Cost of 8-day self-defense case: $332,000

This was a local self-defense case. It wrapped up last month but they finally released the cost of the eight-day trial for the defendant who had three attorneys and expert witnesses: $332,000. Thought this would be a good piece of data for folks wondering what a successful self-defense case might run. The case was questionable enough (firing on a man in a stolen car driving away) to go to court.

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Gail-Gerlachs-defense-costs-estimated-at-332000--260843611.html


In our state of Washington, RCW 9A.16.110(2) requires the state to reimburse legal expenses.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110

Since the article leaves out details, the owner shot at a car thief who stole the owner's idling vehicle from the driveway, driving away from the owner. The contention is where the homeowner said he believed the driver was making furtive movement consistent to drawing a firearm. The owner engaged the fleeing vehicle and shot one round through the headrest, striking the thief in the head. If claiming self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the defense, but the level of evidence required is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't have any of the court documents. I would be very curious to know if its public domain yet. The case was not big enough to be televised like the Zimmerman case so I don't know what the arguments or strategies were.

Sol said:

They should have itemized it.

Curious of the cost of these expert witnesses.

Click to expand...

Done!

$25,000 per expert witness.
Richard Lee, head counsel, 600 hours, $170,000
co-counsel Dave Stevens $100,000-125,000
associate counsel $1,000
fundraising $8,000

Richard Lee estimates prosecution will dispute the bill and it might take up to two years to recover the cost from the state.

Self-defense ain't cheap folks. Make sure it's worth it! (ie, is it worth the value of the stuff and things being stolen?)
http://www.krem.com/home/Spokane-taxpayers-to-pay-for-Gerlachs-defense-255569091.html

Jury deliberated for only 4 hours. This follow-up article does a decent job to recap events on each of the 7 days of trial plus the deliberations.

"A witness said he saw Kaluza-Graham in the vehicle with his hands in the air the moment after he heard the gun shot and saw the SUV race by him."

The wife also makes the same claim.

http://www.krem.com/home/Jury-selection-enters-day-2-253408541.html

If they're going to try suing you in civil court, they're going to say you showed negligence or it was accidental, so they can tap your homeowner's insurance. They don't come after your personal finances unless you're particularly wealthy.

Your defense is pretty simple, and it's the same you used in a criminal court of law. Justifiable homicide isn't an accident. You purposely used lethal force, and that lethal force was lawfully justifiable. It was no accident or negligence. Therefore, homeowner's won't pay out. The lawyer loses the fiscal incentive he is hoping to cash in on. Without a strong case, most lawyers won't even attempt it, especially if you were absolved of wrongdoing in a criminal court.

Their lawyer is going to really chew on that for a while and see if they can mount an effective case against you using preponderance of evidence to prove you were negligent in a civil court so they can tap your homeowner's policy. While the civil court angle is a real possibility, it's often NOT the case. "But OJ" does not mean everyone gets dragged to civil court over a legitimate self-defense case as proven in criminal court. FBI UCR shows 720 justifiable homicides for 2012. I can tell you there weren't 720 follow-up civil court cases.

The ACLDN distributed a write-up on the case involving a man named larry Hickey. I've asked him about the incident and he was grateful that everything worked out in the end, but he was tried twice in a criminal court and once in a civil court. You might find the retelling of his tale very interesting. In the criminal trials, they tried to say he charged out on the street before he shot the two aggressors, to paint him as an aggressor. In the civil trial, they tried to say he shot two aggressors on his property, so they could tap his homeowner's insurance. Also well-worth the read because of all the botched investigative work which was blatantly overlooked, and exactly what you can expect if you go through such a trial.

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey Booklet.pdf

Thanks for the first post!

In one of the articles I linked, it gives a rundown on the trial on each day, and the defense appears to have mounted an affirmative defense on the grounds of a belief that the defendant felt in immediate danger of his life due to supposed furtive movement by the deceased, which was argued as consistent with raising a gun towards him. The wife testified the same thing, but she would not be an unbiased party.

However, one of the neighbors was an eyewitness called to the stand, and he testify to the effect of seeing the thief's hand come upwards in a manner that the defendant interpreted as a motion of raising a firearm.

"A witness said he saw Kaluza-Graham in the vehicle with his hands in the air the moment after he heard the gun shot and saw the SUV race by him."

http://www.krem.com/home/Jury-selection-enters-day-2-253408541.html

Seeing as all we have are second-hand reports through the media, I don't know if the defense made a good case or it was straight jury nullification. Are juries today even instructed that they have the power to nullify?