By Dean Weingarten
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- The trial involving the Flagstaff shooting of a mob of drunken fraternity members who attacked an 18 year old pistol owner, is almost over.
The shooting occurred in October of 2015. As of 27 April, 2017, the jury is considering the case.
A motion for mistrial by the defense has been refused by the trial judge, Dan Slayton. Slayton previously took the unusual stance of ruling the police video from the scene as “prejudicial”. In the video, a bloodied and hysterical 18 year old, Steven Jones, tells the police how glad he is they are there, and he thought he was going to die.
Then, in the closing arguments to the jury, the prosecutor claimed that Steven Jones, the shooter, never claimed self defense until he “had an audience at the police station”.
The defense cried foul. From azcentral.com:
Then, in the closing arguments to the jury, the prosecutor claimed that Steven Jones, the shooter, never claimed self defense until he “had an audience at the police station”. The defense cried foul. From azcentral.com:
A Coconino County Superior Court judge Thursday morning denied a mistrial for prosecutor misconduct in the Steven Jones murder trial.
But he ordered that the jury be given an instruction about inaccurate statements made by the prosecutor in his closing argument that would diminish Jones’ claims of self-defense.
Before the trial began, prosecutors Ammon Barker and Bryan Shea convinced the judge to preclude statements Jones made to witnesses and police at the scene of the October 2015 shooting that left one student dead and three others wounded on the Northern Arizona University campus.
Immediately after the incident, Jones told another student that he acted in self-defense, and when he was in a police car after being detained, he was recorded on camera as saying, “Why were they going to hurt me?” and “I thought I was going to die.”
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
@Oldvet, Sometimes it just takes awhile. The system is probably overloaded with replies to Gil and Twisted Sister after their last comments.
The power of we the people in the Jury is to counter any biased Prosecutors or Biased Judges that intentionally omit helpful facts for a persons defense etc. or cancel them from promoting any UnConstitutional “regulation” or “law” in any case is JURY NULLIFICATION!!!
@Me, How does one get the jury to exercise this power, when one is not allowed to mention it in court?
We the People must be informed of this knowledge and power prior to being selected for jury duty so that it can be put to use when needed. One way to do this is to spread the use of it among everyone we know, but do not mention it before or during the jury selection process so that the procecutors, judges,etc. will not keep you off of the jury. Just keep it in mind during the trial for use when needed. Another way is to mention it in the online forums, run informative advertisements in news papers that will print… Read more »
Massad Ayoob has plenty of examples of just this sort of thing. The Hickey case in Tucson, AZ (2008) for example. Prosecutorial misconduct and suppression of evidence is nothing new.
The people of Coconino County better get themselves some different prosecutors. Who knows who may be on trial next.
I am a retired law police officer and this may be the biggest and most blatant case of prosecutorial misconduct I have ever heard of. For a prosecutor to ignore a key element of a case and then to present it as never having had happen is criminal in my opinion. When all is said and done he should be disbarred for his actions especially if the man is found guilty because of his actions.
It’s also an even more egregious case of judicial misconduct.