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

[JBean]

Huh? Are you talking about another case? What case and what are the facts?

The felony murder rule included those that planned the robbery that were not there at the scene. They were all charged with murder; as was the other robber.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And another jury decided it were the people who planned the robbery. Seems like a contradiction to me.

NM, said better by JBean.

ETA: You do understand the concept of felony murder, I trust.

 

[Nova]

Well he didn't hit an innocent bystander, so why even bring that up? Plainly obvious if this was in TX no way would he end up on trial. And the judge doesn't appear to be sympathetic to Ersland in the least, considering he barred most of the defense witnesses from testifying, so it's not likely all of the sudden the judge will give him a lesser sentence.

It was claimed above that Texas LAW would absolve Ersland. Having seen the statute, that does not appear to be the case. But if your point is that Texas politics would prevent a DA from charging Ersland, you may well be right.

Ersland's bullets came close enough to innocent bystanders that they could hear the air displaced as the bullets passed. It was just luck that nobody was hurt. The point here is that Ersland is a dangerous man, and not just to robbers.

You may well be right about the judge. But you asked what difference additional charges might make, so I told you. They might also extend Ersland's sentence, but since he is in his 50s, if he gets the full minimum (requiring him to serve at least 38 years), it might not matter if his sentence is prolonged.

 

[Nova]

What? It's the same case, the two men were just convicted of first degree murder for murdering that same boy.

Sorry. I forgot about that for a moment. So two courts found three different defendants to blame. Given that a theory of "felony murder" ALWAYS means that a third party was the actual shooter, this isn't unusual in any way.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

And the judge doesn't appear to be sympathetic to Ersland in the least, considering he barred most of the defense witnesses from testifying

[respectfully snipped to show what I am responding to]

Please explain what you mean by "most of" the defense witnesses.

I am aware of the other pharmacist who was robbed, the one from Chelsea, Oklahoma.

Besides him, what other witnesses did the judge bar from testifying?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Adnoid! Glad to see you.:wave:

I'm sorry if I missed them, but I don't recall having seen any answers from you to my queries regarding why you think the DA prosecuted this case for political reasons.

If the aftermath as reported in the mainstream media is any indication, public opinion is running high for Ersland and against Prater for ever prosecuting the case in the first place.

As it was from Day One.

So I ask you once again: what do you think Prater thought he would gain politically from trying this case?

 

[Nova]

I'm not sure what is accomplished by the drive-by sarcasm.

Of course, people may argue that laws are wrong. Posters have done so throughout this thread. Posters do so in almost all threads.

But what some of us have been trying to explain is that the jurors in the Ersland case DID follow the law. If you don't like the law, you'll be happy to know the OK legislature has already rewritten it.

However, at the time Ersland executed Parker, he committed murder according to OK law.

 

[jjenny]

[respectfully snipped to show what I am responding to]

Please explain what you mean by "most of" the defense witnesses.

I am aware of the other pharmacist who was robbed, the one from Chelsea, Oklahoma.

Besides him, what other witnesses did the judge bar from testifying?

Defense had a list of 21 witnesses including a police officer who killed a suspect, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Only one witness testified at trial.
http://newsok.com/pharmacist-jerome-jay-erslands-attorneys-file-witness-list/article/3558232

 

[Nova]

Defense had a list of 21 witnesses including a police officer who killed a suspect, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Only one witness testified at trial.
http://newsok.com/pharmacist-jerome-jay-erslands-attorneys-file-witness-list/article/3558232

So the defense put together a list of witnesses that might inflame the passions of the jury, even though, in the two examples we have, those witnesses shot people under very different conditions than those under which Ersland shot Parker.

OF COURSE the judge refused to allow them. I doubt the defense team was even surprised.

ETA I suspect that part of the legal problem may have been that without Ersland taking the stand (and we've discussed why that wasn't feasible), the defense had no way of establishing that the witnesses or their states of mind were similar enough to Ersland to be relevant.

 

[jjenny]

So the defense put together a list of witnesses that might inflame the passions of the jury, even though, in the two examples we have, those witnesses shot people under very different conditions than those under which Ersland shot Parker.

OF COURSE the judge refused to allow them. I doubt the defense team was even surprised.

ETA I suspect that part of the legal problem may have been that without Ersland taking the stand (and we've discussed why that wasn't feasible), the defense had no way of establishing that the witnesses or their states of mind were similar enough to Ersland to be relevant.

And what about a psychologist and a psychiatrist? How is that fair? Shouldn't the jury hear testimony of how a victim of armed robbery experiences a severe emotional distress? Ersland was convicted of first degree murder, so how is that fair that the jury did not get to hear testimony of his mental state at the time?

 

[JBean]

And what about a psychologist and a psychiatrist? How is that fair? Shouldn't the jury hear testimony of how a victim of armed robbery experiences a severe emotional distress? Ersland was convicted of first degree murder, so how is that fair that the jury did not get to hear testimony of his mental state at the time?

Did Ersland have someone evaluate him and prepare something but the judge did not allow that expert to testify? If an expert evaluated Ersland professionally and came to a conclusion favorable to the defense, I am surprised that person could not testify.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Defense had a list of 21 witnesses including a police officer who killed a suspect, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Only one witness testified at trial.
http://newsok.com/pharmacist-jerome-jay-erslands-attorneys-file-witness-list/article/3558232

Thank you, and once again I am freaked out by my long-lost connections to the players in this case: not only was Judge Elliott a student teacher in one of my high school classes, but Police Officer Land was a friend of a friend, and once attended a get-together at my apartment, long before these events of course.

I wonder who the psychologist and psychiatrist were, and why they didn't testify. Also if I might happen to know them. LOL.

 

[ohiogirl]

:thud:

Did we know he faked a bullet injury?

thanks for the links jb
they were very informative

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Did Ersland have someone evaluate him and prepare something but the judge did not allow that expert to testify? If an expert evaluated Ersland professionally and came to a conclusion favorable to the defense, I am surprised that person could not testify.

Me, too. I have followed this case pretty extensively and can find no evidence of such an evaluation in the first place, much less that one was performed yet not allowed into evidence.

 

[ohiogirl]

This seems like a really weird trial, maybe one that you had to be there to figure it out
I would like to see the ME testimony, if the boy was dead or going to die from the first shot, that would seem to make a difference. If he had brain matter on the ground from the first shot, the subsequent shots would not have been the fatal ones, even though they said the blood indicated he was still alive when the last shots were fired. If the first shot was most likely the fatal shot, that might seem to make a difference. Dont' know if there was any ME testimony to that.

 

[ohiogirl]

I will leave you now with those thoughts.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

The ME testified that the first (head) shot was potentially but not necessarily fatal, and that Parker could have survived with immediate medical attention.

As an aside, I think the Gabrielle Giffords case shows that head shots aren't always necessarily the death sentence we assume them to be.

 

[jjenny]

This seems like a really weird trial, maybe one that you had to be there to figure it out
I would like to see the ME testimony, if the boy was dead or going to die from the first shot, that would seem to make a difference. If he had brain matter on the ground from the first shot, the subsequent shots would not have been the fatal ones, even though they said the blood indicated he was still alive when the last shots were fired. If the first shot was most likely the fatal shot, that might seem to make a difference. Dont' know if there was any ME testimony to that.

If he was dead from the head shot, they couldn't charge Ersland with murder because obviously someone can not kill a dead body. But apparently while he might have died from it later, he wasn't dead when Ersland shot him again.

 

[jjenny]

The ME testified that the first (head) shot was potentially but not necessarily fatal, and that Parker could have survived with immediate medical attention.

As an aside, I think the Gabrielle Giffords case shows that head shots aren't always necessarily the death sentence we assume them to be.

Giffords' is not exactly a usual case. Also she was lucky in that the bullet only went through one side of her brain and not across.

 

[Nova]

And what about a psychologist and a psychiatrist? How is that fair? Shouldn't the jury hear testimony of how a victim of armed robbery experiences a severe emotional distress? Ersland was convicted of first degree murder, so how is that fair that the jury did not get to hear testimony of his mental state at the time?

We don't know what the psychologist and psychiatrist were prepared to testify. Did they examine Ersland? If so, I'm surprised the judge didn't allow them (especially since the lesser included offense--manslaughter--usually involves something akin to "extreme emotional distress"). But if the doctors were only testifying what other people felt in other situations, the judge may have not found it relevant.

No doubt all of this will be the subject of an appeal.