my wife was on a self-defense case jury

[tuj]

Hi fellow shooters:

I thought I would share with you some interesting things my wife told me after she concluded her jury duty today. Her case was a murder case what and the defense contented it was self-defense. I've asked her to write up a summary of the case and I will post it here, but here are some of the basics details:

-the defendant was leaving his apartment in a high-crime area of town at 6pm. He was carrying his laptop bag with his computer and a Ruger 45ACP (sorry not sure exactly what gun).

-when the defendant went through a gate in his complex, he literally bumped into another man (the deceased). They exchanged words.

-the deceased took his shirt off (even though it was raining) and yelled verbal threats and a scuffle ensued.

-there is debate over how long the scuffle lasted, the defendant said 2 minutes while the girlfriend of the deceased said 20 minutes.

-the defendant separated from the scuffle and proceed to continue walking towards his car.

-at this point the deceased re-appeared in the parking lot, this time holding a knife, stabbing at the air, yelling verbal threats, and blocking the path of the defendant.

-the girlfriend of the deceased appeared and threw a rock which struck the defendant in the shin. At this point the defendant believed he was facing multiple assailants.

-the defendant drew his gun. He was carrying in condition 3 (no round in chamber). Defendant racked the gun and shot. He was unsure if he hit the deceased on his first shot, so he fired a second. They were about 3 yards apart.

-the deceased turned and started to run. The defendant fired one more shot (which supposedly missed). At this point the defendant's gun jammed.

-the deceased ran to his apartment where he started to bleed out. He was shot twice, once in the arm, consistent with his arm being out in front of his body holding a knife, and once in the side, with the bullet traveling diagonally through his abdomen.

-the deceased's girlfriend called 911. The defendant also called 911.

-the deceased was transported to a hospital but died from injuries three days later.

--------------

Those are the facts. He are some interesting bits of "quality" police work:

-only 1 piece of brass was ever recovered and it's location of recovery was unknown. Seriously. Someone (police) just picked it up and didn't photograph where they found it. :banghead:

-there were no 911 tapes.

-the deceased's apartment was never searched and no knife was ever recovered.

---------------

Disputed:

-where exactly the shooting took place. The girlfriend contends it was in a courtyard while the defendant says it took place in the parking lot.

-the girlfriend claimed the defendant shot at her.

-how many rounds were initially loaded in the gun and how many were fired. The police recovered the gun in a jammed state, but they cleared it and removed the live ammo without counting it. :banghead:

-the two rounds exited the body of the deceased but the bullets were never recovered.
---------------

This happened in 2007. The defendant has been facing murder charges since then. His first lawyer was dismissed *by the judge* for gross incompetence.

---------------

Madam Foreman (my wife), how read you the verdict?

NOT GUILTY.



---------------

This real-life case makes you consider a few things:

1. Almost no one ever goes down from a gun-shot. Jim Cirillo said he only saw two one-shot-stops in his career and that was from a 30-carbine and a 12ga.

2. Condition 3 probably isn't the best to carry in, but in this case the defendant made it work.

3. There was not testimony as to the kind of ammo the defendant used, but my guess is that it was not hollow-point as there were two exit wounds.

Just thought I would share with you guys.

 

[Iramo94]

I don't know about Texas use of force laws, but his third shot seemed to be in error if the deceased had already started running away.

 

[tuj]

his third shot seemed to be in error

My wife said they talked about that in the jury room. The whole incident took place so fast that they didn't think he was intentionally doing anything beyond 'shooting to stop the threat'. That was one of the major premises of the case was that third shot.

 

[armoredman]

Good reason to practice failure drills, too. I hear a LOT of shooting stories where "the gun jammed".
The "shot in the back" thing is a common problem with police shootings to, in that the target may have started turning when the mental order to pull the trigger went to the finger, and before the "stop" order could be processed, a round went into the back of the now turned target. Causes no end of hate and discontent in court rooms, from what little I hear.
Glad that was finally ruled justified, but 6 years of legal battles is no fun. Dying is, of course, less fun. Now will he face civil lawsuits? We managed to make that a no-go here in AZ, at least, no civil liability for a justified action.

 

[tuj]

From my wife. BTW, the gun was a Ruger P90.

On July 27, 2007, Jesse Michael Eagleton, the defendent, was leaving his apartment complex with a laptop bag that contained a laptop computer and a Ruger 45 caliber gun. The gun was in a front zipped pocket. Mr Eagleton always carried the gun in condition 3 with no round in the chamber. It is unknown what type of bullets he was using at the time (hollow point, full metal jacket, etc.). Mr Eagleton, was walking toward a metal gate that swung both inwards and outwards from his position to go to his car across the street. He approached the gate and was ready to open the gate. There was a light rain that was worsening at this time.

Mr Constantino Reyes had just returned from a visit to Home Depot to purchase cleaning supplies with his girlfriend. Mr Reyes spoke English, but his girlfriend did not. Mr Reyes got out of his car, which was parked in a parking lot right next to the gate, not across the street, as the defendent's car was. Mr. Reyes had pulled his shirt over his head because of the rain a he approached the gate. Mr Reyes pushed on the gate where Mr Eagleton was already pushing out.

The gate may or may not have bumped Reyes. In any event, Eagleton held up his forearm and said "Watch where you are going" and proceeded across the parking lot closest to the apartment complex. He looked back and realized that Reyes has taken his shirt off and was approaching Eagleton. Eagleton put his laptop bag to the side of a nearby dumpster and proceeded to ready himself for Reyes' potential attack. Reyes attacked Eagleton and there was a scuffle inside the courtyard (inside the fence) of the apartment. During the scuffle Eagleton heard a loud bang, which he disregarded at the time. The girlfriend contends that she stayed by the car the whole time and called 911. Neither man was on the ground; it was a stand up scuffle which was over in a few minutes. When the scuffle was over, Reyes said to Eagleton "I'll get you, mother****er."

Eagleton began to look for his bag so he could leave the scene. After looking, he found his bag in the empty dumpster and began to proceed in a round-about way to his car to avoid a strip of grass that was (1) wet from the rain and (2) dogs often dif their business there. While Eagleton was walking between some cars, Reyes rounded some cars (it was raining, so his steps were muffled) and confronted Eagleton with a folded serrated knife. Reyes began to jab at Eagleton with the knife. As Reyes was jabbing at Eagleton, Eagleton used one hand to get his gun out of the side pocket of his laptop bag, slam in the magazine and racked the slide. He fired one shot but wasn't sure if he had hit Reyes because Reyes was still coming at him. Eagleton shot again. This time Reyes began to back away. He turned back towards the parking lot. Eagleton shot again, but that shot missed Reyes. From the two shots that hit Reyes, one hit his right forearm going in through the inside of his forearm exiting through the outside of his forearm and the "kill shot" hit him on his right side and tore through his diaphram, liver, stomach, and stomach lining . Both bullets exited the body.

Suddenly, Eagleton was hit by a rock thrown by the girlfriend. The rock hit him below the knees. Though it didn't hurt him, it made him wary of how many attackers there were and what danger he may be in. When he saw the girlfriend, he chased her into the courtyard, realizing that his gun had jammed. The girlfriend claims she was shot at in the courtyard. The girlfriend ran back into the apartment. A young (18-ish) male approached Eagleton asking Eagleton not to shoot him. Though Eagleton was still brandishing a weapon, he told the young man, later identified as Reyes' son, that this was none of his concern and that he wasn't going to shoot him.

Meanwhile, Reyes is bleeding out on the floor of his living room. Eagleton calls 911 as well and reports that he had shot someone. He begins to walk in the direction he thinks the police will enter the apartment complex. When the officer appears (about 2 minutes after Eagleton's call) the officer asks him if he is the shooter. Eagleton replies "Yes, I shot him. I don't know how many times." He then tells the officer where the gun is (he had walked it to his trunk) and is arrested. Eagleton is confused because he feels he fired in self-defense and is agitated that no one is listening to him. The arriving officer feels that it is his job to secure the accused. A second car arrives. They assume that the first officer had established the scene and do not look for evidence (casings, bullet marks on buildings, etc.) on the 27th of July. Somehow, one casing is recovered, but it was never marked where it was found. No other casings were ever found. Reyes' apartment was never searched for a knife.

When Reyes reached the hospital, no toxicology was run on him to see if there were stimulants in his system. Though some of his wounds were able to be repaired, there was overall too much trauma to the body and he died July 30th. Once the case was ruled a homicide, homicide detectives went out to search for evidence, but did not search the street, the Reyes' apartment, or bullet strikes on the apartment.

On 3/7, Jesse Michael Eagleton was found Not Guilty by reason of self-defense by a jury of his peers. Unfortunately, Mr Eagleton is still facing charges for shooting after the girlfrield (though there are no casings or other evidence we saw as a jury) and for brandishing a weapon at the son, so this ordeal is not over for him.

 

[WardenWolf]

A P90. . .if the person didn't stop upon seeing that ugly thing, there was definitely something wrong with him. I keep a P90 as my car gun. It's definitely an intimidating piece.

Sucks that it took that long to acquit. Maybe now he can finally move on with his life. I hope he wasn't rotting in a jail cell that whole time.

 

[tuj]

No he was fortunately out on bond. Unfortunately this ordeal is not over for him yet. The defendant was an accountant but was certainly not rich and I hate to think how much a case like this has cost him.

And yeah man, that P90 is one ugly mofo....

 

[CoRoMo]

Good post.

Are there any news articles you can link us to?

 

[tuj]

We searched the news but this case didn't make it.

 

[Phatty]

while the girlfriend of the deceased said 20 minutes.

After hearing that statement, I wouldn't have believed another word that came out of her mouth. Fights don't last 20 minutes. Professional fighters would have an extremely difficult time lasting that long, much less an average joe. Plus, even if that was true, it would show incredible restraint for a person to not pull out their gun for 20 minutes, and then I've give them the benefit of the doubt that they weren't looking to use the gun except as a last resort.

 

[tuj]

Professional fighters would have an extremely difficult time lasting that long, much less an average joe.

Interestingly enough, one of the jurors was an amateur MMA fighter. He said the exact same thing; there was no way the fight lasted 20 minutes.

 

[mljdeckard]

Also, I would remind people who say; "A clean shoot is a clean shoot", this happened in Texas. This guy is out 5 years and who knows how much money in getting out from under this.

I would call the parting shoot a bad idea, but this was after a prolonged struggle and facing two people who were hostile. It could certainly be shown that the situation was fluid and unresolved.

 

[BRE346]

There was the story just a coupla years ago about the guy defending himself against a militant woman and later her boyfriend right in front of his house. It took years and over $100k to get declared not guilty. I think Mas Ayoob was a defense witness.

It's that kind of expense that shakes me so bad. Thank goodness Texas disallows civil suits.

 

[CoRoMo]

...one of the major premises of the case was that third shot.

What other facts might have prevented this from being such an open & shut case of self defense? Might this be one?

When he [Eagleton] saw the girlfriend, he chased her into the courtyard, realizing that his gun had jammed.

 

[tuj]

They felt that if the police had recovered brass in the courtyard where the gf said the confrontation took place, that would have swayed the jury that he was acting maliciously. But they said the gf's credibility was virtually nil in their eye's while the defendant took the stand and was an exceptional witness.

Also, the defendant was the only person who's story hadn't changed in the entire time of the case, while the gf's story had changed several times.

 

[bainter1212]

With crime scene control as bad as it was, it's amazing this went to trial at all. Seems like nobody knew anything about how many shots, what kind of bullets, etc. Did they disappear from evidence?? Jeez.....

 

[AlbertH]

In any event, Eagleton held up his forearm and said "Watch where you are going" and proceeded across the parking lot closest to the apartment complex.

By your wifes own statement the defendent showed the first aggressive move and thus the scuffle entailed... Due to the act that the defendant actually showed the aggression first, thus an aggrevated assault in which which the initial aggressor ended up killing a person. Negligent homicide or Manslaughter would have been the correct verdict. Now if the prosecutor did not allow those other options then he walks because it was not murder.

 

[CoRoMo]

In any event, Eagleton held up his forearm and said "Watch where you are going" and proceeded across the parking lot closest to the apartment complex.

By your wifes own statement the defendent showed the first aggressive move and thus the scuffle entailed... Due to the act that the defendant actually showed the aggression first, thus an aggrevated assault in which which the initial aggressor ended up killing a person. Negligent homicide or Manslaughter would have been the correct verdict. Now if the prosecutor did not allow those other options then he walks because it was not murder.

Do these facts not illustrate how the defendant was trying to avoid the encounter and how Reyes was not?

[Eagleton]...proceeded across the parking lot closest to the apartment complex. He looked back and realized that Reyes has taken his shirt off and was approaching...

Just because Eagleton raised an arm and made a comment, then attempts to flee, doesn't remove the aggression that Reyes displayed that ultimately brought out the gun.

 

[David W. Gay]

By your wifes own statement the defendent showed the first aggressive move and thus the scuffle entailed...

Raising an arm after bumping into someone, or something, is not aggressive, it is purely a simple, reflexive, defense mechanism.

Negligent homicide or Manslaughter would have been the correct verdict.

An entire impartial jury concluded otherwise.

 

[Rio Laxas]

It's amazing how the facts of the case seem pretty different than what the Chronicle reported in a summary of the arrest back in 2007.

http://blog.chron.com/homicide/2007/08/constantino-reyes-54/

It reminds me of the case a few years back in Houston where a CHL holder shot an aggressor on a Metro bus. The news made the CHL holder sound like the aggressor in the initial reporting, but it came out later the deceased had a pretty extensive record of violent felonies.

 

[Zoogster]

What other facts might have prevented this from being such an open & shut case of self defense?

Bad neighborhood. Police in bad areas are most familiar with two bad guys fighting. Many of the low income residents in high crime drug areas where street culture and drugs are common past times even of the less problematic individuals are seen as problems by those who patrol them.
When a good guy uses force they are so used to treating people that use force as bad guys in that jursidiction that they will frequently start under the premise that it is once again bad guys fighting. The report and investigation often trying to cover that good possibility and so biased against the defendent.


A very strong aspect is also that it happened in public. Self defense cases that happen in a public place and start out as arguments or problems are almost never open and shut cases.
There is some exceptions but generally a shooting in public is not open and shut. Now if the guy was trying to rob a store and got shot by someone, with security cameras rolling, that is more open and shut. If they were being chased by police and tried to car jack someone and got shot, more open and shut.
But an argument between two people in a parking lot or from the same apartment building that turns deadly? Rarely going to be open and shut.

There is little benefit of the doubt in most public shootings even when the evidence supports the defender. Only in rare cases of overwhelming evidence and circumstances that are obvious and don't require questioning the mindset of the shooter at the time. Which is certainly not going to be the case in a situation that had both multiple encounters, an argument, and a shooting.




Combine being in public, and living in a bad area, between two males after an argument.
He was going to have a rough ride through the legal system already no matter how justified he was.
Had he been a young less accomplished male it may have even gone the other way, being a 50+ year old accountant that carried himself professionally in court instead of a 20-30 something year old young man presumed as a more likely young testerone filled mutual combatant probably weighed in his favor as well.

 

[Sam1911]

By your wifes own statement the defendent showed the first aggressive move and thus the scuffle entailed... Due to the act that the defendant actually showed the aggression first, thus an aggrevated assault in which which the initial aggressor ended up killing a person. Negligent homicide or Manslaughter would have been the correct verdict. Now if the prosecutor did not allow those other options then he walks because it was not murder.

Sometimes the prior contact between two persons may sway a prosecutor and/or jury that an altercation that ended in homicide was a case of "mutual combat" and therefore killing in self-defense is not lawful.

However, if one party can show that he had tried to avoid, de-escalate, retreat, and that he only shot when the other actor refused to allow him to flee the scene and was threatening lethal violence, self-defense is perfectly justifiable and an appropriate finding by the jury.

Bumping into someone, and even expressing a curt and indignant exclamation in passing does not give them the right to kill you, nor does it negate your right to self-defense.

I'd say he was on much riskier ground due to the admitted fact that he traded blows with the guy for two minutes before attempting to leave. Obviously that may have been unavoidable but it would go a lot further toward establishing the two as mutual combatants than a simple "watch where you're going!"

 

[CoRoMo]

It's amazing how the facts of the case seem pretty different than what the Chronicle reported in a summary of the arrest back in 2007.

http://blog.chron.com/homicide/2007/08/constantino-reyes-54/

It reminds me of the case a few years back in Houston where a CHL holder shot an aggressor on a Metro bus. The news made the CHL holder sound like the aggressor in the initial reporting, but it came out later the deceased had a pretty extensive record of violent felonies.

I don't consider that a news report. That looks more like a fact-sheet given to The Chronicle by law enforcement. But anyhow... Look who's listed as victim and suspect.

http://blog.chron.com/homicide/2007/08/constantino-reyes-54/

Constantino Reyes, 54
Saturday, August 4, 2007

• Date: July 27, 2007
• Location: 3000 block of Hillcroft
• Time: 7:35 p.m.
• Victim: Constantino Reyes, 54
• Suspect: Jesse Michael Eagleton, 50
• Status: Arrested and charged with murder in the 208th State District Court
• Description: Reyes and his wife were returning home from shopping and were confronted by Eagleton at the security gate to the Westhill Plaza Apartments, police said.
• Eagleton began to assault Reyes, retrieved a pistol from a bag and shot Reyes multiple times, police said.
• Reyes was transported to Ben Taub General Hospital where he died July 30.
• Eagleton was taken into custody at the scene.

I tend to think that 'the first person to call 911 is the victim' came into play here. Reyes' girlfriend was the first to call and describe the scene.

Had Eagleton been the first on the phone with 911, the third shot wouldn't have ever mattered at all.

It's weird how both of those guys were in their fifties.

 

[tuj]

I have to say, both myself and especially my wife found this case fascinating. She was the foreman and said that they took an initial vote in the jury room and it was unanimous; not guilty.

I am not sure of the exact statue under the law in which he was charged, but the jury was told that if they found him guilty, the sentences ranged from 5-years probation to life in prison w/ possibility of parole. An incredibly wide range!

While we can nitpick the details of how the defendant acted, this is a perfect case of 'better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.' Which is ironic, because I don't really believe in that, and the defendant has been through hell with this trial.

My wife said that the prosecution basically failed to prove their case and that the defendant was a VERY credible witness. The girlfriend was not credible in their eyes because her story had changed several times. The son of the deceased also testified, but interestingly, he had since 2007 been convicted and incarcerated for a crime, so he testified in an orange jumpsuit and that had a BIG impact on the jury in terms of the son's credibility.

Most importantly, the jury collectively couldn't believe how shoddy the police-work in the case was. The detectives who testified were viewed as marginal in the eyes of the jury due to the lack of evidence and the mishandling of evidence in what was obviously a serious case.

Finally, 4 of the jurors had experience with firearms (including my wife) and 2 where CHL holders.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The point that pricked my interest was what he said to the arriving officers and why the cover/assisting officers thought that the first one had secured the crime scene.

I've only been to Houston a couple of times to teach classes, but the officers I met seemed to be pretty on the ball folks. Granted they were older and were attending a class to improved their gun handling skills...so maybe they were better than most.

As Ayoob has advised, while you need to be careful to not say too much, it is important to make it clear that you were the victim of an illegal assault. Even more important is to point out where evidence might be before it is loss/destroyed...you'll only be getting that one chance.

Just from experience, I can pretty much guess what happened at the scene. The officers responded to a report shooting following a fight and detained the self admitted shooter. Then they contacted their complainant (GF) who gave her version (called 9-1-1 first). They likely believed it was a mutual combat and that the injuries were not mortal. I'm not familiar with TX law, but we would have arrest the shooter for Assault with a Deadly Weapon, against both the shooting victim and the girlfriend.

The incident wouldn't have been even been forwarded as a major crime until the victim died...3 days later. By then, there wouldn't be much evidence which would pass the chain of evidence requirements.

The first officer was mistaken in his primary responsibility. After passing the arrestee onto another officer, he was responsible for determining the scene and collecting evidence. There is a lot more I can guess at, but it would go well beyond drawing from creditable experience into speculation.