CHESAPEAKE
Jurors in the Ryan Frederick murder trial on Friday watched a videotaped interview the defendant gave to police after the shooting that left Chesapeake Detective Jarrod Shivers dead.
It was the first time Frederick had seen the video, too.
In a police interrogation room, Frederick told detectives he "just started shooting," when he saw someone ram his front door.
"Did you hear them announce they were the police?" one detective asked Frederick.
"Never," he said in the video. "I didn't look what I was shooting at. I told you that three or five times."
The detectives appeared polite and courteous, giving Frederick water and a trash can to vomit in.
When detectives left him alone for a few minutes, he curled himself up into a ball and cried, the video showed.
By the end of the day Friday, the jury had heard all the evidence in the case and will return on Monday afternoon for closing arguments and deliberations.
The jury will be left to decide whether Frederick, 29, is guilty of capital murder and should spend the rest of his life in prison for shooting and killing Shivers during a drug raid at Frederick's house on Jan. 17, 2008. They might, though, be allowed to consider lesser homicide charges.
Police raided Frederick's home that night looking for a marijuana-growing operation that informant Steven Rene Wright had told them about.
The jury will be left to sift inconsistencies among the defendant, informants and the police before deciding Frederick's fate.
In court, as he had testified earlier, Frederick admitted that he lied to the detectives that night about his marijuana-growing operation and failed to tell them that some plants had been stolen days earlier. Frederick also said he saw a face and then a hand reach through the hole in his front door.
He said it was then that he fired his gun. Detectives disputed that scenario, saying they never did that and backed away once Shivers was shot. Prosecutors latched onto that difference as a chief inconsistency between Frederick and the police.
"If you lied about something like marijuana, wouldn't you lie about the shooting?" James Willett, one of the special prosecutors from Prince William County, asked Frederick after the video.
"I didn't lie," Frederick answered.
The most crucial inconsistency, according to the lawyers involved, is whether Frederick told people he was ready to shoot police that night or, as he said, he had no idea police were at his door before he fired.
"This case, in the long run, is going to bear down on credibility," Richard Conway, one of the special prosecutors, told the judge Circuit Court Judge Marjorie A.T. Arrington on Friday.
The jury will have to decide, Conway said, whether the police are "conspiratorial liars" or whether "the defendant's credibility should be more scrutinized."
Conway recalled witness Aaron Curlee to highlight another inconsistency. Curlee testified that Frederick called Wright multiple times after Frederick's garage was burglarized three days before the raid. Frederick accused Wright of taking the plants. Wright at the time was the police informant who provided the information that led to the search warrant.
Curlee said he heard Frederick accuse Wright of the break-in and threatened him, his family and the police.
When Wright replied that he was going to report the threats to police, Frederick responded, " 'I have something for them, too,' " Curlee said on the stand Friday.
Wright, however, in earlier testimony never said that Frederick made such a threat toward police.
Broccoletti, in turn, countered with a phone record showing that the phone in question received one call that night and not multiple calls as Curlee had said.
Also Friday, one of the jailhouse informants, Jamal Skeeter, was recalled to the witness stand, where he engaged in a fiery question-and-answer session with defense attorney James Broccoletti.
Broccoletti introduced about 30 letters Skeeter wrote to various authorities offering his assistance in homicides, police shootings and even the Michael Vick dogfighting case.
On the witness stand, Skeeter didn't deny that he's a "professional witness," but his credibility was called into question again as he denied writing some of the letters, even though acknowledging they were in his handwriting with his name on the envelope. He explained that by saying other jail inmates write letters in his name.
"But that's not you?" defense attorney Broccoletti asked him.
"No," he answered.
Skeeter was a key prosecution witness earlier. He said Frederick told him he saw the police outside his home before he shot. Frederick said he never spoke to Skeeter before.
Skeeter is serving a sentence of nearly 15 years on several drug and grand larceny convictions in Portsmouth and Suffolk, according to the Virginia Department of Corrections.
When Skeeter entered the courtroom, he initially refused to answer any questions, saying his safety was in jeopardy. He also tried to order the removal of the media. The judge refused and ordered him to testify.
Broccoletti introduced a letter Skeeter wrote to one of his lawyers about the Vick case.
"You ever told them you knew about the Michael Vick case?" Broccoletti asked.
"Yea," Skeeter replied.
"Did they take you up on it?" the lawyer asked.
"Nah," Skeeter answered.
Portsmouth prosecutors have said they stopped using Skeeter as a witness because he had become unreliable and untrustworthy.
Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
urkiddingme
99% of the cops would work for nothing. It is their identity. A gun, badge, uniform, squad car, and get to run around thinking your god. Take every cop on any big city police force and fired them all today. Within two years half of them will have been arrested,committed suicide or been institutionalized. Look at New Orleans after Katrina. EVERY cop that lives in the neighborhood I grew up in is an alcoholic,pothead, speed freak,opiate addict or coke fiend. Line up the whole force and put them under oath, then ask them how many times they have seen or became aware of a fellow officer violating department rules. Whether it be filing a false police report, perjury, suborning perjury, drinking and driving, use of drugs, domestic violence,or planting evidence. They will all invariably say, I have never seen any of this. Where do they find these superhuman, perfect human specimens? You have to be honest and admit are only human. This is the problem with the mentality of many of todays police forces. They need to be honest. And people need to be more honest about police misconduct and criminal activities.
wolfy
Hey wolfy, to be a cop you need good credit, pass the polygraph, pass the psychological, no criminal history, no drug use, valid license with a good driving history. I don't think you could pass most of these test if any. If you pass all those tests and make it through the academy you can get a job with lousy hours, lousy pay, and risk your life for people like you. Sounds great doesn't it.
Is the last word entirely necessary?
Just a reminder to all that you don't know the faces behind the words that are written or those who are reading. Just keep that in mind.
good
memyselfandI: "also... excellent work references... he worked at Coca Cola for what 6 months? Big deal! What does that have to do with anything? Ted Bundy had excellent work references as well. Again, not comparing Ted to RF, just making a point." So I geuss you made my point as well. To become a cop you generally need to: 1.Get a GED and take 2 years of criminal justice classes at Southwestern Jackson State Community College (Again, do you ever hear the expression: "The best and brightest in our nation go into law enforcement?" Nope). 2. Pass a psychological exam that somehow has been unable to detect severe personality deficiencies in many officers. "If you are for changing laws... do something about it." Yes, I am trying to get through to the ignorant masses that their drug laws have done nothing to reduce illicit use (the goal of the laws) - and have been horribly destructive to our civil liberties. But hey, we need another 10 million in tax payer money sent to Mexico to beef up their corrupt police and governmental forces...that should do the job.
So RF started it?
I keep reading these comments about what a bad person et al that RF was/is and that the police were just doing theirs jobs. I am mystified by the ignorance on the part of the posters. It is a foundational concept of American law that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This concept goes further and it is incumbent on the state to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused is guilty and must have the unanimous verdict by a jury of their (the accused) peers. Elevating the State's agent's interests above that of the citizen's is just plain un American. It is a concept that Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung all used to rule. He did this he did this, he did that, he brought this upon himself? It is his fault? What Fascist thinking is this? I'll bet you all think of yourselves as good open minded tolerant liberals too huh? I'm not defending RF I am defending our concept of liberty! So, at this moment what exact crime is RF guilty of? What crimes has he been convicted of in the past? This is our way of law you claim so vehemently to be on the side of. You have no clue conceptually what you are talking about.
After reading through
After reading through memyself's comments; their is simply no way this person is a casual writer. The content is delusional and speculatory. I will go further in saying that this writer often adds inforamtion tot he truth in an attempt to make their argument hold water. Sounds alot liek the prosecutors case. Exactly like it. My faith in humanity is supported that this writer seems to be standing mostly alone in their stance.
Wolfy
also... excellent work references... he worked at Coca Cola for what 6 months? Big deal! What does that have to do with anything? Ted Bundy had excellent work references as well. Again, not comparing Ted to RF, just making a point.
And by the way... I'm a woman.
If you are for changing laws... do something about it. Like I said before... ALOT of people talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. If you think you can change things for the better... have at it. Better yet, since you seem to think these officers were so negligent in their duties... join the police department, I'd like to see you make it through an academy.
Wolfy
Again, whatever....you have your opinions, I have mine.
And I am not making stuff up as I go along. In my defense, atleast I have been to the trial and know what has been said. I am not taking what I post here from blogs, or from any of the news media, I am taking it from what I've seen in court. Can you say the same?
There are different types of search warrants... if RF had a serious criminal history, the police would have just burst in his door, and they had a valid and LEGAL search warrant, and are entitled to do so. They knocked (he heard it) and he had a chance to answer the door. He chose to grab his gun. Who's at fault there? I say RF... again, MY OPINION.
I look at it this way, RF shoots out the door without knowing who is there... if he had missed Shivers and shot a passerby riding their bike, would we even be having this debate? He didn't know what he was shooting at, and like it or not, that's illegal. You all seem to think it's okay that the person who died was a police officer because it was 'part of his job.' It was WRONG and Frederick should pay for his crime.
memyselfandi makes it up as he goes along
memyselfandI: "Growing pot, running around with not so nice people...that lead to what happened that night." Memyselfandi: What not so nice people" was he hanging around with?" Reminder: R.F. had no criminal record and had excellent work references. In memyselfandI's view, if one has used marijuana, he or she automatically receives a "moral purity" rating far below the next person who only consumes alcohol or any other legal (but potentially destructive) drug. MemyselfandI, do you see that your moral compass has malfunctioned? It is interesting that hardly anyone replied to my point that laws can be wrong and sometimes need to be challenged by members of society. I suspect that there are some here who during our country's "slavery years" would have been among those who said: "Slavery is legal under the law. I may have disagreements with it. But since it is the law we must support it." "You play with fire, you are going to get burned." Yep, you play drug war commando and sometimes you get burned.
"Dynamic entry",
aka "authorized break-ins", has got to be discontinued, except in extreme cases. This was not an extreme case. It was a simple drug bust, and they knew it. In this case, given everything I've read about the man, I have no doubt that if Frederick had been called on the phone, he would have opened the door without incident. If he had been confronted as he exited his house to go to work, he would have been detained without incident. You don't need nine LEO's and a battering ram to serve a warrant. This is the United States, home of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. As far as I know, it's still the law.
I don't fault the entry teams....they were just following orders. I question the orders. Something to consider: if this had been an influential businessman's or politician's son...would the brass have ordered the same tactics? Or...perhaps, would someone have called on the phone. Or waited until he left for work to serve the warrant? You think?
JordanDC
I agree Jordan those two are way off the grid.
Attempted murder!
Prosecutors almost unanimously will not try the charge of attempted murder because it is extremely difficult to prove. The proof has to clearly show that the intent was there. Attempted manslaughter is a little easier to prove. In this case I don't even think there is enough proof for 2nd degree murder. Capital murder and 1st degree murder will not be part of the verdict in my opinion. RF's culpability will depends on the jury's view of the breach. However, CPD's method for obtaining the search warrant and it execution are very questionable. Clearly they used poor judgement.
memyselfandI , a whole lot of maybes.
Maybe Ryan Frederick had a secret liaison with Britney Spears! It could happen! We'll all get a chance one day. Maybe the Xanex made him do it. Maybe I'll get up off my butt and go fishing. Tonights menu: Fresh fish and fowl, roasted cardinal.
sp
should be 'commendable'
part 2
I know it's not possible with marijuana plants, but again, if you have better ideas.. .go for it.
Doc... although I completely disagree with most of your opinions about this case, and think you are biased (as do you I) I did see your bill. Most people talk the talk, but not walk the walk, it's commedable that you are atleast trying to do something positive.
Doc and Henry
As I stated, I am NOT a gun owner, or an advocate... so please excuse me if I get the gun safety thing wrong. Etek explained the 3 safety's on the gun...I understand about the key one, but I saw 2 others in the photo. Again, I may very well be wrong, but did RF not say he had to flip both of those switches, one by the thumb and the other with the F and S to positions in order to fire?
And yes, I am saying he brought that search warrant on himself. Where should the line be drawn here? No one is a criminal until they break the law. Again, whatever you believe about the police, right now, that is their policy, right or wrong... it's policy. I'm all for advocacy that I think Henry mentioned to change it. But on most DRUG search warrants that is how it is done. They knew Frederick had a gun, they knew he was threatening people (from the informant).So, the police have to protect themselves as well. And they were all well marked with POLICE and badges. All he had to do... look out the window, answer the door.
Think about drug raids... maybe not marijuana, but coke, pills, whatever... you knock and wait for the guys to come out??... and in that time they flush it all. I know
In this case a law enforcement officer lost his life and
for what? I say the only good that can come of this is a reexamination of the decision process used to make these style raids. Our police officers shouldn't be put in these situations unless absolutely necessary.
Does anyone believe in a little stealth and trickery? Most criminals and law abiding Citizens are easily fooled. Imagine a cox cable truck in the neighborhood and someone dressed in a cox uniform knocking on the door to inform the customer we are having difficulties but points out that it looks your car has a flat tire. Imagine RF getting a call from work about coming in early or later. Imagine the alleged getting a call from their bank or cell phone company. There are a number of ways to trick someone into coming out of their house for innocuous reasons.
I'm saying one size doesn't fit all. Not all crimes need these sorts of confrontations and their inherent risks.
Strange Position...
I am in a really strange position and have debated about posting a comment since this all happened last year. See, I've known RF since we were about 16 years old, he grew up with someone I am close to, he wasn't a drug-dealing thug then and he isn't now. Also, I've been on the receiving end of a Chesapeake Police Raid before; and before I get bashed for this I was at the wrong place at the wrong time. They were not there for me but for someone else that was in the room. I knew nothing about what was going on or what had happened and I was questioned and released. I completely understand that he could not hear what they or understand what they were saying. You have 5 or 6 men hitting your door (which by the way has woken you up, so your disoriented to start with, which is to their advantage and is understandable in most cases) and they are all yelling something different ("Chesapeake Police", "We have a warrent"...etc) so you really can't make out what one or the other is saying. All you hear is what sounds like someone shooting at your door with the biggest shot gun in the world and alot of yelling. There is no way he would have gone all the way to the window to look out and see wh
And there is no room for mistakes where life & death are
concerned. Certain professions have life and death consequences and mistakes just aren't tolerated. We the Citizens give the power to law enforcement to make life and death decisions. It is incumbent on law enforcement to use these powers wisely. Not every law breaker needs to be confronted by police with doors breaking and guns drawn. What's next police busting down doors for not paying a speeding ticket or forgetting to return a book at the library? I say part of the decision process in deciding to do a "raid" is whether the alleged criminal has a prior record. I also say that part of the decision process is whether the evidence can be obtained in a less confrontational manner. Just as some have mentioned that I'm supposed to retreat in my own house until I fear for my life (which I don't believe) the police need to show some common sense restraint.
Most of the now retired officers I've known throughout my life are hunters and fishermen. Where are the hunters that sneak up on criminals?
No, you, yourself, you still have it wrong
The gun has only one "thumb safety" that would be released to fire it.
There is also a 'key' operated trigger lock that renders the gun inoperable. You might use that if you have children in the house, but you would not want it if you expected to need the gun without finding the key first. The gun also will not fire if there is no magazine in it, that is an internal safety feature to prevent accidental discharges if someone thinks removing the magazine has unloaded the gun, it is not manually released by the user.
Since the key was not found in the in the house, it is likely Frederick never used it.