NM - Tera Chavez, 26, found dead in her Los Lunas home, 22 Oct 2007 - #2

Juror Fred Trujillo said Friday he regrets finding former Albuquerque police officer Levi Chavez not guilty of killing his wife and said, “it’s a very good possibility that I let a murderer go free.”

Trujillo said in an interview that he struggled through five weeks of emotional courtroom drama and 11 hours of deliberations in the recently concluded trial, thinking for most of that time that the 32-year-old defendant had killed his wife. And he said that feeling has grown in the 10 days since he agreed with 11 of his peers to acquit Chavez of first-degree murder and evidence-tampering charges.

http://www.abqjournal.com/226324/news/second-thoughts-doubts-plague-chave-zjuror.html
 

Thank you so much Jewels53 for posting this!!! I was wondering when the jury was going to start talking. Oh this verdict is so terrible. My 4 kids are in a summer theater company that we have done for the last 5 summers but this is the first summer all 4 are in it because the little on is just now old enough and just after the trial ended our family went into overdrive with being crazy busy and now the show is running for 10 nights and two matinees so I have not had much time to think about the trial but every now and then it comes across my mind and I am saddened again by the out come. I still check the thread and I lurk around other threads here on WS as my early morning me time. I was glad to see this new information but still so heart breaking. I hate how sometimes life is just not fair.
 

Reading that article makes me so so angry. I am sorry I do not mean to be rude to a juror and I know it is easy to couch quarterback I guess but what a coward IMO. Oh we talked about this early int the trial watch thread hoping that some one would be brave enough to hang the jury that way the state could re work the case and maybe even get a different judge and have a different pre trial. My lord why why why not follow that gut instinct that is one of the most valuable tools we have a human being. OHHH:stormingmad:
 
Thank you so much Jewels53 for posting this!!! I was wondering when the jury was going to start talking. Oh this verdict is so terrible. My 4 kids are in a summer theater company that we have done for the last 5 summers but this is the first summer all 4 are in it because the little on is just now old enough and just after the trial ended our family went into overdrive with being crazy busy and now the show is running for 10 nights and two matinees so I have not had much time to think about the trial but every now and then it comes across my mind and I am saddened again by the out come. I still check the thread and I lurk around other threads here on WS as my early morning me time. I was glad to see this new information but still so heart breaking. I hate how sometimes life is just not fair.

CJ how wonderful that you have your children involved in a theater program. I bet it is so much work, yet so much fun and experience for them. I love to see children perform in programs, my gd was in Annie this yr in school. Please do enjoy them they grow so fast.
 
I'm so curious as to WHY Mrs Serna hasn't been back? :waiting:

Interesting that her husband admits "it could have" been murder.

Hmmm...
 
Yeeeesh NOW you have second thoughts....smh. Serna did a great job at distracting from the real facts allright....and the jurors fell for it.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

I know! My favorite part is (sarcasm) is when he said "I figured if I hung the jury he'd go free anyway." (Not an exact quote but that was the jist of it) So he acquits him and lets him be free for life? If he believed him to be guilty he should have hung the jury!
 
I know! My favorite part is (sarcasm) is when he said "I figured if I hung the jury he'd go free anyway." (Not an exact quote but that was the jist of it) So he acquits him and lets him be free for life? If he believed him to be guilty he should have hung the jury!

A hung jury means a retrial. Not sure where he got his weird ideas...no guarantee that a second trial would find not guilty! It makes me want to bang my head. So many lay people do not have the basics about the laws of their area and how the court system works-and no one educates them! If you are going to be judging someone's fate you need to have the basics and juries just aren't given them.

I truly think a second trial with a more fair-minded judge who would allow in the evidence with the supposed insurance fraud and allowed all evidence shown and given the prosecutors more time to set up the case even more. Sigh.

Watching these trials makes me even more hesitant than ever to ever serve on a jury. I would like to....but while 12 Angry Men was a fiction movie, you can bet that similar scenarios happen daily across America. Evidence gets suppressed on either side. I would be a pain in the butt I have a feeling.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
I'm so curious as to WHY Mrs Serna hasn't been back? :waiting:

Interesting that her husband admits "it could have" been murder.

Hmmm...

Hi, I had no idea people were waiting on me to reply. Took the advice on getting verified and that hasn't gone smoothly and I'd lost track of this thread so I'm surprised to see it's still active.

A quick read tells me you're responding to Fred the juror's 4th (or is it 5th) interview with the media. I listened to much of the longest one on his friends' podcast and was dismayed to hear him state 'facts' that not only were not in evidence in the trial, they weren't in discovery anywhere. If this juror had the ability to discern any evidence to convict, he chose to not use it. He joined his fellow jurors in a unanimous verdict acquitting our client.

As far as what he feels was withheld regarding the truck insurance investigation, he was provided an instruction from the judge regarding that investigation. That it didn't become a bigger part of the prosecution's case in chief is something the prosecution is responsible for; jurors were told there had been an investigation into alleged insurance fraud with a conclusion the allegations were unfounded. All the media has to do is continue to trot out the same old photos of the truck to get the reaction they want.

The quote you pulled from the recent news article only sounds awful when orphaned from its context. We don't believe this was a homicide by any means, but even if it were, the state failed to bring evidence of that, and failed most certainly to bring evidence that our client murdered his wife. And if this juror feels he should have been privy to some supposed statements or stories that he thinks exist, he is indeed second guessing the judge and I'm certain he has more respect for Judge Eichwald than that.

The unfortunate truth is this case was concocted by a detective who craved the attention and power it brought him, a heart broken father resolute in blaming our client for his daughter's death, and a civil attorney.

I really do want to help answer your questions, but you can see how poorly I keep up with you all. This case has been incredibly important to our small defense team; we believe in our client's innocence completely, so I'll try my best to settle your concerns.

PS: Please take the time to read the comments on the web edition of the juror Fred's story to the print press.
 
Oh, so nothing too sleuthy going on, right? Always the same side of the courtroom?

Didn't realize that.

Not always. I can think of twice where the evidence just wasn't there to convict. Zimmerman trial and the Adam Kauffman trial in FL. I didn't follow the Kauffman trial on WS, only online, but I did the Zimmerman trial. jmo
 
Not always. I can think of twice where the evidence just wasn't there to convict. Zimmerman trial and the Adam Kauffman trial in FL. I didn't follow the Kauffman trial on WS, only online, but I did the Zimmerman trial. jmo

Excuse me but its alot more than twice that WS isn't on the prosecution side. There's considerable debate about the cases of the West Memphis 3, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, some debate about Darlie Routier, and almost unanimous support for the defendant among those who have been following the case of Ryan Ferguson.

There are many other, lower profile cases where there is also support for the defense here, but those listed above are the most famous ones.
 
Excuse me but its alot more than twice that WS isn't on the prosecution side. There's considerable debate about the cases of the West Memphis 3, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, some debate about Darlie Routier, and almost unanimous support for the defendant among those who have been following the case of Ryan Ferguson.

There are many other, lower profile cases where there is also support for the defense here, but those listed above are the most famous ones.

Yes but I was speaking of two cases off the top of my head and not of websleuths in general though. Thanks for adding in! :seeya:
 
Yes but I was speaking of two cases off the top of my head and not of websleuths in general though. Thanks for adding in! :seeya:

I just got a momentary fit of indigation at the accusation of always being on the same side of the courtroom. :blushing: Lol.

Seriously though, I don't think that's true at all of WS as a whole, although I've seen a few individual posters that it probably applies to.
 
Not always. I can think of twice where the evidence just wasn't there to convict. Zimmerman trial and the Adam Kauffman trial in FL. I didn't follow the Kauffman trial on WS, only online, but I did the Zimmerman trial. jmo

Thanks, Popsicle. I hope you can add this trial to the two others in which you didn't see evidence. Sure wasn't any in this case.
 
Not always. I can think of twice where the evidence just wasn't there to convict. Zimmerman trial and the Adam Kauffman trial in FL. I didn't follow the Kauffman trial on WS, only online, but I did the Zimmerman trial. jmo

Kaufman had good evidence from the ME. I am used to nothing from Florida anymore.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
"On July 16, a reporter asked Levi Chavez about the pending wrongful death civil lawsuit against him.

“Bring it on,” replied the former Albuquerque police officer, who at the time was strutting through the parking lot of the Sandoval County District courthouse minutes after a jury had acquitted him of charges that he killed his wife in 2007.

By this morning, when he appeared before Second Judicial District Chief Judge Ted Baca in Albuquerque for a motions hearing in the civil case, Chavez’s tone was decidedly different.

Now, he says he can’t find a lawyer who is willing to represent him. And even if he could, he wouldn’t be able to afford one.

“I think I’ll be in debt the rest of my life to be honest,” he said in court this morning. “I’m probably going to have to (represent myself and) go pro se, (but) I don’t know how to try a civil case. I have no idea what I’m doing, and it’s probably going to be very embarrassing for me.”

More at link


http://www.abqjournal.com/240405/news/next-up-for-levi-chavez-a-trial-date-but-no-lawyer.html
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
1,525
Total visitors
1,722

Forum statistics

Threads
594,464
Messages
18,006,027
Members
229,406
Latest member
DragonFly57
Back
Top