosecution. Anyways not owning a gun and not understanding the physics or the opperations of the projectiles aren't the same thing.
Also I had a problem because this officer even though prior to entering the dwelliing appeared to act appropiately once inside and noticing that there was a closed door between the defendant and the victim had an opportunity to use a tasser instead of his firearm. It seemed that the officer over.reacted got too close to the defendant giving himself no option but to shoot.
I would have remained deadlocked if I hadn't finally noticed in one of the crimescene photos some blood splatter on the wall that was in evidence due to the picture but never brought out in open court testimony. There were smudges of blood on the wall that could be explained easily enough but the splatters on the wall could only have been made in the defendant was actually closer to the entrance of the hallway rather than at the very end of the hallway.
This could have been cleared up easily enough if the prosecution had done a better job in the courtroom. There were so many mistakes made both by the prosecution and the defense attourney. Both parties tried tricks rather than logic to work the jurors over which was really sad.
The defendant was guilty according to the actual law but the officer has some culpability by acting too hastily. The officer wasn't on trial in this case though and as jurors we couldn't anticipate or bring anything not in evidence into out decision making.
Guilty on criminal mischief.
Guilty on aggrevated assault on a police officer.
The first two were easy the aggrevated assault on the police officer was very tough for us. We actually deliberated for over 3 hours on this on verdict. There are 7 criteria that have to be met in order to render a guilty verdict on this count and we were agreed on all but one that took almost the entire time to hammer out.
It dealt with the officer feeling threatened for his own personal safety by the actions or words of the defendant.
The police officer put two rounds in the chest of the defendant after being called to a burglary in progress call that turned out to be a domestic dispute. Upon reaching the residence the officer spotted a female inside a bedroom bracing up against a closed door clutching a baby in one hand and a butcher knife in the other. The officer heard pounding and saw the door was being jolted from the other side. The officer enters the appartment clears the kitchen, clears the livingroom and spots at the end of the hall the defendant pressing against the bedroom door some 18 feet away. Testimony by the officer said he shouted "Police, hands up" and then repeated a second time. Officer said defendant turned at which time the officer saw a knife in the defendants hand and the officer said he shouted "Drop the Knife" twice. The officer said the defendant completed his turn and said "come on man" and then moved forward at which time the officer put two rounds in the defendant.
The problem was through testimony it was obvious the defendant wasn't telling the whole truth. It was also pretty evident that the police weren't being completely honest either. I mean let's face it if we were to find the defendant not guilty of the aggrevated assault on the police officer then the defendant has a very good case in a civil suit against the police department.
I had a problem with the Crime Scene officers testimoy as to where the 2 spent 40 cal. cassings were in relation to where the officer said he shot the defendant. During jury selections we were asked if any of us owned guns and not surprisingly all the jury members selected do not own guns. I guess if we were ignorant about how guns opperate then it helped both the defense and the prosecution. Anyways not owning a gun and not understanding the physics or the opperations of the projectiles aren't the same thing.
Also I had a problem because this officer even though prior to entering the dwelliing appeared to act appropiately once inside and noticing that there was a closed door between the defendant and the victim had an opportunity to use a tasser instead of his firearm. It seemed that the officer over.reacted got too close to the defendant giving himself no option but to shoot.
I would have remained deadlocked if I hadn't finally noticed in one of the crimescene photos some blood splatter on the wall that was in evidence due to the picture but never brought out in open court testimony. There were smudges of blood on the wall that could be explained easily enough but the splatters on the wall could only have been made in the defendant was actually closer to the entrance of the hallway rather than at the very end of the hallway.
This could have been cleared up easily enough if the prosecution had done a better job in the courtroom. There were so many mistakes made both by the prosecution and the defense attourney. Both parties tried tricks rather than logic to work the jurors over which was really sad.
The defendant was guilty according to the actual law but the officer has some culpability by acting too hastily. The officer wasn't on trial in this case though and as jurors we couldn't anticipate or bring anything not in evidence into out decision making.