DavidCookroxmysox
New member
- Mar 10, 2008
- 24
- 0
- 1
I've been following a local murder case for some time now. To be fair to everyone, I have to point out it's a capital murder case, meaning the prosecutor has asked for the death penalty. For the moment though, put that aside. In my state, the trial and sentencing are separate events. First there's the trial to determine guilt or innocence, then there's the sentencing hearing to determine if the death penalty is warranted. Even if the prosecutor asks for the death penalty, the jury can still decide the defendant is guilty but not deserving of the death penalty. What I'm concerned with though is the trial itself and whether or not you feel there was enough evidence to convict the defendant of the crime.
The facts of the case are this: a police officer made a traffic stop after dark on a vehicle with no headlights going the wrong way on a one-way street. Before the officer gets out of his patrol car, the driver exits his vehicle starts yelling at the officer. The officer orders the driver to put his hands on the roof of the car. As the officer is frisking the driver, the driver turns and punches the officer. The officer responds by striking the driver with his flashlight and then attempts to handcuff the driver. As this is happening, another man runs across the street and shoots the officer in the back at close range. As the officer falls, he turns to his back, draws his weapon and shoots the guy that shot him in the stomach, before collapsing and dropping his gun. The shooter then stands over the officer and fires 3-4 more shots at point blank range into the officer, the last of which is fired into the officer’s face, killing him instantly. The shooter then tries to run away, but can't because of his injury. When back-up police officers arrive, they find the shooter sitting against the wall of a building 30 feet (10 meters) from the slain officer. In his hand is the .38 caliber revolver with 5 empty shell casings still inside. When the officers attempted to take the shooter into custody, he resisted, striking and grappling with the officers until subdued.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the ballistics report finding that while the bullets recovered from the dead officer's body were too mangled for an exact match to a specific weapon, they were consistent with the caliber and rifling of the defendant’s make and model of weapon. Additionally, there were 3 eyewitnesses who saw the entire incident from within 60 feet (30 meters) who testified they saw the defendant cross the street and shoot the officer. The prosecution also produced a witness from the hospital where the defendant was taken who testified the defendant said, "I shot him and I hope the MF'er dies!" in the emergency room.
The defense maintained that someone else shot the officer and ran away, but was unable to produce a witness to testify to seeing anyone flee the scene. The defendant and the driver of the car, who ended up being the defendant’s brother, never took the stand. Originally, the defendant wanted to represent himself at trial. The judge allowed him to until the defendant proved incapable of adequately representing himself during the preliminary hearings prior to the actual trial. By the time the trial started, an attorney chosen by the defendant was representing him. The attorney had been involved with over 20 capital murder cases prior to this particular trial and far from being a court appointed public defender, this attorney was well paid. The defendant was disruptive during the entire trial and was repeatedly removed from the court during the proceedings.
After listening to the evidence, the jury took less than 3 hours to find the defendant guilty.
Now my question to you: is do you feel there was enough evidence to convict the defendant?
The facts of the case are this: a police officer made a traffic stop after dark on a vehicle with no headlights going the wrong way on a one-way street. Before the officer gets out of his patrol car, the driver exits his vehicle starts yelling at the officer. The officer orders the driver to put his hands on the roof of the car. As the officer is frisking the driver, the driver turns and punches the officer. The officer responds by striking the driver with his flashlight and then attempts to handcuff the driver. As this is happening, another man runs across the street and shoots the officer in the back at close range. As the officer falls, he turns to his back, draws his weapon and shoots the guy that shot him in the stomach, before collapsing and dropping his gun. The shooter then stands over the officer and fires 3-4 more shots at point blank range into the officer, the last of which is fired into the officer’s face, killing him instantly. The shooter then tries to run away, but can't because of his injury. When back-up police officers arrive, they find the shooter sitting against the wall of a building 30 feet (10 meters) from the slain officer. In his hand is the .38 caliber revolver with 5 empty shell casings still inside. When the officers attempted to take the shooter into custody, he resisted, striking and grappling with the officers until subdued.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the ballistics report finding that while the bullets recovered from the dead officer's body were too mangled for an exact match to a specific weapon, they were consistent with the caliber and rifling of the defendant’s make and model of weapon. Additionally, there were 3 eyewitnesses who saw the entire incident from within 60 feet (30 meters) who testified they saw the defendant cross the street and shoot the officer. The prosecution also produced a witness from the hospital where the defendant was taken who testified the defendant said, "I shot him and I hope the MF'er dies!" in the emergency room.
The defense maintained that someone else shot the officer and ran away, but was unable to produce a witness to testify to seeing anyone flee the scene. The defendant and the driver of the car, who ended up being the defendant’s brother, never took the stand. Originally, the defendant wanted to represent himself at trial. The judge allowed him to until the defendant proved incapable of adequately representing himself during the preliminary hearings prior to the actual trial. By the time the trial started, an attorney chosen by the defendant was representing him. The attorney had been involved with over 20 capital murder cases prior to this particular trial and far from being a court appointed public defender, this attorney was well paid. The defendant was disruptive during the entire trial and was repeatedly removed from the court during the proceedings.
After listening to the evidence, the jury took less than 3 hours to find the defendant guilty.
Now my question to you: is do you feel there was enough evidence to convict the defendant?
