CHESAPEAKE
Just three days past the one-year anniversary of the killing of Chesapeake police Detective Jarrod Shivers, a jury beginning Tuesday will be asked to decide whether a man accused of dealing marijuana intentionally fired the fatal shot.
Shivers, 34, a father of three who served eight years on the force, was shot and killed a year ago Saturday while raiding the Portlock home of Ryan Frederick, then a 28-year-old soda truck driver.
Frederick will stand trial on charges of capital murder, use of a firearm during the commission of murder and manufacturing marijuana.
A jury will be asked to decide whether Frederick intentionally killed Shivers. To convict Frederick of capital murder, the jury will have to find that Frederick's action was "willful, deliberate and premeditated," according to state law.
Frederick will claim self-defense, that he was protecting his home and his life, said his lead attorney, James O. Broccoletti. He will show that his house was burglarized just days earlier - by two men gathering evidence for the police - and he feared his Redstart Avenue home was being broken into again, his attorney said.
If convicted of capital murder, Frederick will face an automatic sentence of life in prison. The special prosecutor in the case previously announced he would not seek a death sentence.
Frederick could be convicted of a lesser offense, such as first-degree murder, which carries a penalty of 20 years to life in prison, or manslaughter, which carries a term of zero to 10 years.
Broccoletti had success in a similar case. Three years ago he gained a self-defense acquittal in the murder case against Navy SEAL Ronald J. Gasper, who killed another SEAL.
Shivers' death and Frederick's arrest have drawn intense public interest. Frederick's friends have launched a "free Ryan" campaign, even establishing a MySpace page in his name.
The attorneys involved say pretrial publicity will likely cause a lengthy jury selection process - from one to three days, they estimated. Prosecutors at one point tried unsuccessfully to move the trial outside of the region.
The evidence will be hotly contested. The media have already exposed inconsistencies between what witnesses and police say.
Two burglars broke into Frederick's house days before the raid. One of them, Renaldo Turnbull Jr., told The Virginian-Pilot they broke in to gather evidence for police of Frederick's alleged marijuana growing operation. A handful of marijuana plants Turnbull said they took, however, never made it to police custody.
Police officials have said they did not condone or approve of the burglary.
The other burglar has been identified by multiple sources and court records as Steven Rene Wright, a 20-year-old one-time restaurant worker now sitting in jail facing unrelated Chesapeake charges of grand larceny and credit card theft. Wright and Turnbull have been subpoenaed to testify at the Frederick trial.
Wright last week agreed to an interview with a Pilot reporter but backed off when the reporter arrived at the Virginia Beach Correctional Center, where he's being held. He did the same thing several months ago.
Also in dispute is whether police, including Shivers, fired any shots during the raid. Police have said officers did not fire their weapons, but a stray bullet casing that did not belong to Frederick was discovered at the scene. There is forensic evidence, also disputed, of gunpowder residue on Shivers' hand, possibly indicating that he fired his weapon. Police maintain the casing fell out of an officer's clothing.
Broccoletti said the credibility of Frederick, the burglars and police will be crucial to the case.
"The defendant has been consistent since his arrest that he did not know the police were at his door," Broccoletti said last week. "He was protecting himself and his home from an intruder who was capable of causing great bodily harm to him."
Special Prosecutor Paul Ebert, who was brought in from Prince William County to try the case, is expected to show that Frederick knew the police would be coming to his house. He said in an interview last week that he will show that the police acted properly.
"From my experience, I don't think the police department could have done anything differently," Ebert said, adding that he was confident of getting a conviction.
"You never know what's going to happen in a court of law but certainly I feel like it's a prosecutable case," he said.
Also subpoenaed for the trial were five jail inmates who evidently had conversations with Frederick about the shooting. One of them is Marlon Reed, a Norfolk gang leader who already got one break on his sentence after testifying against co-defendants in his federal racketeering case.
Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
It' not unusual
for persons involved in any activity, especially witnesses to a crime or witnesses to a police raid, including the police, to give contradictory accounts. In fact, most law professionals are trained to question when different persons give exact accounts. Perhaps you remember, from your leo training, seminars in which an auditorium of people watched as a speaker was "attacked" by an "assailant" who quickly ran off stage. The audience was then asked to describe what occurred. Responses varied. We are all influenced by our outlook. Even well trained persons. Thanks for the compliment. Have a good 1.
twomiler
The officers on the scene gave conflicting statements for a starter. Statements by neighbors conflict with police statements. Can you be sure the the police informants did not plant evidence when they broke in? They are after all, criminals. Frederick was employed and owned his own home. This guy was a home boy not a gang thug. It strains the imagination to believe he would knowingly kill a LEO over a doobies worth of pot. Does the CPD have psychic friends in addition to criminal informants? Most important, he IS innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Anyway twomiler, I have read several of you posts on other topics and I think you're a fair minded person. I think perhaps in this case the CPD has just too many loose ends for any credibility.
think about this..
If Ryan happened to be an off duty police officer who was in bed when someone tried to break through his door..and Ryan (the police officer) had shot through the door killing the intruder... 99.9 percent of the law enforcement community would say: "Yes! Got that criminal. It was justified." So you can rationalize that somehow this was not justified self-defense. But most of us here are not buying it. Why should we? Many officers have even said that the Bart shooting was justified! There is an extreme case of intellectual bankruptcy in the law enforcement community. The favorite argument used by officers is: "How could you judge my actions. You have never done my work." We have all heard this stale argument from people in other professions who we learn are simply trying to take advantage of us. Why do we allow it from police officers?
If so many
of my fellow posters believe Ryan innocent of all charges, because you think the police are lying, & covering up, then how is it that some of you had no problem believing the police story as to the shooting of the 17yrold mentally disturbed child? How is it that some of you believed it was Seneca Darden's fault that he was shot by another cop, who had prior disagreements with him? More than a doz. other cops standing there with Darden, some in plainclothes, none bothered by Darden's presence, holding a gun, yet he's shot by 1 who comes up later. I'm very aware that police corruption & malfeasance exists. The same is true of any organization. They exist in society in which there is corruption & malfeasance. That's why I'm surprised that some only see it in cases in which it's less likely.
George
the burglars stories as to their actions as part of a police investigation haven't been verified by the court, have they? So 1 can't say anything to the effect about the legality of the warrant based on that hearsay.
Doc
I have read more than one source. Virginia does not have a stand your ground law. In the absence of that law one must retreat to the furthest point of entry and can defend himself only if the intruder enters that area and threatens him.
Dr. Tabor
Yes, she allowed all of the questions as written – moreover, she told them that they were not limited to the written questions on the individual questionnaires, but that they were free to add other questions as they chose…
She did say that she would rule on any objections that either of them expressed, to the “added” questions…
Thanks for the clarification Dr. Tabor
Hopefully it will be challenged again.
John Wilburn, thanks for attending today
I will be there tomorrow, Thursday and Friday and will post daily to Tidewater Liberty.
In today's selection process, did Judge Arrington allow the questions as listed in the documents WAVY posted earlier, or did she rein them in some?
I'm hoping she didn't let those original questions through.
wrong assumptions
George - The judge has not yet ruled on the validity of the original warrant. She did rule that there was no cause *currently before the court* for invalidating it. Once testimony starts and the circumstances under which it was issued come before the court, it may yet be suppressed.
Brpster - The section on 'Duty to Retreat' you pointed to relates only to self defense as excusable homicide, covering situations in which the defendant participated in the escalation of a conflict, and then has a duty to retreat before using deadly force. That would apply to situations like a fight which escalates to the point where one party becomes fearful for his life. He then has a duty to announce he wants no more of the conflict and then withdraw as far as he can safely before using deadly force if pursued. That does not apply to a person who believes he is under an unprovoked attack and in any case, you are never required to retreat into greater danger. Once you are in your own home, you are regarded as having retreated to the greatest possible degree already. Read more than one source.
I guess you shoulda been there...
I was in the courtroom today, during the jury selection process. The jury pool members were brought in, in groups of three, and were interviewed, first by Mr. Ebert, and then by Mr. Broccoletti. Five groups of three (15 total) were interviewed today.
One of the things that was emphasized by both gentlemen, during the interviews, was a persons right to self-defense. Both gentlemen explained, numerous times, that this right was based on a “reasonable belief” or “reasonable fear” that ones life was in jeopardy, AND that killing in self-defense was considered, in the Commonwealth, to be “justifiable homicide,” and is NOT a crime.
Further, neither of these gentlemen, nor Judge Arrington, made any mention, whatsoever, of a “duty to retreat.” Neither did they mention any prohibition of shooting thru a door, or any requirement for identifying ones target.
Go figure…
The warrant was ruled acceptable by the judge
That error will be the basis for appeal should the need arise. The informants acting as agents of the police violated Frederick's rights and the warrant was based on their illegal activity. Can you prove these thugs did not plant the evidence? There will always be a reasonable doubt. As been stated here before, even the original police statements were contradictory as to the events surrounding the home invasion.
I suggest you do some reading as to the confiscation and forfeiture motivation for police corruption and abuse.
ttp://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/asset-confiscation-and-asset-forfeiture.html
BTW, I too was a LEO for a short period in my youth. I quite because of the corruption.
Do You have inside info,
George? How do you know it's been determined by the court that the warrant was illegal? Perhaps I've missed reports on that. Yet, Ryan willingly shot through a door through which he could not see. That is reckless endangerment at the very least, forget everything else. Since he killed someone, in acting with disregard for the safety of human life, of anyone else, he can be charged with manslaughter, at the very least. Again, we all need to let thus case run it's due course.
And here is more, read the part on duty to retreat
http://www.vcdl.org/pdf/Virginia-self-defense-cases.pdf
Doc and others, think what you want, but here is case law
The “bare fear” of serious bodily injury, or even death,
however well-grounded, will not justify the taking of human
life. . . . “There must [also] be some overt act indicative of
imminent danger at the time.” (citations omitted). In other
words, a defendant “must wait till some overt act is done[,] .
. . till the danger becomes imminent.” (citation omitted).
In the context of a self-defense plea, “imminent danger” is
defined as “[a]n immediate, real threat to one's safety . . .
.” (citation omitted). “There must be . . . some act menacing
present peril . . . [and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a
character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there
is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent
danger of carrying such design into immediate execution.”
Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 729, 553 S.E.2d 733, ___ (2001).
twomiler
You are not wrong, but in this case the police used an illegal warrant. Judge Arrington's ruling will be subject to appeal should Frederick be convicted.
You know as a former LEO that some police can be intoxicated with the opportunity for the forfeiture and confiscation of property. This zeal, I believe, was the reason the police abandoned proper procedures.
Those doctors should do
Those doctors should do their own research and start prescribing beer and liquor instead. I've seen it work for many college kids nationwide. Hello Freshman Fifteen!!!!
But on a serious note, my allusion was not towards simply marijuana. I was inferring other drug use. I apologize for my "ignorance" and next time I will write it out for all to understanding. And even so, nowadays marijuana is often laced with other narcotics such as PCP, heroine and cocaine. Marijuana itself causes impaired memory, judgement and perception, paranoia, hallucinations, and intense anxiety. I do my research.
With that said, if Mr. Frederick "perceived a threat", who is to say that it was not marijuana induced? Or that he was not hallucinating when he saw the person he claims was "crawling through the door". That, my friend, would nullify any defense.
Yes,
if an leo had shot someone outside his or her front door, without identifying the threat, I would think he has committed a crime. I look at cases with an open mind. I find fault with the actions of the police, often. Having been 1, I'm aware of problems that sometime arise. As a racial & ethnic minority, Ive been victimized by wrongful police actions. Some of these incidents occurred while I was still an leo. I'm a middle aged retired person. I've seen a lot. Let this case run it's course. in my family, there are 1/2 doz. lawyers, a retired federal judge, FBI & DEA agents, a Commonwealth Attorney & a criminologist. Several of us have written papers & given symposiums on subjects such as these. I think everything through, prior to commenting.
mark,
I actually worked in law enforcement,(local, federal & international), am a combat veteran, & kicked in my share of doors in drug raids. I've had butcher knives, hand guns, shot guns, etc, pointed directly in my face, from distances of less than 4ft. Never shot anyone while non military. Yes, I was armed. Sometimes I had my weapon drawn, other times not. I took the sec. to be sure, thus, never had to fire. If 1 is willing to carry a gun they're willing to shoot, 1 should take responsibility for what happens when 1 opens fire. Police bullets have missed their intended targets & hit innocent bystanders. So, yes, Ryan's shots could have easily hit someone not involved. Again, if 1 can find their gun, if suddenly awakened, 1 can find a phone. If 1 can make it from their boudoir to the front door, 1 has time to go out the back.
THC is an appetite enhancer.
Doctors can (in some states) and sometimes do prescribe THC (marijuana) for patients to increase appetite for the purpose of weight gain.
Please, don't obscure the issue with ignorance. Do some research.