GUILTY OK - Antwon Parker, 16, shot dead in OKC pharmacy robbery, 19 May 2009

  • #401
Oh wow I found some court notes almost transcripts. I am trying to find the original source to link but other wise will link these.
Not sure if it opening statements to the end, but this should be very interesting reading.
give me a minute.
 
  • #402
ETA: this is supposedly coming from

Phil Cross Investigative Reporter
- still looking for original transcription notes
well I am still looking but in the meantime:

Jerome Ersland Trial Notes - First day of testimony
9:03 - Jury sworn in and given a set of instructions regarding the case and evidence they will hear.
District Attorney David Prater begins by reading the criminal information filed against Jerome Ersland. The information is the method used by the state to charge Ersland with Murder in the 1st Degree.
Summary of opening statements from DA Prater:
Prater tells the jury the evidence they will hear will tell them about the events surrounding the incident on May 19, 2009. The defendant told the two women who worked with him at the pharmacy if they ever get robbed, "Don't worry, I'll take care of it."
Police will tell you they thought Ersland was a hero, but when they said that they were relying solely on Ersland's own words. What he told investigators made him sound like a hero. It was just before 6:00 on May 19th, when one of the workers allowed the would-be robbers access to the pharmacy. Jevonte Ingram walked in with a mask on and pointed a gun at Ersland. Antwun Parker was still trying to get his mask on. The women run to the back. Ersland goes to the end of the counter and retrieves "The Judge" (a handgun that shoots both .410 shotgun shells and .45 caliber rounds. He fires the gun, Ingram runs. Parker falls. This is when Ersland runs to the door, glances at Parker on the ground and then runs out of the pharmacy and continues to fire at Ingram.
A neighbor will testify she was outside and saw Ersland fire three shots down the street.
Ersland goes back in the pharmacy, puts "The Judge" in his left hand walks behind the counter and gets a .380 pistol. He stands over Antwun Parker's body and "Boom...Boom...Boom...Boom...Boom" firing five more shots into Parker's body.
Ersland goes to the phone and calls 911 saying "911, I've just been robbed and I killed a guy."
Prater continues to tell the jury Ersland's first statements to police were that both robbers were running on both sides of him and he grabbed both guns, one in each hand and fired. He said he thought he hit the one on the left, but he was still up. Ersland says he shot him again but missed the other one.
After the video came out his story changed. Ersland went on Bill O'Reilly, a national Television program, and told a different story.
Over the past two years Ersland has continued to manufacture evidence.
A month and a half after the robbery he went to a hospital in Chickasha complaining of pain from a gunshot wound. Nurses will testify metal fragments had been inserted under the skin and after x-rays, when Ersland was left alone, he took a scalpel and cut the fragments out of his arm. When the doctor came in, Ersland told him not to put that in the file, and then asked the doctor take a picture of his arm with a disposable camera.
Prater said "When he stood over Antwun Parker and fired five shots, he was not a hero. He was a murder."
Defense Opening statements summary. Statements given by Joe Brett Reynolds:
There is no dispute that Mr. Ersland shot Antwun Parker. The police and even the prosecutor will tell you that he was well within his rights to defend himself and two innocent women. But he somehow lost the right to defend himself 24 seconds later.
Mr. Ersland went to the University of Oklahoma where he earned a degree in pharmacy. He enlisted in the army where he was honorably discharged and then joined the air force and was honorable discharged as a Lt. Colonel.
((OBJECTION - Approach the bench - Sustained))

much more at link

http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?111034-Latest-in-the-Jerome-Jay-Ersland-saga./page13
 
  • #403
:thud:

Did we know he faked a bullet injury?
 
  • #404
  • #405
You changed the subject. I asked if the choices were simply a) run or b) guard the wounded assailant. As stated it is not MY job to guard a violent attacker for some undetermined amount of time. I would not want to waste time doing that, nor am I trained to do it, nor is it my job. I believe it is unfair to expect victims to do it!

I've changed no subject. I've simply repeated the law doesn't require one to retreat.

In the alternative, it isn't a matter of "guarding the assailant" (who happens to be unconscious and immobile, BTW), it's a matter of having the right to defend yourself. That right doesn't extend to executing unconscious people, nor should it.
 
  • #406
Oklahoma City pharmacist’s supporters seek pardon; attorneys begin appeal

Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Jay Ersland was convicted Thursday of first-degree murder for fatally shooting a robber.

snip

The governor’s office confirmed Fallin received constituent correspondence Friday about the pharmacist’s case. Some asked for a pardon or commutation of the life term.
Any action by the governor on the case will not be soon.
“When convicted of a crime, an individual has the right to petition the Pardon and Parole Board to request his … sentence be commuted. If a majority of the board votes to recommend a commutation, that case then heads to the governor,” said Fallin’s communications director, Alex Weintz.
“After conducting her own review that takes into account all the facts of the case, the governor may then decide either to grant or deny the commutation,” Weintz said

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pha...ys-begin-appeal/article/3572201#ixzz1NfsTvuTj


I'm not sure what the writer of that article meant, but describing the jury as "emotional" is unfair, IMO. I can say from personal experience that, yes, it is an emotional experience to convict someone of murder. But to use the phrase "an emotional jury" seems to imply they acted out of emotion rather than reason.

I think it's pretty obvious that emotions in this case tend to favor the defendant. This jury used their reason in following the letter of the law.

I also want to note that the article says the minimum time served for a life sentence in OK is 38 years, UNLESS the judge suspends part or all of Ersland's sentence (or, of course, an appeal succeeds).
 
  • #407
  • #408
I didn't. Wow. No wonder they couldn't put him on the stand!
Well between that and the changing stories it is pretty clear there was some consciousness of guilt going on,imo, and going on the stand would be out of the question.

From the notes:

>>Ersland goes back in the pharmacy, puts "The Judge" in his left hand walks behind the counter and gets a .380 pistol. He stands over Antwun Parker's body and "Boom...Boom...Boom...Boom...Boom" firing five more shots into Parker's body.
Ersland goes to the phone and calls 911 saying "911, I've just been robbed and I killed a guy."
Prater continues to tell the jury Ersland's first statements to police were that both robbers were running on both sides of him and he grabbed both guns, one in each hand and fired. He said he thought he hit the one on the left, but he was still up. Ersland says he shot him again but missed the other one.
After the video came out his story changed. Ersland went on Bill O'Reilly, a national Television program, and told a different story.<<
 
  • #409
I haven't been following this case every day since the trial began, but recall it from the beginning.

IF one doesn't lie, the truth never changes, but a lie does. His story revolved as the case progressed. Sadly, he's put people at risk who are RIGHTFULLY protecting their home and property and place of business. If there hadn't been a video, he most likely would have gotten away with cold blooded murder.

Of course, this is just my opinion. This is sad for all involved.

:(
fran
 
  • #410
Here are his 3 accounts of what happened:
First account

A police report shows he told a detective May 19 that he shot Parker again before chasing a second robber out of the store. "Ersland said he ran by the one he shot ... and that he ... was 'still up there and wanting to hit me,'" according to the police detective's report on the interview. "Ersland ... said, 'I unloaded on him' and he ... went down. He then chased the other subject ... out of the store."
"He just kept staying up," he is quoted as telling the police detective about why he shot Parker again. The detective said the pharmacist referred to Parker as "the guy I nailed."

Second account

Ersland's account changed after prosecutors publicly released a security surveillance video that shows the pharmacist shot Parker again after chasing away the other robber.
Ersland said in a nationally televised interview on Fox News that he shot "the guy laying down" again after coming back in the store. "I went up to him and he seemed to be just dazed," Ersland told Fox News' Bill O&#8217;Reilly on June 1. "And he started talking to me and he started turning to the right. ... I'm crippled. And I knew ... when he got up, if he was just dazed, that he could kill me. ... I thought I was going to get killed in the next few seconds. ... I still think he had a gun."

Latest account

In the July 8 letter to the OSBI, Ersland wrote that he shot Parker again after Parker cursed him and tried to get up by grabbing a bookcase. He wrote that he had just run back into the pharmacy after trading shots with the other robber outside. He wrote that a guy in a green car said, "He&#8217;s getting up!"
"As the robber in the corner began to climb up the bookcase with his right hand, he yelled, '---- you,' and slipped on the floor, so I saw my chance to end the threat and went for the back-up gun and shot him just as he slid down on the slippery surface," he wrote to the OSBI. "I was experiencing a tremendous amount of adrenaline."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2318160/posts
 
  • #411
And in fact, JBean, that "second account", should be divided into Part 2a and Part 2b. What you've posted is 2b.

In 2a, Ersland told O'Reilly (at some length) that he thought one of the robbers had killed the younger of Ersland's two employees. Ersland was still trying to make himself sound like a hero, but in fact was negating his own self-defense argument. Vengeance is not defense.

Personally, I could probably overlook the first lie to LE. Fran is right that lying is never a good idea, but I can understand how someone might tell a lie out of fear of the police.

But the repeated lies and the extremes to which Ersland went (shoving metal fragments under his arm!) definitely show consciousness of guilt.
 
  • #412
IF the video showed any of his versions, he wouldn't have been convicted. He should have stopped with the first statement, and tried something else in court or gone for a 'deal.'

Like others have stated, the attempt to appear wounded and his removal of such fragments, IMHO, sealed his fait.

JMHO
fran
 
  • #413
And in fact, JBean, that "second account", should be divided into Part 2a and Part 2b. What you've posted is 2b.

In 2a, Ersland told O'Reilly (at some length) that he thought one of the robbers had killed the younger of Ersland's two employees. Ersland was still trying to make himself sound like a hero, but in fact was negating his own self-defense argument. Vengeance is not defense.

Personally, I could probably overlook the first lie to LE. Fran is right that lying is never a good idea, but I can understand how someone might tell a lie out of fear of the police.

But the repeated lies and the extremes to which Ersland went (shoving metal fragments under his arm!) definitely show consciousness of guilt.
Thanks Nova for that clarification.

I also did not know that Ersland was firing down the street when he went outside.
 
  • #414
Thanks Nova for that clarification.

I also did not know that Ersland was firing down the street when he went outside.

Which is perhaps the most horrifying part! He's very lucky the prosecution didn't add gun and reckless endangerment charges to the murder count, IMO.
 
  • #415
:thud:

Did we know he faked a bullet injury?

Yes. I am pretty sure his defense tried unsuccessfully to get that testimony barred.

I looked for a link, but I could not find one.
 
  • #416
  • #417
From that same article:

Michael Powell also contacted police on May 26, 2009, after hearing media accounts that the pharmacist claimed a man in a white car pointed a shotgun at him outside the pharmacy. She told police she was bothered by the claim.

&#8220;At no time did she see a white car stopped on SW 58th Street or see Ersland confront anyone in any cars,&#8221; police reported. &#8220;Powell felt the white car story Ersland was telling was a lie.&#8221;

In one account of what happened, Ersland wrote he saw a black man raise up a shotgun outside the drugstore.

&#8220;But I got the drop on him and pointed the store gun at him. Although he was in my sights, I did not shoot him as he posed no immediate threat to me, and he drove off extremely fast,&#8221; Ersland wrote in a July 8, 2009, letter to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.


Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-wom...angered-her-son/article/3563639#ixzz1NgcQLQM0

So, a guy with a shotgun poses no immediate threat to him, but an unarmed, unconscious guy lying on the floor in a pool of his own blood does.

:waitasec:
 
  • #418
Yes. I am pretty sure his defense tried unsuccessfully to get that testimony barred.

I looked for a link, but I could not find one.
there is some info about it in the trial transcripts.
 
  • #419
Which is perhaps the most horrifying part! He's very lucky the prosecution didn't add gun and reckless endangerment charges to the murder count, IMO.

Yes, cause that would make a real difference considering he is facing life in prison.
 
  • #420
I'm not sure what the writer of that article meant, but describing the jury as "emotional" is unfair, IMO. I can say from personal experience that, yes, it is an emotional experience to convict someone of murder. But to use the phrase "an emotional jury" seems to imply they acted out of emotion rather than reason.

I think it's pretty obvious that emotions in this case tend to favor the defendant. This jury used their reason in following the letter of the law.

I also want to note that the article says the minimum time served for a life sentence in OK is 38 years, UNLESS the judge suspends part or all of Ersland's sentence (or, of course, an appeal succeeds).

Well if the jury followed the letter of the law, then, IMO, the law should be changed. The OK did pass "make my day" law, but I don't believe even that goes far enough in protecting people who are trying to protect themselves. If they pass this, no none in Ersland's situation would end up convicted of first degree murder.

"A state senator is proposing a new law that would be known as the "Jerome Ersland Act." Senator Ralph Shortey (R-Oklahoma City) says the bill would presume that a business owner was acting in self-defense if that owner shoots and kills an armed robber."
http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-ersland-law-stand-ground-story,0,7862556.story
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
2,507
Total visitors
2,563

Forum statistics

Threads
632,801
Messages
18,631,893
Members
243,294
Latest member
Safeplace07
Back
Top