RETIRED WARRANT

Deliberations and a verdict

After the defense finished up and the Judge read us our instructions and appointed a bailiff, off we went to the Jury Room. Our bailiff showed us how to use the call system and told us the rules he would follow if we had a break come up or anything like that. He then left and we only had about half an hour until the lunch break so we decided we would go ahead and pick a foreperson.

We asked who wanted to be the foreperson and a few hands went up so we decided to write down the names of the folks who raised their hand and put them in a paper bag. Someone then reached in the bag and we then had a foreperson. We also then went to lunch.

We returned from lunch at 1:30 and then the deliberations began. We had a couple of folks that wanted to hold a vote immediately, but others wanted to go through the checklist item by item. We did the item-by-item thing.

Pretty much everyone agreed on all line items but one, so we started talking about that one item. That one item was, did Erskine have brain damage or a mental problem that caused him to do what he did.

We did a around the table discussion with each person stating their opinion in turn. One of the younger guys on the jury had suffered from a concussion in the past and was hung up on Erskine’s failure of the smell test. Some or the other Jurors put that to rest by stating Erskine smoked like a chimney, which affects smell. Also when the loss of smell thing came out it was many years after the crime. Erskine appeared to be surprised by the results and said he didn’t have any trouble with his sense of smell. Also someone brought up that he was taking a medicine cabinet worth of drugs for all of his ailments.

One of the other young men thought that Erskine had mental problems as after the Rape of the girl that managed to land him the 70 year sentence he did weird things, like let her know his name, asked her out, and dropped her off down town. I happened to mention that during this particular crime he had been doing meth and drinking beer with the victim, and that may have been a reason for the odd behavior.

Also during this time one of the jurors had been putting up pictures of the boys, and they weren’t the nice ones. We then had one of the older ladies that also thought he might have a mental problem that caused loss of control, but several people brought up the fact that he never hurt his older sister, or the Navy woman. Also even though he had gotten physical with his girlfriend, as soon as she stood up to him and told him she was calling the police, he backed down and stopped the assault. All of these things demonstrated that he could exercise control when he wanted to.

We had taken a few mini breaks for folks to make head calls and all, and we were just finishing this line of deliberation when the bailiff knocked and said it was time for the afternoon break. We all decided to skip the break and continue. He seemed a bit surprised, said ok, and left.

We then decided to have our first vote. Before voting one of the guys got up and pointed to the crime scene photo’s and said, do we really want the man that did that to live to old age? We then voted. Some of the folks, mainly the women and one of the older men were in tears when saying death, but on the first vote it was 12-0 for the death penalty. It was only 3:15 in the afternoon. The foreman buzzed for the bailiff and a few expressed concerns that we did that way to fast. A few of us stated, that we all agreed there was only one item on the list to debate and that we had debated it.

We then started talking about a few things that went on in court. Folks started sharing different things they observed during the case, while we were waiting for the bailiff to come back. Also some of the folks were just gaining composure, from the vote. We shared things like Erskine’s behavior in the courtroom. Two of the people had only taken notes on Erskine’s behavior, and had notes like; he was laughing and joking with his attorneys whenever crime scene photos were shown. That he was making hand signals to his mother during her testimony, and that he was trying to intimidate the family members of the victims.

We also talked about one of the alternate jurors, who had been a little disruptive at times. He had this bag that he brought everyday. It had several zippers and he would continually play with the zippers on his bag, play with his water bottle, make comments, and play with his notebook. He was really annoying, in the courtroom and on the breaks. He was a subject matter expert on everything. The only problem was that he didn’t really know much about anything; so many people just tuned him out.

Finally the bailiff came back and we told him we had reached a verdict. He seemed a little surprised and told us to stand by and that he would come and get us when everyone got back to the courtroom. We continued to talk about stuff, like sidebars and objections. We passed around e-mail addresses and all. It kept getting later and later. We were used to getting out of court by 4:30 each day and 4:30 was rapidly approaching. There was some discussion about how we would probably have to come back the next day. I stated that if that were to happen they would have to sequester us for the night because they wouldn’t want the verdict to get out before it was announced in court.

It was right about 4:30 when we heard the knock on the door and were taken over to the courtroom. I was the first to enter as I sat in the back row, closest to the families. When the door to the courtroom opened there were camera’s everywhere and many more people in the courtroom than I was used to seeing. When I first came in I miscounted and sat in the wrong chair (smooth move), and rapidly corrected myself.

Once we were all in the courtroom the Judge asked the foreperson if we had reached a verdict and she said we had. She then handed the verdict sheets to the bailiff and they were read. When the Death Penalty was read the families let out a gasp of relief. Erskine showed no expression, just looked straight ahead. The prosecutor with tears in her eyes mouthed a thank you to us. We then each in turn had to say that we agreed with the verdict. I made sure I made my yes loud and clear.

The Judge then thanked us for our service, and let us know that our names and personal information would be sealed. He further stated that if these were to ever be unsealed the court would let us know in advance. He also said that we could now talk about the case.

We were then let back to the Jury room. The bailiff asked us if we wanted to walk the gauntlet, which meant talk to the families, prosecution, defense, and the press. A few folks expressed a desire to speak to the families but were told, you will have to meet with the press also if you do that, as it was an all or nothing situation. Everyone said no, everyone wanted to avoid the press after a high profile juror screw up the previous week. In the case of Richard Tuitt one of the jurors decided to talk to the press. He told them that the jury was hopelessly hung until he personally presented a piece of evidence, which turned the holdouts. The only problem was that it wasn’t a piece of evidence so now they may have to retry that case. No one wanted to have something like that happen to them.

The bailiff came back with a few buddies and said they were going to clear the way for us to get out of the courthouse without being hassled. We asked about how we were to check out of Jury service and he collected all of our Juror badges and said he would take care of it for us. After a few minutes he got the all clear and we were escorted by about 6 to 8 Sheriffs to a side door where they let us go back to our lives.

That was it, back to work the next day, to answer many questions. All in all, while I hated to have to sit on this case, I am glad of the outcome. I feel I looked at everything in a fair manner. The defense didn’t present anything to me that told me that he wasn’t at fault. If they would have, then I would have gone against death.

I saw an article in the paper a couple of days later, where the defense is going to challenge the verdict as being unconstitutional. He also had some unflattering remarks because we reached a verdict so fast. Sorry, but everything was very clear to us as the prosecutor laid out and presented a great case. Anyway that is pretty much how I saw the case and I guess in the future I may post some more things about it as things come up. I hope all you folks that have been following my posts enjoyed it.

Defense closing arguments

The defense started his case pretty much in the same way he started his opening arguments, that the evidence was pretty overwhelming and that the evidence proved he murdered the boys.

He then talked about the qualifications of the doctors he put on the stand and how, it was unfortunate that the prosecutor questioned the witnesses in the way she did. He said it was unfair that she demeaned the witnesses.

He then started talking about the jury instructions much in the same way the prosecutor did, and agreed with all of the prosecutor’s opinions except the part where he may have been suffering from a mental defect of damage.

He then talked about the accident and how the frontal lobe damage caused him to not have control over his actions. He went all through the testimony of the various doctors and then told us that advancements were being made as far as brain injury treatments. He said it would be unfortunate that possibly a treatment would be available someday that would cure Erskine of his brain injury, if he had already been put to death.

He then asked for sympathy and quoted from the Dalia Lama about showing mercy.

The next morning the other defense attorney gave her closing. It was more of the same, stressing the medical history, bad upbringing and more on the doctors. As I said yesterday I kept waiting for that smoking gun that I missed, but it never came up.

She rested and the judge gave us our instructions. It was basically those questions I posted yesterday. He also told us we would be awarding either the death penalty or life without parole and for death we would have to be unanimous. We were than assigned a bailiff and it was off to the jury room.

Tomorrow, deliberations.

Prosecution Closing Arguments

After a great 4-day Labor Day weekend we returned to court on Tuesday 1, June 2004 to the prosecution’s closing arguments. We were kind of excited and anxious as we knew the trial was winding down.

I need to tell you, that I took no notes during the closing arguments so this is going to be one of those, my best recollection things. As with the opening arguments, I took no notes as Judge So told us from the beginning that what the lawyers say carries no weight.

The prosecution started out by placing pictures of the boys up and talking about their lives. She told of them being happy and related some of the stuff the family members had said about the boys.

She then went into the timeline and the different witnesses that testified that they had seen the boys that Saturday morning. She then pulled out the crime scene photos and told us what he did, and was actually pointing at him saying he did this.

She then told us about how most of the doctors used the family’s input to diagnose his medical condition and highlighted the exaggerated testimony of his mother. She highlighted that the story of the accident when he was five years old kept getting bigger and more exaggerated over the years.

She brought up a letter that Erskine had sent to his mother from prison that I forgot to tell you about. Back when Momma Erskine was on the stand the prosecution introduced a letter written by Erskine to his mom. The prosecution had her read the letter into the record despite several objections and sidebars.

The letter mainly thanked his mom for sending him money and asked for more. There was something about he was aware she had moved and wanted the new address. He then said that if the death penalty was on the table he would plea bargain to get a reduced sentence. While I don’t remember if this was in the letter or something he had mentioned in the letter, he had stated he finally got caught. The prosecutor brought all of this up.

She covered the brutality of the crimes he committed and also highlighted that all of the doctors stated that he knew the difference between right and wrong. She talked about the credibility of some of the defenses witnesses, and the fact that they had nothing to present other than what they had in partial records from the past. She brought up that most of the witnesses testifying about the brain damage from the car accident had not reviewed the medical records and had taken the families word about what had happened.

She talked about how the murders and torture could be played back in his mind as materials he could masturbate to. This was brought out by one of the doctors during the trial and I didn’t mention it before because I didn’t write it down at the time, but it was brought up during the trial. She stated that he would have these fantasies to use as a sex toy the rest of his life. And she talked about how these fantasies were impacted by the prescription medicine Paxil and how he got it changed when it impacted his life in prison.

She then broke out what we would later learn was the Jury instructions. I may get a few of these out of sequence. I didn’t take notes when the judge gave them to us as we had a copy of them in the jury room so I didn’t take notes.

Well she went right down the list A through K. I’ll hit as many as I can remember.

A. The first one was, did he do it: Yes, undeniably as he was convicted by the previous jury.
B. Next, did he commit crimes he was not charged with: Yes, rape of his sister, Gun violations, pulling a gun on his brother, and domestic violence for just a few.
C. Did he commit crimes he was convicted of: Yes, rape he was serving time for, rape of 12 year old and sexual assault of the boy in Ramona.

The above were known as aggravated circumstances.

The rest were mitigating circumstances:

D. Did drugs or alcohol impair him? Only once, the rape he was serving time for.
E. Did he have a mental defect or injury? Not proven.
F. Did he know what he was doing was wrong? Yes, all doctors said he knew right from wrong.
G. Did someone force him to do it? No, he was alone.
H. Was the victim a willing participant? No way.
I. Was he mentally impaired? Not according to the doctors.
I don’t remember the other two, right now. But they were not even close, like was it an accident and stuff like that. The only ones in question were about mental impairment and this would come into play in the jury room as we went over the list.

Tomorrow, defense closing, which actually took, place the afternoon of the 1st and the morning of the 2nd.

The Last Witness

On the 27th of May we showed up 9AM as usual. And then we waited and waited and waited. We finally entered the courtroom at 10:50. This kind of stuff had happened frequently but never had we entered the courtroom so late. Usually this meant that the attorneys had a beef with one another. About the only thing that really bothered me about it was the judge’s assistant can down a couple of times and gave us like a ten minute standby and then would come back half an hour later and tell us 15 more minutes. It was really frustrating.

We finally got into the courtroom and the first thing we had was another stipulation. The court had ordered that Erskine be examined by a Psychiatrist. Erskine refused.

We then heard from the Psychiatrist. This guy had some great credentials. He had been involved in the John Hinckley case (the guy that shot Reagan) and had been involved in the uni-bomber case.

While Erskine did not allow him to examine him, the doctor was able to gather enough information to make a diagnosis from the various medical records that were available. This guy was awesome. He really seemed to know what he was talking about and really brought several things together. This guy ran a big investigation firm with several employees. He had an assistant that summarized all the records for him. The guy was ex Air Force and Ex FBI. He and his staff came up with four diagnoses for Erskine from an intensive record review.

The first diagnosis was that Erskine suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. This was something that had been testified about by some of the other doctors in the case. Of course that really didn’t have anything to do with why he may have murdered the boys.

The next diagnosis was Poly-substance abuse as he was abusing alcohol and drugs (methamphetamines) and this was definitely evident through past testimony.

Next we had Sexual Sadism and he went through several things that led him to that. The symptoms of this were:

• Bondage
• Captivity over 24 hours
• Domination
• Humiliation
• Beating
• Choking and strangulation
• Foreign object penetration
• Torture

Erskine did all of these things with the exception of captivity over 24 hours. There was a lot more to this one also. The sexual sadist has several coping strategies that he listed such as:

• Fantasy and masturbation
• Consenting partner
• Use of pornography
• Use of B and D services (I didn’t even know you could purchase this one)
• Prostitutes
• Exploitation
• Non-violent crime
• Violent crime (and he then listed the ones Erskine committed)
• 1976 Foreign object penetration and rape of his sister’s friend.
• 1978 Girl he assaulted in the drainage ditch (sequence or the rape was humiliating as he had her perform oral sex after anal sex)
• 1980 Rape of boy in Ramona (excessive brutality)
• 1981 Rape of the guy in jail (beaten and raped)
• 1993 Rape that resulted in the 70-year sentence (Bondage, foreign penetration and sequence again)
• 1993 Torture, rape, and murder of Jonathon Sellers. (Gagged and bound, brought the materials to the scene)
• 1993 Torture, rape, and murder of Charlie Keever. (Genital mutilation, foreign object penetration, tape residue indicated he had been gagged)

This was all devastating testimony as far as I was concerned.

The last diagnosis was Anti-Social Personality Disorder (conduct disorder). Some of the things that led him to this were:

• Onset of disorder before the age of 15
• 3 or more incidents after the age of 15
• Behavior not due to schizophrenia or and other mania
• Fighting
• Stealing
• Running away
• Lies about offenses
• Manipulative behavior
• Excuses for misconduct

He then went through and listed pretty much the same offenses above but added the Florida rape/murder and the attempted rape of the 27 year old.

He then stated that the medical book used for medical disorders DSM-IV-TR lists the conditions for medical disorders. There are only a few mental disorders listed. Normally with medical disorders a person experiences hallucinations, deliriums, or formal though disorder.

This Dr. stated flat out that Erskine had NO MENTAL DISORDER. He did state that later, after the heart operation and all of the drugs he took, that he may now have a mental disorder, but not when he committed the crimes.

He then listed evidence about Erskine’s mental state:

Followed the boys for more than 400 FT. (Demonstrated intention)
Took what he called the rape kit to the scene.

• 2 types of rope, tape and knife. (Planning)
• He hid the boy’s bicycles
• He gained control of both victims simultaneously
• Gagged the victims
• Victims were found nude from the waste down. (Humiliation)
• Ankles were bound with rope
• Wrists were bound
• Used a rope to suspend Jonathon from tree.

He then stated Erskine knew right from wrong and stated examples:

• Always denied crimes or minimized them
• Selected vulnerable victims
• Selected out of the way locations
• Took extra steps to control both boys
• Gagged and restrained both victims
• Killed both boys’. (No witnesses)
• Hid bicycles
• Denied involvement to doctors and police

The defense had earlier had a doctor testify that he was Erskine was judgment impaired. The doctor called this Volitional Impairment. This happens in cases of severe brain damage, epilepsy, and touretts syndrome. In the doctor’s opinion, neither a personality disorder, nor perihelia ever impairs control over actions of carrying out a rape or murder.

He then listed how Erskine exercised control:

• Erskine had a rape kit
• Followed the boys
• Took the rape kit to the scene
• Control of both boys, formed a plan and carried it out
• Restrained and gagged victims
• Variety of sexual acts
• Decision to kill

The doctor’s concluding remarks were awesome. His final statement was that Erskine knew what he did was wrong. He would not have committed the crime if a policeman were nearby. Basically Erskine was able to decide who, where and how.

The defense only had two questions for this witness. He asked the doctor how much money he gets per hour when working on a case and then asked how much the ex-FBI guy made. That was it, and my jaw just dropped.

Quote from my notes, “WTF was that. All he asked was how much they got paid!”

The Judge then told us that was the last witness and that we would have a four day labor day weekend before hearing closing arguments. All in all this guy brought it all together, and though I still had the closing arguments left to go I pretty much had my mind made up. But I was still waiting for the defense to give me something I may have missed, just some little fact I overlooked, to sway me. I actually felt sorry for the defense folks and was looking for a way to help them out. They put so much work into it.

Tomorrow I will blog about the prosecutions closing arguments.

Sorry for the late post tonight. I got tied up, (or maybe wanted to keep you in suspense), no really I got tied up.

More Jury Duty?

I just checked my mailbox a while ago and low and behold, there was a letter from the US District Court. It seems like I have a summons to appear for jury duty there in August.

The boss is going to love hearing that. I guess I do have a means to try and get out of it. It is just too soon after the last trial.

They were pretty clear in the letter accompanying the paperwork that this was Federal and not local so I hope they show me a little sympathy and let me delay it a while. I guess I’ll have to see what happens.

Oh by the way, my daughter was already dismissed from her jury service, lucky girl.

Juror Number 5

Well the Peterson Juror got the boot today. This guy is an idiot or the highest caliber. He is all over the news, he’s talking about writing a book, and he said he didn’t think Peterson did it. All of this in what, two weeks of testimony. They haven’t even gotten to the meat of the prosecution’s case.

I wonder where in the world this clown expects to get enough material to write a book. Maybe he’s going to write a comic book. He could use this as the title, “I managed to get thrown off a Jury, and make an ass out of myself on National TV”. Frankly I am glad to see this clown gone, now if I could just get him off my TV.

The Case Continues

On the 25th of May we heard from the lead detective on the case. He had received the results of DNA search on the computer system and got a seven-marker match on Erskine who was serving time at Wasco State Prison. On Mar 13th, 2001 he and another police representative went to Wasco to interview Erskine, and they taped the interview. They played it for us in court. Actually it was kind a really crummy recording but we were able to make it out.

On the tape Erskine was calm and had a friendly demeanor. They talked a little bit to get everyone relaxed and all. The detective asked him if his family had been visiting. They talked a bit about his heart operations and all. The small talk went on for a few minutes and then he started asking Erskine about the murders of the two boys.

Erskine denied knowing anything about it and the detective informed him that his DNA was found on one of the boys and on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. Erskine again denied knowing anything about it.

The detective tried his best to confront Erskine with the evidence against him without giving too much away, and he did it in a friendly and professional manner. It kind of struck me that the conversation was more like a discussion between friends except for the subject matter. Erskine never admitted to being at the scene or seeing the boys and finally they ended the interview.

That was it for the day and the Judge told us we had the next day off. The Judge informed us that we would be getting the case the following week and that he expected closing arguments to start on Monday of the following week. That was some pretty good news.

Leave me a note

I have noticed that quite a few folks have been visiting my humble abode lately. A few weeks ago my counter was at about 100. Now I am at 1375. I would like to ask all you folks to please, leave messages on my tag board if you see some things that I could do to improve my blog. I have made a few changes since I constructed this blog about two months ago. I never had any experience with HTML before, so it took me a while to learn how to link. I have also started using Navy Blue (is there any other color for a Navy man) and raised the font to larger type to make it easier to read.

While I know I am getting a lot of visitors due to the Erskine trial, I really would like to see you folks come back after I finish blogging on that particular topic. Please tell me what things interest you so I may blog about those subjects. You are my customers, and I feel I should cater to the audience. If you have some questions or comments please leave them. If you want a little more clarification on something I may have posted ask. If you have some complaints or don’t like something I posted let me know. I am thick skinned as a Retired Naval Officer, as I have been chewed out by the best.

I would like to thank all the folks that have visited over the past couple of weeks and I want you to keep coming back. Let me know how on my tag board and in my comments section. I answer all who leave a message.

Thanks again,

Randy

Maybe we’ll have another case

My daughter gets to go in for her jury duty tomorrow. Maybe we’ll have another case to blog about!

The Rebuttal Case

Yesterday I finished up by saying there were a couple more defense witnesses and then the prosecution’s rebuttal case. Upon review of my notes I was wrong. On the 24th of May the rebuttal case started.

The day began with a few stipulations. The first one was about the rape he committed that wound up with his conviction of 70 years in prison. The stipulation was that he was indeed arrested and charged with the rape.

The second one was that no charges were filed for the sexual assault he committed while in county jail, possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, assault with a firearm, or domestic violence.

The third one was that there were no records from prison where he assaulted any of the other prisoners or staff.

We first heard from a Professor of Neurology at a medical school. First off he testified the Erskine displayed no evidence of physical impairment. In school Erskine was an average student, who had some problems with spoken memory. He states Erskine had moderate impairment in working verbal memory.

He said Erskine did have the ability to regulate his behavior, as he had not attacked the Navy woman he was living with or several others he was close to. If he had some major problems in that area he would have attacked them too.

He said he did see a little impulsiveness, which is doing things before thinking things out and the consequences involved. He said Erskine’s big weaknesses were in the memory area and that did not affect decision-making.

During the cross examination the defense made it clear that he personally escorted this professor to the prison to meet with Erskine and that he made sure to have Erskine cooperate fully. The examination took just under two hours, and only the professor and Erskine were present.

The defense questioned him about frontal lobe damage, and the professor basically told him that frontal lobe damage affecting behavior is a disputed theory, and basically acceptance of that theory depends on whom you talked or listened to.

He was asked about the Doctor that labeled Erskine as a sex offender. He stated he had not treated or read any information on sex offenders, as that was not his specialty. The defense then started asking him if he had read any of this doctors books or articles and he stated he had not. The defense then went after the fact that he didn’t have as many credentials as some of his witnesses. He was asking stuff like “are you more qualified than someone who has a PHD from Harvard?” and that kind of stuff. This guy was really good at answering the attacks with stuff like, I don’t specialize in that so I am not as qualified, but he is not qualified in this. It was great.

This guy agreed with some of the diagnoses of the defense witnesses like the Neuropsycologist that testified on the 18th of May though he did not agree with everything the guy said.

Way back early in the case, the Doctor that had worked at Green Valley Ranch had testified that Erskine showed weakness on the right side of his body. He didn’t make a big deal about it and I had not written it in my notes. As this guy was testifying it came back to me. The Green Valley guy (the Naval Officer working part time) had showed us a picture where Erskine was slumping to one side. That indicated he had damage to the left side of the brain, as when you damage the left side of the brain it affects the right side of the body.

This guy totally took that theory apart using the same pictures and it was funny to watch the defense attorney’s expression as this went up in smoke. First he pointed out that the picture was of Erskine as a young boy and that they have a habit of slumping or leaning to one side when they are that age but if you look closely you can see that his arms and neck muscles were the same size. He then pointed out on several pictures of an older Erskine that his arms and neck muscles were fully develops and thought there were very slight differences in mass, barely detectable, everyone was like that. He also said if Erskine had a problem like that as he got older it would become more pronounces over the years, and that that type of thing does not heal over time. This guy was great and you could tell by his demeanor he was confident in what he testified about.

Next a coworker from Erskine’s place of employment testified. She said he was a hard worker and was promoted to a supervisory position. He had been working for an outfit that moved rental cars back and forth between rental agencies. As a supervisor he had to get the right number of people (sometimes as many as 10 people) to the various places on time and arrange transportation either to where they were picking up the cars, or back from where they were being delivered. This company often moved cars between San Diego, Orange, and Riverside Counties. Oops another defense thing shot to hell, as he was supposedly not able to plan and carry out complex planning. She stated he was extremely good at what he did and though it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to perform this task, it does require the ability to plan and execute.

She then said he was great to work with, was nice and polite. She was good friends with his girlfriend at the time and knew that some domestic violence happened during their breakup, but that the girlfriend stood up to him and he backed down without inflicting much physical injury. Oops, two more folks he exercised self-control around.

She then testified that she knew that after the breakup he had moved in with the Navy woman. This was a very bad day for the defense in my eyes. The defense really tried to shake these folks up but these were solid witnesses, and he didn’t shake them one bit.

We are nearing the end. Two more posts of witnesses and then the deliberations. While the last few days I have made a few comments about what I thought about witnesses, I actually didn’t feel that way about the testimony until now when I’m going over the testimony. Back during the trial I made mental notes to put it all together in the jury room and in the next couple of posts there were some witnesses that pulled the whole thing together for me instead. It made it really easy.