stroo wrote:In this case, as another poster stated, this guy got convicted because he did everything wrong after the shooting.
Probably true.Search found 3 matches
Return to “Update: AUSTIN clerk convicted for shooting beer thief”
- Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:11 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Update: AUSTIN clerk convicted for shooting beer thief
- Replies: 31
- Views: 4910
Re: AUSTIN clerk convicted of MURDER for shooting beer thief
Probably true.- Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:11 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Update: AUSTIN clerk convicted for shooting beer thief
- Replies: 31
- Views: 4910
Re: AUSTIN clerk convicted of MURDER for shooting beer thief
I haven't been following this case, but his conviction would depend on the charges filed against him. If the DA filed only charges for murder, and not manslaughter, then the jury only had one choice - Guilty or Not Guilty.austinrealtor wrote:you're probably right. i guess jury nullification goes both ways. this time it seems possible that the jury convicted him of a crime he didn't commit. (again, not saying the guy is innocent as a newborn baby - he certainly tampered with evidence etc. but MURDER seems an awfully long stretch to me).HankB wrote:I suspect his video statements to police plus his demeanor made the jury not like him very much, so they convicted him
- Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:21 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: Update: AUSTIN clerk convicted for shooting beer thief
- Replies: 31
- Views: 4910
Re: AUSTIN store clerk prosecuted for shooting man stealing
I agree that the jury reached some kind of compromise. Some jurors probably thought that he should be found guilty of something for killing a person, but didn't believe that he did it maliciously or that he was an evil person who deserved a prison sentence.austinrealtor wrote:Murder conviction, 8 years' probation for store clerk who killed beer thief. I really don't understand this conviction combined with this sentence. How can you be guilty of murder, but receive no jail time? It was obviously a very split jury, and I guess they thought this was some sort of compromise or something.