Support NeoGAF

[Monster Zero]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A mistrial was declared Friday in the trial of a white police officer in the 2013 shooting death of an unarmed African-American man.

The decision by Judge Robert C. Ervin came hours after jurors had said they were deadlocked but were urged to continue deliberating in an effort to reach a verdict.

The officer, Randall Kerrick, was accused of using excessive force in the shooting of Jonathan Ferrell, 24, a former college football player who died early on Sept. 14, 2013.

Judge Ervin brought the jury of eight women and four men back into the courtroom shortly after 4 p.m., and the foreman said he saw no possibility of reaching a verdict. Jurors told the judge earlier that the three votes they had taken were split — 7 to 5, 8 to 4 and 8 to 4 — but they gave no indication of which way they are leaning.

“Honestly, we have exhausted every possibility,” the foreman said, according to The Associated Press.

Mr. Ferrell, 24, had wrecked his car on a dark stretch of road and walked to acrime in eastern Charlotte when the homeowner triggered the burglary alarm and called 911. Three police officers arrived soon after. Immediately upon seeing Mr. Ferrell in the dark, one officer fired his Taser and missed. Officer Kerrick then opened fire, hitting Mr. Ferrell 10 times and killing him.

The fatal shooting in eastern Charlotte occurred amid the beginning of the national debate over the deaths of young black men that followed the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012, but preceded the deaths of black men at the hands of law officers in Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore, North Charleston, S.C., Staten Island and other places.

During his instructions to the jury, Judge Ervin said that the verdict hinged not only on whether they decide that Officer Kerrick was acting in self-defense but also on whether they think that the officer “believed it to be necessary” to kill Mr. Ferrell in order to protect himself or someone else.

Officer Kerrick, who was suspended without pay, testified that he had no choice but to shoot because he thought Mr. Ferrell might try to take his gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/u...rell-police-officer-randall-kerrick.html?_r=0

This dude literally almost dies in an accident, crawls out his window and seeks help only to get shot down, and the defense managed to convince 4 people he was trying to commit a crime, mistrial me if old

 

[Undead]

You seem surprised

 

[KingBroly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/u...rell-police-officer-randall-kerrick.html?_r=0

This dude literally almost dies in an accident, crawls out his window and seeks help only to get shot down, and the defense managed to convince 4 people he was trying to commit a crime, mistrial me if old

I take it you didn't read the part where they said they didn't give a direction on which way the vote went.

 

[Poltergust]

It could actually be worse; the defense could've convinced 8 people instead. The article says that the jurors did not say which way they were leaning.

 

[Pizza Booty]

they put this man in handcuffs while he lay on the ground dying after shooting him ten times. these police are delusional and deserve to spend the rest of their lives in jail cells.

 

[GaimeGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/u...rell-police-officer-randall-kerrick.html?_r=0

This dude literally almost dies in an accident, crawls out his window and seeks help only to get shot down, and the defense managed to convince 4 people he was trying to commit a crime, mistrial me if old

During his instructions to the jury, Judge Ervin said that the verdict hinged not only on whether they decide that Officer Kerrick was acting in self-defense but also on whether they think that the officer “believed it to be necessary” to kill Mr. Ferrell in order to protect himself or someone else.

in other words, fuck the victim, only kerrick matters.

What's the point of having a jurist system when juries are given such warped instructions? Shouldn't the jury be told to draw reasonable conclusions from the testimony and evidence based on common sense and experiences and debate amongst each other?

You intentionally kill someone who was simply seeking help after an accident. That should be manslaughter at the very least. It wasn't a necessary death for anyone's safety. Oh, you made a mistake? Well, that's a risk you take when you take it upon yourself to kill someone. If you fuck up, you need to be held accountable

 

[TheOMan]

Those instructions are messed up and I don't believe a single word the cops are saying here. Just stupid and heartbreaking.

I really hope there is not a defense force for this.

Edit: Is the cop a precog? I think this person in serious distress might go for my gun even though he hasn't done so, therefore I must kill him.

These jurors on the wrong side are brain dead.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I take it you didn't read the part where they said they didn't give a direction on which way the vote went.

I wouldn't mind placing a bet

 

[Monster Zero]

It could actually be worse; the defense could've convinced 8 people instead. The article says that the jurors did not say which way they were leaning.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article31779618.html
Jurors unanimous about deadlock

In court Friday, Superior Court Judge Robert Ervin polled jurors by a show of hands about whether they thought they could reach a unanimous verdict. All raised their hands signaling they couldn’t.

Ervin was told the panel was split 8 to 4. A person close to the case said four jurors were in favor of convicting Kerrick and eight were against.

“The case will remain open per further proceedings,” Ervin told the hushed courtroom, ending the trial.

Jurors, deliberating since Tuesday after 11 days of testimony, sent a note out to Ervin earlier Friday saying jurors had taken three votes. Ervin asked jurors not to indicate whether the votes leaned toward acquittal or conviction.

The first vote Tuesday afternoon, shortly after jurors received instructions from the judge, was 7 to 5. The second vote was on Thursday afternoon, and the vote was 8 to 4. A third vote Friday morning was 8 to 4.

Defense Attorney George Laughrun asked the judge to declare a mistrial saying “it sounds like there would be no reasonable possibility” of coming to a verdict. Prosecutors asked the judge to let the jury continue its work.

Ervin sent the jury back to deliberate further and they initially indicated they were making progress. But they soon signaled there was no hope for resolving the deadlock.

Prosecutors to review record

Adren Harris, special deputy attorney general, said prosecutors will review the court record and “consider our options” about retrying the case.

He thanked the jurors and the judge. “We offer our condolences to Jonathan Ferrell’s family,” Harris said, flanked by prosecutors Teresa Postell and Steven Arbogast.

Chris Chestnut, an attorney for the Ferrell family, said they will ask for a new trial.

“The family maintains that this was murder,” said Chestnut, a Florida personal-injury attorney. “There was no justification for Randall Kerrick to fire 10 shots into Jonathan Ferrell.”

Chestnut said the jury should have been shown a video of Kerrick re-enacting the confrontation during an investigation into the shooting. His actions in that demonstration were contradicted by what the dashcam video recorded at the scene, Chestnut said.

He also accused the defense of “playing the race card” during the trial in their descriptions of Ferrell. “They tried to characterize him as a black thug,” Chestnut said.

Georgia Ferrell of Tallahassee, Fla., the victim’s mother, said, “We’ve got to stop them from killing our children.”

Kerrick’s family left the courthouse without comment.

Great defense, real solid. Was 2 Hispanic, 3 black, 7 white

 

[KingBroly]

I wouldn't mind placing a bet

Following the news here locally would give you the indication it was going to be a hung jury or a not guilty verdict.

 

[liquidtmd]

THATS a definition of a Mistrial??? A jury not being able to come to a unanimous decision?

Fuck me, I thought Mistrials were held due to some Jury members divulging evidence or some shocking contradictory evidence coming to light.

 

[Htown]

Was 2 Hispanic, 3 black, 7 white

First vote was 7 to 5, weird.

 

[CrimsonCommie]

Finally get some cops going to court but now it's going to be almost impossible to find 12 jurors that will actually convict a cop.

 

[Stinkles]

I wonder how many white jurors coincidentally felt the officer was understandably confused by the panic of the crash victim. I'm sure it was only one, two tops.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

First vote was 7 to 5, weird.

What are the odds?

 

[iamblades]

in other words, fuck the victim, only kerrick matters.

What's the point of having a jurist system when juries are given such warped instructions? Shouldn't the jury be told to draw reasonable conclusions from the testimony and evidence based on common sense and experiences and debate amongst each other?

You intentionally kill someone who was simply seeking help after an accident. That should be manslaughter at the very least. It wasn't a necessary death for anyone's safety. Oh, you made a mistake? Well, that's a risk you take when you take it upon yourself to kill someone. If you fuck up, you need to be held accountable

The standard is reasonable belief.

If that belief turns out to be mistaken after the fact does not matter as long as the belief was reasonable.

I don't know nearly enough about the specifics in this case to know whether that was the correct decision for the jury to come to and there are certainly biases in juries, but what you are suggesting is a complete reversal of hundreds of years of common law.

If a reasonable person acting in good faith makes a mistake that results in a tragic outcome, we shouldn't punish them.

Again don't know anything about the facts of this case..

 

[GaimeGuy]

The standard is reasonable belief.

If that belief turns out to be mistaken after the fact does not matter as long as the belief was reasonable.

I don't know nearly enough about the specifics in this case to know whether that was the correct decision for the jury to come to and there are certainly biases in juries, but what you are suggesting is a complete reversal of hundreds of years of common law.

If a reasonable person acting in good faith makes a mistake that results in a tragic outcome, we shouldn't punish them.

Again don't know anything about the facts of this case..

When their actions were a homicide? An intentional one at that? I'm a forgiving guy, but look, if you point a gun at someone deliberately, and deliberately shoot them dead, and that person meant you no harm... you need to be held accountable. Even if it was in good faith. I'm not saying you need to be locked up for 15 years, but I don't think the state should give the impression that such deaths are nonpunishable.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Great defense, real solid. Was 2 Hispanic, 3 black, 7 white

And there it is. I'm not a betting man, but it's not hard to guess how this went down.

 

[CadetMahoney]

And there it is. I'm not a betting man, but it's not hard to guess how this went down.

pretty much.

 

[Kettch]

The problem is that "reasonable belief" is a blank check when it comes to police officers. The way it currently works is that they're scared that anyone could kill them, so it's reasonable for them to kill anyone.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[Dead Man]

I take it you didn't read the part where they said they didn't give a direction on which way the vote went.

In fairness, the alternative is that they convinced 8 people. The op was being generous.

 

[Slayven]

Will there be a retrial?

 

[cameron]

The police captain testified that Kerrick violated department policy. Had no effect. The fear that Ferrell was going after Kerrick's gun is just so fucking stupid. I don't know if it's true hysteria or an excuse made up after the fact. Whatever. Doesn't matter.

Will there be a retrial?

AP this morning:

Prosecutors, who had pressed Ervin to urge the jury to continue deliberations, now must decide if they want to try Kerrick a second time.

Prosecutor Adren Harris issued a statement saying the state attorney general's office will review the trial transcript and other information and fully consider the options before making any decisions regarding the case.

 

[Slayer-33]

Absolutely disgusting.

.

 

[blakep267]

I've never done jury duty before but I have to assume a situation like this is maddening. Especially for the 3-4 people voting guilty.

 

[Gattsu25]

Utterly disheartening.

The jury makeup and initial vote also fails to raise eyebrows. This shit is getting too routine.

 

[Best Nintendo Fan Ever]

This whole 'police do no wrong ever' mantra needs to go. What a waste.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

What are the odds?

It's like when people say, Don't vote for Obama because he's black. Really?

 

[Link]

The problem is that "reasonable belief" is a blank check when it comes to police officers. The way it currently works is that they're scared that anyone could kill them, so it's reasonable for them to kill anyone.

Actually, thanks to Stand Your Ground laws, it's now a blank check for anyone.

 

[TheOMan]

The standard is reasonable belief.

If that belief turns out to be mistaken after the fact does not matter as long as the belief was reasonable.

I don't know nearly enough about the specifics in this case to know whether that was the correct decision for the jury to come to and there are certainly biases in juries, but what you are suggesting is a complete reversal of hundreds of years of common law.

If a reasonable person acting in good faith makes a mistake that results in a tragic outcome, we shouldn't punish them.

Again don't know anything about the facts of this case..

His mistake led to somebody being shot 10 times. People get punished by the law for making much lesser mistakes ALL the time. You must be joking.

 

[Cipherr]

The standard is reasonable belief.

If that belief turns out to be mistaken after the fact does not matter as long as the belief was reasonable.

I don't know nearly enough about the specifics in this case to know whether that was the correct decision for the jury to come to and there are certainly biases in juries, but what you are suggesting is a complete reversal of hundreds of years of common law.

If a reasonable person acting in good faith makes a mistake that results in a tragic outcome, we shouldn't punish them.

Again don't know anything about the facts of this case..

Am I high? Or did you just indicate that you think breaking laws is fine as long as it was a genuine accident?

 

[KingBroly]

This whole 'police do no wrong ever' mantra needs to go. What a waste.

I dunno where you got that from, man. The term "Pigs" for Cops has been around a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.

 

[royalan]

I dunno where you got that from, man. The term "Pigs" for Cops has been around a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.

Not in the suburbs.

 

[KingBroly]

Not in the suburbs.

yeah, no.

 

[royalan]

yeah, no.

Um yeah.

Traditionally, calling cops pigs tended to happen in communities that were unfairly targeted by said cops.

The suburbs are where the "police appreciation picnics" happened.

 

[NastyBook]

*sigh*

 

[Culex]

The standard is reasonable belief.

If that belief turns out to be mistaken after the fact does not matter as long as the belief was reasonable.

I don't know nearly enough about the specifics in this case to know whether that was the correct decision for the jury to come to and there are certainly biases in juries, but what you are suggesting is a complete reversal of hundreds of years of common law.

If a reasonable person acting in good faith makes a mistake that results in a tragic outcome, we shouldn't punish them.

Again don't know anything about the facts of this case..

It's a good thing you aren't an attorney.

 

[Siegcram]

If a reasonable person acting in good faith makes a mistake that results in a tragic outcome, we shouldn't punish them.

Again don't know anything about the facts of this case..

That's not how the law works at all, though. Especially if your "mistake" is riddeling a guy with bullets.

 

[iamblades]

Am I high? Or did you just indicate that you think breaking laws is fine as long as it was a genuine accident?

Mistake of fact is a something that has been around as a defense for hundreds of years in the common law.

You can't have the mens rea to commit the crime if you had a reasonable and honest belief that you were acting in a lawful way. A strict liability mens rea is only applicable to civil infractions, the lowest standard for a criminal trial is criminal negligence.

Again I don't know if his belief was honest and reasonable in this case, but we do have have a legal tradition of not punishing people who make honest mistakes of fact, who had no intent to commit the crime and were not acting in a negligent manner(which is the important one in this case).

 

[Monster Zero]

Update

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/jurors-confronted-race-in-deliberations/article_cba26e0d-46b2-594d-83c1-b5db5ee6319f.html?mode=jqm
Jurors confronted race in deliberations

Jurors in the trial of Randall “Wes” Kerrick, the white police officer accused of killing an unarmed black man, confronted race at the beginning of their deliberations last week.

They agreed to keep it out of their decision-making, said Bruce Raffe, the foreman. He was one of three jurors interviewed Saturday, a day after a mistrial was declared.

“I felt like we could keep race as far from this as possible, and we all said this wasn’t about race,” he said.

Of the eight jurors who favored acquitting Kerrick in the death of Jonathan Ferrell, one was black, one Hispanic and six white, Raffe said.

Of the four favoring conviction, two were black, one Hispanic and one white.

On the first day of deliberations, Raffe said, the jury took an anonymous vote, writing down guilty or not guilty on slips of paper and placing them in a bowl.

When the results were read, there were seven votes for acquittal, five for conviction.

By the end of deliberations, the vote was 8-4 in favor of acquittal after a white female juror changed her mind, Raffe said.

Raffe said he was steadfast in his belief Kerrick was not guilty and believed most of the other not guilty votes were similarly committed.

Raffe said he was leaning toward acquittal when the prosecution finished calling witnesses and the defense was to begin.

Dashcam video

Although he thought Kerrick’s defense team did a good job cross-examining the state’s witnesses, the most important piece of evidence to him was the dashcam video, which showed Ferrell walking toward the police that night in September 2013, then rapidly advancing toward Kerrick when a Taser is aimed at him.

“It resonated with everyone,” Raffe said.

“We saw it 15 times on the first day. We also took it back into deliberations. We felt like it was an aggressive move towards the police officer. To me, he wasn’t doing anything other than making an aggressive assault.”

Raffe said he and some other jurors felt the dashcam video “was the only truly solid evidence.”

He said he believed Ferrell had other options rather than moving toward the officers, like sitting down or running another way.

Part of the trial focused on whether Kerrick should have pulled his gun after his fellow officer pulled out his Taser.

But Raffe said he was swayed by testimony that Kerrick had been instructed earlier by a supervisor that if one officer draws a Taser, a backup officer should pull his gun.

“I believe he did everything he could not to pull the trigger.”

He said he believed Ferrell had other options rather than moving toward the officers, like sitting down or running another way.


Ha, no

 

[Earthstrike]

He could've ran away? No, he still would've gotten shot for "fleeing the scene of the crime". He should've remained still? Until what? He will have to move in a direction sooner or later.

 

[mre]

THATS a definition of a Mistrial??? A jury not being able to come to a unanimous decision?

Fuck me, I thought Mistrials were held due to some Jury members divulging evidence or some shocking contradictory evidence coming to light.

Mistrials when you have a hung jury are probably the most common types of mistrials.

Thought this was interesting, after all of the insinuations that the vote was split down a racial line (with all 7 whites voting to acquit):

Of the four favoring conviction, two were black, one Hispanic and one white.

. . .

By the end of deliberations, the vote was 8-4 in favor of acquittal after a white female juror changed her mind, Raffe said.

This means that at the end of the day you still had 1 black and 1 hispanic voting to acquit the officer.

 

[Siegcram]

“I believe he did everything he could not to pull the trigger.”

Well, except not actually pulling the trigger.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Update



He said he believed Ferrell had other options rather than moving toward the officers, like sitting down or running another way.


Ha, no

Hey, if the badly injured Black guy wanted to show he wasn't a threat he should have sat down and risked being beaten by cops-- who btw, were told by 911 dispatchers that he was attempting to rob the home of the woman who he requested help from.

Unreal.

How can you expect justice when you are constantly blamed for your own death, even in situations like this?

 

[cameron]

“We saw it 15 times on the first day. We also took it back into deliberations. We felt like it was an aggressive move towards the police officer. To me, he wasn’t doing anything other than making an aggressive assault.”

Dumb.

He said he believed Ferrell had other options rather than moving toward the officers, like sitting down or running another way.

Nice how it's always the random civilian behaving erratically is the one who should've exercised other options and never the armed, and supposedly trained, professional.

 

[SliceSabre]

Shit like this is exactly why I will NEVER have sympathy for the police and their 'plight'.

 

[boiled goose]

If cops are so afraid that people will take their guns maybe they shouldn't carry them.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Police have the game on god mode with all the cheat codes activated. A damn shame.

 

[Weiss]

Jesus Christ. We're never going to see justice, are we?