|
|
|
MIKE GASSAWAY & JOHN JENSON, OKC, AND ALSO MARCO PALUMBO & TIM "TARZAN" WILSON, OKLA. CO. PUB. DEFENDER'S OFFICE
Two gangbangers were charged jointly with a gang-retaliation murder (retaliation for the killing of a nine-year-old child). Both defendants tried jointly in Judge Black's courtroom in Oklahoma City with Mike lead counsel for the alleged driver of the car and Marco lead counsel for the alleged shooter. The State was represented by Pattye High and Sandy Elliott, two very hard-core and hard-edged prosecutors. The two clients were charged with Murder I and also A&B w/Deadly Weapon on the survivor. The State presented testimony from the survivor/eyewitness (also a gang member), the cops who did not conduct any meaningful investigation, and two cops who were "gang experts" who did not actually investigate the facts of the case, but told the jury all the horrible things that gang members do. Mike told me that the alleged shooter, Marco's client, took the stand, but Mike's client did not. The State did play the videotape of Mike's client being interviewed by the cops wherein he told the cops 116 times "you got the wrong guy." (!) Mike said that the reason the State played the tape was because at some point on the tape the client said he attended a funeral but the State had witnesses who said he was not there. So, some sort of thin impeachment appeared to be the reason for playing the tape but it gave Mike's client an excellent opportunity to testify without being subject to cross-examination. The Defense centered around impeaching the eyewitness (the surviving gang member) who told a plethora of different stories in varying degrees of detail. The result: Both clients NOT GUILTY on all counts(!!) Folks, having a good case and good facts is one thing; but actually convincing the twelve in the box that you have a good case, and against two of the hardest prosecutors in the office to boot, is something special. Murder I. Not Guilty. Oh, Mike said that Marco walked over to shake hands with his adversaries and was ignored and treated disrespectfully. Not really surprising considering the two prosecutors in question, but I would have expected at least some class from them. I guess they don't have it.
HERE IS THE OTHER INTERESTING THING about this case: one of the jurors was a deaf-mute and had to have the assistance of a sign-language interpreter throughout the trial and even during deliberations(!!) Mike reported that this juror was apparently feisty and fought to stay on jury duty when efforts were made to excuse him for cause (which isn't all that surprising since the judiciary and the prosecutors seem to prize speed of the trial and having such a juror would slow it down). Mike decided to let him stay on and he became the jury FOREMAN(!) Two interpreters were actually used since the testimony was fast-paced and Mike said the interpreters acted out the emotions on the videotape and during the testimony to this juror, who did not actually watch the witnesses---he watched the interpreters. Mike also said that they had to draft a special oath for the interpreter who sat in on jury deliberations. I have never heard of any non-juror being allowed in the jury room during deliberations but it happened in this case.
Congrats to Mike, John, Marco and Tim for a job well done; and we'll give Marco a hearty hand-shake even if the State won't.
|
|
|
