Jury unable to reach verdict in murder trial, deliberations resume Thursday
Print- •
- •
-
8 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
What's next
Jury deliberations continue at 8:30 a.m. Thursday.
Jurors deliberated for more than six hours, wrote as many notes to the judge and remained split 7-5 when at 5:50 p.m. Wednesday they broke for the day.
Judge Robert Cheshire told jurors in Stanford Harvey's capital murder trial they must deliberate more before he will declare a mistrial.
Harvey, 45, is charged in the 2006 death of Melba Lott, 42.
"Stanford Harvey is innocent," defense lawyer Frank Davila said in closing statements. "He wasn't even there. There is no evidence."
Lott's body was found in her apartment in March 2006. Her cause of death was originally listed as cocaine toxicity, but a second autopsy in 2008 determined homicidal violence played a role.
Lott's boyfriend, Bruce Hughes, was convicted of capital murder in her slaying earlier this year. Jurors this week never heard a key witness from Hughes' trial.
In the February trial, 21-year-old Amanda Jo Walters said she, Hughes and Harvey were all present the night Lott died. Walters stood outside while Lott screamed for help and the men beat her, she said.
But Walters refused to testify Tuesday. Hughes did testify, though, and told jurors he alone killed Lott. The couple fought on Valentine's Day 2006 over a dwindling drug supply, Hughes said.
While DNA and fingerprints linked Hughes to Lott's bloody Navidad Street apartment, Harvey's prints and blood were absent. What investigators first thought was a trail of blood leading to his apartment above Lott's was not.
The blanks in evidence and testimony prevented District Attorney Steve Tyler from presenting the same narrative he did during Hughes' trial. Tyler focused on Hughes' culpability in the murder and his unreliability.
"You were presented with enough evidence to make that decision," Tyler said during closing arguments. "Would you want more? Would investigators want more? Sure."
Evidence that remained included a phone call in which Harvey said, "Man, that's not how it went down, though."
Harvey was talking about Lott's murder, Tyler said. But Davila said his client was contesting reports of what happened in Hughes' trial.
Three women besides Walters also testified they heard Harvey talk about Lott's trial as though he was there, Tyler said.
During deliberations, jurors asked the court reporter to read back testimony from Clemencia Archangel and Stephanie Holt.
Archangel said Harvey told her he instructed Hughes to kill Lott.
Holt said a conversation with Harvey gave her the impression he was present for Lott's death, although he did not tell Holt who killed her.
During closing arguments, Davila said the women's criminal records and histories of using crack cocaine made their testimony unreliable.
"An addict would resort to any means to get liberated," Davila said, paraphrasing Archangel.
But the defense, too, had offered only the word of Hughes, a felon and drug addict, Tyler said.
The defense theory, he said, "Involves believing a crack-addicted, wife-beating S.O.B. that another jury found guilty. But please don't believe Clemencia Archangel. She uses crack cocaine."
Comments
I have sat on two separate felony jury trials as a juror. My experience left me with the feeling that some people deliberately lie during voir dire to improve their chances of getting picked for the jury. I was shocked in both cases at how vengeful a few of the jurors were in the jury room. It seemed as though these bullies were offended by even discussing any of contentions made by the defense. In both trials, I voted to convict, but I was sickened by the closed minds I witnessed during deliberation, who basically felt that a person would not be on trial if he/she were not guilty.
October 2, 2009 at 7:59 a.m.Sometimes witnesses don't work out like you thought they would. This requires a DA to think on his feet.
"You were presented with enough evidence to make that decision," Tyler said during closing arguments. "Would you want more? Would investigators want more? Sure."
Right here, folks, right here, in this quote, DA Tyler admitted to the jury there is reasonable doubt. I'd sure like to think that something inspirational followed DA Tyler's comments -- but it doesn't appear that way from the VA's reporting.
October 1, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.Why would anyone need to be blamed? Seems like this one wasn't as cut & dried. Junkies testifying for & against other junkies about the death of junkie, & the junkie who killed her said the junkie on trial didn't do it. I guess you could blame the junkie who refused to testify...or maybe you could just blame the junk.
October 1, 2009 at 8:53 p.m.KCi wrote:
"Personally, I think he may be found guilty of a lesser charge...maybe murder, instead of capital murder, or aggravated assault."
Or throw him under the jail just because he's using illegal drugs and hanging around with this kinda scum that does too!!
As I've said before, I wouldn't last a week as a patrol officer. I'd probably have a "Police brutality" charge brought against me, nor would I be a good Judge or Juror having to deal with this kind of people !!
October 1, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.tipsy361...that's a good question. Wish I had a good answer for you. From what I have seen/heard, VPD did their job and the the prosecution has done a good job presenting what evidence it has. From what I have read, there does not seem to be any physical evidence tying him to the scene...that may be what the stumbling block is for the jury...and you can't blame them for that.
If he does walk it would be interesting to talk with the jurors to see what their thoughts were after hearing all the evidence. Personally, I think he may be found guilty of a lesser charge...maybe murder, instead of capital murder, or aggravated assault.
October 1, 2009 at 10:37 a.m.So if he walks out free who is to blame?
October 1, 2009 at 9:25 a.m."Three women besides Walters also testified they heard Harvey talk about "Lott's trial" as though he was there, Tyler said."..................Lott's trial?
September 30, 2009 at 11:06 p.m.It would be sad day, if this trial ends in a hanged jury. No only the cost of the trial, but lack of a verdict does not speak well of the system.
September 30, 2009 at 9:27 p.m.I have advocated for a long time a change in the make-up of the jury to 9 jurors with 2 addition jurors being present in case a couple of the nine had to be dismissed. And also, I contend that only 8 would be required for a verdict. This would help prevent a mistrial.
Doubt a change will occur.