The Virginian-Pilot
©
CHESAPEAKE
Ryan Frederick, at times crying and at times defiant, said he didn't know he had shot anyone until he was face down and handcuffed outside his house and a police officer told him: "Do you know you just killed a police officer?"
"I said, 'No - oh, my God. I'm so sorry.' I just kept telling him, 'I'm so sorry,' " Frederick said on the witness stand Thursday at his trial on murder charges.
The 29-year-old Portlock man spent four hours testifying, trying to explain the events of Jan. 17, 2008, when police showed up at his house with a search warrant, looking for a marijuana growing operation. Frederick shot and killed Detective Jarrod Shivers that night.
The jury will be left to decide whom to believe: Frederick, who says he shot blindly in self-defense, or informants who earlier testified that Frederick was ready to shoot police that night and saw them outside his window.
Under cross-examination that lasted past 7:30 p.m., Frederick tried to deflect inconsistencies between his testimony and prior statements. In one example, he denied telling a neighbor that he found an ID bracelet in his garage after it had been broken into.
The neighbor earlier testified that Frederick told her he knew who broke into his garage three days before the raid and stole some of his marijuana plants because of the bracelet.
Frederick testified that he suspected it was Steven Rene Wright, but not because of the bracelet. He said it was because Wright had called his house that day.
The trial was delayed earlier in the day when questions about the reliability of a key jailhouse informant arose.
But it was Frederick's testimony that gripped the courtroom all afternoon and into the evening, with Shivers' family and friends on one side and Frederick's on the other. Spectators and media filled the rest of the room, and sheriff's deputies at times had to shush the crowd.
"Did you willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly shoot and kill Detective Shivers in the performance of his duties?" defense attorney James Broccoletti asked Frederick.
"Absolutely not," Frederick answered and then began sobbing.
He said he was so concerned about burglars returning to his home that he went out earlier on Jan. 17 and bought deadbolt locks for his doors. Besides the break-in at his home, Frederick said, he was concerned about a home-invasion death that had occurred half a mile away about two months earlier.
He admitted to growing marijuana in his garage but said it was for his personal use.
The sophisticated hydroponic growing system he had also was used to grow a banana tree and vegetables. He said he dismantled the operation and discarded a few plants he had left after the burglary.
"I felt it was better off," Frederick said. "Obviously, it was stupid."
He also denied ever selling marijuana to Wright, the informant, who earlier testified that he bought the drug from Frederick 20 to 30 times through December 2007. Frederick said he never saw Wright after April 2007.
On the night of the raid, Frederick said, he was lying in bed, dozing. He typically went to bed early because he worked at 5 a.m. He said he smoked two bong hits of marijuana about 1 p.m. that day after getting off work and took half an anti-anxiety pill before bedtime.
A bout 8:30 p.m., with the television on in his room, he heard a knock at the front door. His two dogs began barking furiously, he said.
Frederick said he went to his dresser and grabbed his pistol, and as he headed down the hallway, he heard a loud bang, like a shotgun. As he stepped into the living room, he saw a hole in his front door, a face peering in, and a hand reaching up for the lock.
"Did you see anything that resembled police?" Broccoletti asked him.
"No," Frederick said. All he saw, he said, was dark clothing and someone wearing jeans behind the person at the door.
"I was like 'Oh, my God. Oh, my God.' And shot," he said. "I thought someone was coming in to kill me."
He ran to the back of his house, where his gun jammed and misfired. As it got quiet, he returned to the front door and looked out the hole in the door.
"That's when I heard, 'Police! Come out with your hands up,' " Frederick said.
Under cross-examination by one of the special prosecutors, Frederick tried to explain inconsistencies by his fear and nervousness that night. He said he vomited four or five times while in police custody.
"You heard them. You saw them. You were high and you panicked," James Willett, an assistant commonwealth's attorney from Prince William County, said to Frederick.
"No. Absolutely not," Frederick said.
Earlier Thursday, defense team members revealed that they just learned that jailhouse informant Jamal Skeeter had proved so unreliable that Portsmouth prosecutors refuse to use him as a witness.
Skeeter is a key witness in the prosecution's case. He has been the only witness to testify that Frederick knew police were outside his house before he shot.
Broccoletti said in court that Portsmouth Commonwealth's Attorney Earle Mobley contacted him and prosecutors Wednesday night after seeing Skeeter's name in the newspaper.
"Mr. Skeeter is a professional witness and has tried to provide information in several other jurisdictions," Broccoletti said to the judge, referring to what Mobley told him.
Special Prosecutor Paul Ebert said he had no idea of Skeeter's reputation until Mobley called him.
Still, "I like to think he's credible," Ebert told the judge.
Pilot writer Amy Jeter contributed to this report.
Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Len
I see your side of the arguement about the CPD not taking notice if he is convicted. But I hope that the system works, all the way around, that Ryan gets whatever is deserved, and the citizens take the battle to the city council meetings, to whatever and where ever they need to, to get the tactics changed so that we never again face a situation like this one.
You are probably right about the charges, brpster
and that is also probably the best way to safeguard against people shooting anyone they don't want knocking on their door. I personally think that RF is not guilty of even involuntary manslaughter and that he was forced into a situation that is really a homeowners' worst nightmare. We expect police to be able to make split second decisions, but often give them leeway in mistaken shootings. An untrained citizen should be given a greater benefit of the doubt. That might help tighten police procedures, which, by any reasonable definition, were not very good in this case.
This case is a perfect storm of errors, and I think an acquittal is the only way to wake up the Chesapeake Police Department and have them revise cases such as this one. If RF is convicted of anything other than possession of 2.5 grams of pot, then there is no incentive for CPD to change policy.
More people will be at risk.
After this case is over, I hope that someone in the CPD will explain why they didn't serve the warrant when he went to work. I personally think there is no explanation other than a bad one.
Bill continued
two different responses by those inside the house. Two totally different outcomes. My dad even saw the armed men moving around outside the house and called 911 before the door was busted in, and guess what, the 911 operator told him that it was the police there. Maybe Ryan could have done the same thing.
Bill
you said a home invasion utilizes force to subdue the homeowners. Sure they may get tied up, but they're not dead. And if Ryan had waited, there is not certainity that he would be dead....The police should (notice should) give him ample opportunity to disarm himself. With an semi-automatic pistol, even if he knew there were two, easy to take both out quickly if need be. Had he waited and found out it was in fact the police, there would be no dead man, no trial.
A few years ago, my mom and dad were the recipents of this very sort of thing. My dad has guns all over the house. If he had armed himself, he would be dead, because in that instance, they were after an escaped convict that said he would not be taken alive. He drove through my mom and dad's little town, and used their address to apply for credit or something, making the feds believe that is where he was. The county sheriff knew for a fact that it was an elderly couple living there, but didn't know for sure if that man had taken them hostage or something. They paid for the busted door, and the trip to the hospital for my mom after she had a heart attack in the middle of it. Basically the same situation, two different respons
Len
Len, you probably would be facing charges of manslaughter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I would not defend my life. Property can be replaced. Just remember, if they fall outside the house, it is manslaughter, if they are all the way in the house...dead men tell no tales.
Sorry brpster, but a home invasion is an act of violence
The difference between a stolen car and a carjacking would be a similar analogy. Or a pick pocket and an armed robbery.
If the police had seen him holding a gun, RF would probably be dead.
I guess he would be right, according to you, but dead nonetheless.
I would have to assume that someone smashing in my front door when I am likely to be home, with 2 large dogs barking not being a deterrent, that those folks are not Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps waiting another second or so might be more advantageous in a courtroom, but if those invaders open fire before I could, or are better shots, or are not frightened enough, then I would be dead.
I might be tried for involuntary manslaughter, and, perhaps it should be so.
But on a case by case basis, I think the homeowner should get the benefit of the doubt and not the invaders.
BRPSTER
Actually, the difference between a burglary and a home invasion is that burglars are generally relying on the homeowners not being present, or remaining asleep. Home invaders are relying on their use of force to subdue the home owner. What is the difference between an illegal home invasion and what took place at Ryan Frederick's house? A warrant.
You say that if Ryan had waited until the door was fully breached, he would have "at least had the first shot" had those on the other side of the door been illegal home invaders. But remember, there were multiple armed people on the other side of the door, and his testimony indicates he believed there were at least two people.
And in the actual encounter, had he waited, he would have been facing a number of armed police officers, holding a gun, waiting. He would almost certainly have been shot, and likely killed. Those who shot him would not be facing charges; they'd more likely be getting medals for "valor".
Len
I agree things need to change in tactics. However, I still stand by my conviction of if they are coming through the door and I've got my gun aimed at them, then I have the upper hand. If a weapon is visible I get first shots at least.
Question, what is the difference between a burglary and home invasion? Oh, the people just happen to be home at the house the burglar was breaking into.
Anybody that shoots first and asks questions later, deserves to have the jail door locked behind them.
brpster, I don't want to kill folks
That was a silly accusation on your part.
You have completely misconstrued what I have said.
Burglars usually don't smash in the front door at 8:30 at night. Home invaders do. He certainly wasn't expecting a 16 man police team.
Once the door panel exploded inward, and the perpetrators were visible to Ryan, there was no question to him, and any reasonable man, that his life was in danger. Turn and run? Get shot in the back?
RF said he heard knocking, he was afraid for reason already explained, so he took his gun with him.
If the police had waited until he came to the door and said, "who's there?", then this would never have happened. Apparently when they saw the silhouette coming to the door, which is what they wanted if he was going to answer the door, the police panicked for some reason, and smashed the door panel. Why they didn't let him answer the door is a huge question.
A smashed door, men in dark clothing visible trying to gain entry, what do you do? Wait for the gun fire or not?
Colour, Labour,color labor,
Defense, Defence; all spellings are acceptable, depending on one's age & area in which 1 grew up. Augustus, I was explaining Va. law on self defense, not an opinion. George K, as a former LEO, you should be familiar with the self defense laws of Va., ptownbc, I'm stating Va. law, not British law. As for my expertise on law, no one is an expert but I brought 395 felony cases before courts over my career. My family has six lawyers, with 1 being a retired federal judge, 1 Commonwealth Attorney,(in a different location), FBI & DEA agents. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury, being everyday people, allow themselves to be swayed by their emotions & act accordingly. Self Defense pleas, in Va., require implicit admission as to intentional killing. That's just the law.