Soldiers involved in shooting in AK acquitted--self defense

Status
Not open for further replies.

musher

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
586
Location
Fairbanks, AK
Interestingly, one of the situations that led to the US Army General's banning of CCW for soldiers in Alaska off base (see thread) has ended with an aquittal and a finding that the soldiers acted in self defense.

I'm guessing the policy won't change.


http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3272744,00.html

A jury acquitted three Fort Wainwright soldiers Monday, ruling they acted in self-defense in the shooting death of a rival rapper last August.

The jury found Lionel Wright, Freddy Walker and Christopher Cox not guilty of second-degree murder and first-degree weapons misconduct charges in the death of Alvin Wilkins Jr. after 14 hours of deliberations.

The jury could have convicted the soldiers on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and second- and third-degree weapons misconduct, but chose not to.

The soldiers were embraced by their attorneys following the reading of the verdict. Wright and Walker locked in a bear hug, joined by Cox.

Wilkins' sister, Shaleika Wilkins, left shortly after the verdict was read. Prosecutor Elizabeth Crail said a paralegal had spoken with Wilkins and she was taking the verdict well, having prepared for the possibility of an acquittal.

"She can feel for the shooters as well as for her brother," Crail said.

Special Swanson, Wright's mother, who has been present in the courtroom throughout the trial, seemed to be in tears. She directed comments to Wilkins' family when speaking to media after the verdict.

"Each and every time we will pray for you," she said.

The three soldiers, in custody since the Aug. 14, 2005, killing of Wilkins, were to be released from Fairbanks Correctional Center by Monday afternoon.

Lori Bodwell, attorney for Walker, said her client is looking forward to reuniting with his wife and family in Texas. He was married in July, just a month before the incident, and the soldiers were to be deployed to Iraq with the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

Susan Carney, attorney for Cox, said her client is leaving Fairbanks to return home in the Lower 48. She would not say where Cox is from, but said he is "extremely relieved" at the verdict.

"I don't think they ever should have been charged," Carney said Monday afternoon. "I think they had to defend themselves and they did."

Geoffry Wildridge, attorney for Wright, declined comment.

The jury acquitted the trio after learning during the three-week trial that the three defendants and Wilkins and a friend were all armed before the confrontation. Wilkins was killed by buckshot from a gun belonging to Wright.

Crail took more than a week to present the state's case, focusing on the perceived threat from Wilkins, a rival rapper with the nickname "Snoop." Joel Bruney, who drove as Wilkins confronted the soldiers, was supposed to be a key witness. Defense attorneys attempted to discredit his testimony and during deliberations the jury listened to the recording of Bruney's 5 1/2 hours of testimony.

Defense attorneys spent about two days on their case, playing up the strife between Wright and Wilkins. They played excerpts of Wilkins' explicit lyrics they said were aimed at Wright. None of the three men took the stand in their own defense.

Crail said she was prepared for either verdict in the case.

"We're always aware the jury can come up with any possible combination," she said. "I go into this to present the best case I can and hope that justice prevails."

Crail said it's difficult to appeal a case when there has been an acquittal, but said District Attorney Jeff O'Bryant will make that decision. She said she thinks all the relevant evidence was presented and the jury worked diligently to decipher it.

"I really don't think there was smoking gun out there in this case," she said. "I really think the jury did hear all the evidence. They worked really hard and I appreciated every bit of it. I'm confident they gave it their all."
 
musher,

It means the ADA doesn't agree with the jury's decision and wants to present it to another jury in a new trial.

The reality is that an appeals judge isn't likely to grant a new trial unless some revealing undiscovered evidence pointing to defendants' guilt is uncovered.

I also think Jeff O'Bryant is a top notch DA. I don't think he would appeal a jury's verdict without just cause.

Just from reading what the Snews-Miner has written about the case, it would appear that even if the defendants were cleared of any legal wrong doing, they certainly are guilty of some poor decision making.

When I see things like "rival rapper", "build up of strife between Wright and Wilkins", "explicit lyrics aimed at Wright", I can't help but think that they continually placed themselves in a position where they were eventually going to be in a confrontation with each other.

When you carry a gun, the one thing you cannot afford is stupidity. Stupidty will either cost you your life or jail time. These jugheads apparently didn't understand that. The fact they squeaked by this time is just blind dumb luck.

Perhaps the USARAK CG is correct in issuing his command directive. It's a shame, but perhaps it can be modified i.e. AK CHL w/ training.
 
You can't appeal an aquittal. Only convictions can be appealed. That's what 'no double jeopardy' means. Otherwise, the govt could just repeatedly drag you in front of successive juries until either got a conviction or you surrendered. It sounds like the prosecution presented the jury with a whole deli full of lesser included charges to pick from and they declined all of them. Jeopardy has attached to all of them now, so they can't be retried on any of them by the state.

Only possibility that occurs to me is a federal charge of some sort (different jurisdiction/different crime) so no jeopardy has attached. Something like violation of civil rights.

I didn't really follow the trial, but the news coverage of the original incident left me feeling like the soldiers probably caused a good deal of the problem. I was suprised to hear the verdict. I'm inclined, however, to put more faith in the judgment of a jury which decided to aquit of all charges, including piddly little ones like misconduct involving a weapon and so on. Something must have convinced them that these guys legitimately defended themselves. Put together with the prosecutor's wishy washy statement that "I really don't think there was smoking gun out there in this case" says the state probably didn't have much of a case.

Now that I think about it, a bizarre statement to make about a case involving a shooting. :scrutiny:
 
When I was a Marine, I remember being told things like "remember, we don't have the rights that we fight to protect" and other things that all said the same thing. It's true to a degree...
 
I doubt that Alaska could retry them but I think the US Army could now bring them up on charges. Different soverigns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top