CHESAPEAKE
The lawyer for the man convicted of killing a Mormon missionary and wounding another asked the judge on Monday to set aside the verdict.
Andrew Sacks contends that a police officer who testified in the case was later present in the courtroom and that an alternate juror who sat near the victim's family - and might have developed a relationship with the sitting jury - could have had an effect on the jury's decision.
The jury on Friday found James Boughton Jr. guilty of first-degree murder, malicious wounding, attempted malicious wounding and three counts of use of a firearm after two days of deliberations. He faces life in prison.
Morgan W. Young and Joshua Heidbrink were shot Jan. 2, 2006, in Deep Creek. Young, 21, died from a gunshot wound to the head.
Judge Randy Smith acknowledged the defense's motion but asked Sacks to file it at a later time so the jury could begin the sentencing phase. That is set to begin at 10 a.m. today.
While arguing for the verdict to be thrown out, Sacks held up Saturday's edition of The Virginian-Pilot, which featured a front-page photo of Heidbrink embracing Chesapeake police Officer E. Jeffries after the verdict was read. Jeffries testified during the trial, and his police dog, Rok, helped locate evidence in the case.
Sacks said officers are "supposed to be neutral" and that the photo illustrated "what we were up against."
Commonwealth's Attorney Nancy Parr said that "different people came and went for both sides" throughout the trial and that the officer and the alternate juror, "had every right to be in a public courtroom."
The court will arrange for police and any jury alternates interested in viewing the proceedings to watch the video in another room.
Pilot writer John Hopkins contributed to this story.
Kristin Davis, (757) 222-5555, kristin.davis@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
"Sacks only doing his job."
I agree the man should spend the rest of his life behind bars or maybe even be in line to take a seat in the chair, for killing the missionary and wounding the other. Although his lawyer Andrew Sacks was hired to do all he can to get him off, that's what lawyer's do. Don't be angry with the lawyer be angry with the lawmakers Sacks is only doing his job. Always remember innocent people can use just a good lawyer but guilty ones need the best lawyers they can get.
Ooops.....
Did the defense attorney hug the accused family?? Maybe he's bias.
DNA
DNA on the gun... That is the conviction, if there was no DNA or his clothing left at the murder, it might be different. DNA was pulled from the gun. This is the truth...
He needs to pay for his crime with his own life. This is the lack of respect for human life the is more and more apparent with today's youth. No values,No respect and No Fear. Get ready for more with no jobs for these youth and no future.
Whats the problem?
First of all there is nothing wrong with a Police Officer who after testimony being in the courtroom and hugging a victim after the verdict! Remaining neutral as Sacks said is a desperate scraping attempt for a technicality! "neutral" zone is a football offense not one for court.
Secondly, was the alternate juror allowed in the jury room for determining guilt or innocence? Ans: NO. So because of where she sat Mr. Sacks feels she may have influenced the jury??? I dont think so.
Thirdly, backing out of a driveway and running over a child is NOT murder unless it was a premeditated intentional act like that of the suspect in this case!
Suspect was found guilty therefore sentence him accordingly!
Stevenm
Consider the many people who have been convicted, in the last 30yrs alone, by a jury or judge, only to have their conviction overturned on new evidence, especially DNA evidence. If all who were later found innocent had been quickly put to death, following conviction... ; So, if, in your opinion, 1 who takes a life should have their life taken as pay, you should want Ryan Frederick to get the chair.
What a SACK
Pun intended...what a sack. This guy is guilty as sin and his lawyer wants him off on a technicality...sure, if he is remanded to Sack's personal care at his residence. See how that works.
retrail
Both stevenm and norml have valid points, however i beleive that if you accidently kill someone it is an accident when you are carrying a illegal gun and shoot two people it is murder!. stevenm states the DA removed the possibilty of the death for this trial the question is now if he gets a mistrial can the DA put the death penalty back in????
I would say that police are
I would say that police are people, too. And, while their investigations should definitely be impartial, they should certainly be allowed and free to provide support to the victims they have helped.
DUE PROCESS
The police officer should have known better. He is the person wasting your precious taxpayer dollars.
The U.S. Constitution is not a technicality.
technically speaking,
The hug they're talking about & entering into evidence happened after the juries decision. "AFTER" people, not during the trial or deliberations, "AFTER". I do believe it's quite acceptable to hug someone in a moment of happiness, which I'm sure this truly was for the family members & CPD. What I don't believe is that they got the right guy. I don't think this guy is smart enough to do this on his own. The other perp that testified against him has serious credabilty issues. But this jury has spoken, & as our judicial system insist then he must be punished. Let the appeals process go forward & we'll just have to wait & see what comes about. I guess this ones not yet over.
I 2nd That!!!
Submitted by norml70608 on Tue, 12/16/2008 at 5:49 am.
YOU, Stevenm, are backing out of your driveway and run over and kill (murder, take the person's life, etc.) a child who was playing behind your vehicle.
With YOUR feet now in the "murderer's shoes", would you fully, unequivocally support being prosecuted for capital murder and insist that the death penalty be kept as a possible sentence?
Or would you cry "it was an accident!"? The bottom line is that the child would still be dead and you would still be its murderer.
How do those shoes feel?
Great synopsis/scenario: i'm in total agreeance with you
Stephenm for Commonwealth's Attorney!
Excellent points and viable idea. Murder somebody and soon you cease to exist.
Wasting taxpayer money again
Better yet, sentence him to a firing squad and save the taxpayers a great deal of money having to keep him alive in a jail.
Please don't waste the taxpayers money
on another trial. His lawyer is not arguing whether he's guilty or not, but a techicality. He was found guilty, sentence him and move on.
stevenm - it depends on your definition of murder
If you define murder as the taking of another person's life, then consider this scenario:
YOU, Stevenm, are backing out of your driveway and run over and kill (murder, take the person's life, etc.) a child who was playing behind your vehicle.
With YOUR feet now in the "murderer's shoes", would you fully, unequivocally support being prosecuted for capital murder and insist that the death penalty be kept as a possible sentence?
Or would you cry "it was an accident!"? The bottom line is that the child would still be dead and you would still be its murderer.
How do those shoes feel?
A Parasite On Humans
Put this guy away for life. He killed a bright young man on a mission and wounded another. Prison is too good for him.
Why allow a killer to live
The same reason GOD allows you to live, his mercy falls on the just as well as the unjust. For you to make such a comment, I wonder what your life is like, Jesus died for your sins as well. But, what can we expect from such ignorance. A man cannot judge justly, that's GODs job. You can't bring him back only GOD can.
Again
Again the hardest part of the jurys decision has been made by a prosecuting attorney. He, by law, decided not to persue this case as a capital murder case, therefore removing the possibility of a death sentence. All murder cases should be prosecuted as capital murder and after being found guilty, the jury should be determining what the sentence should be. Removing the possibility of a death sentence should not be left up to the prosecutor even though he is allowed to do it by law. The laws need to be changed so that the death penalty is used more often and more quickly. There is no deterrent unless an individual knows that the penalty will be swift and strong. Why allow a killer to live?
Retrial
1 teen said he did. 7 said he didn't. The constitution states no crime should be prosecuted unless there were 2 or more witnesses to the crime.
Where did the DNA come from? Was it at the scene? Police dont say.
Officer Phillips had the homes of suspects burglarized to collect evidence to try them
I see overturned on appeal. And OJ too, based on judicial bias. How many times did Judge Glass have to tell the court the trial was not about his prior murder acquittal....? Free OJ.
defense has a point...i
defense has a point...i think it should be a mistrial. Its the same scenario as a cop hugging a family member or friend of the murder suspect. You would want a mistrial too! Everyone deserves a fair trial..wether they are right or wrong.