View Full Version : Mom Says Antwun Parker Was a Hero



Pages : [1] 2

Uncle Slayton
08-21-2010, 06:58 PM
http://http://www.koco.com/mostpopular/24703285/detail.html

(Excerpt below)

OKLAHOMA CITY -- For the first time in a year, the mother of 16-year-old Antwun Parker, who was shot and killed by pharmacist Jerome Ersland, is speaking publicly.

According to police, Parker and a friend tried to rob the pharmacist at gunpoint in May 2009. Investigators said Ersland knocked Parker to the ground with one shot to the head, grabbed a different weapon and fired five more shots into his chest and abdomen.

"A coward is someone who will kill someone when they're done," said Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings. "That's not a hero. The real hero here is Antwun."

Jennings said that while her son did go into the pharmacy with a gun, she believes other people put him up to it.

"I know he was scared to death," she said. "I know Antwun was scared to death when he had to go into that pharmacy not under his own will."

In an exclusive interview with KOCO, Jennings said she was angry when she found out two pathologists with the Oklahoma County Medical Examiner's Office filed conflicting statements, potentially overturning the former chief's decision that Parker's cause of death was homicide.

"That man literally shot my son down, had no remorse, went back, got another gun, reloaded it and came back and shot him five more times," Jennings said.

nighttrain12
08-21-2010, 10:35 PM
Once you get past the WTF? comments she made, it is interesting she said Antwun did go in the pharmacy with a gun. The police didn't find one at the scene though. Of course that doesn't matter in determining Ersland's guilt as the second robber clearly had a gun and Ersland naturally assumed both of them did have weapons.

Midtowner
08-22-2010, 07:46 AM
The medical examiner has so thoroughly messed that case up that I think Prater is going to have a hell of a time getting a conviction. I don't pretend to know whether those last five shots were fired into a corpse or not, but calling Parker a "hero" here is just plum weetawded. He tried to rob a drug store. No matter what the choices were made by other folks on that day, Parker was in there trying to rob a drug store. He was a failed robber and no hero.

kevinpate
08-22-2010, 08:18 AM
On the one hand, multiple variations on was the first shot a kill shot or not out of the ME office isn't supremely helpful to the state's position.
On the other hand, multiple variations of what happened and about his background out of the defendant's mouth isn't supremely helpful to the defense position.
And then there's the tape. Not an answer in and of itself, but useful for they jury when the 12 are assessing credibility of other evidence.

As for mom's comments, momma's love their babies.

flintysooner
08-22-2010, 08:26 AM
The defendant is supposed to have the presumption of innocence. Seems to be certainly enough room for reasonable doubt based on what I've read thus far which admittedly might be less than what the jury knows.

Uncle Slayton
08-22-2010, 08:30 AM
Lots of things don't help the state's case, mainly Prater's insufferable sanctimony and the ongoing version of the Curly Shuffle at the ME's office that makes everyone even remotely associated with science wince inwardly. And Ersland isn't that sympathetic a character. He's odd in a somewhat creepy sort of way, not someone you'd normally pick as 'hero material'.

A more cynical, jaded person might say the real hero here is Charles Darwin. But that'd be cold.

Midtowner
08-22-2010, 08:48 AM
On the one hand, multiple variations on was the first shot a kill shot or not out of the ME office isn't supremely helpful to the state's position.
On the other hand, multiple variations of what happened and about his background out of the defendant's mouth isn't supremely helpful to the defense position.
And then there's the tape. Not an answer in and of itself, but useful for they jury when the 12 are assessing credibility of other evidence.

As for mom's comments, momma's love their babies.

It's a good thing though that a high profile case such as this is helping to bring to light just how screwed up things are at the ME office. And frankly, if I'm a juror in an Oklahoma case where the ME's office is involved, the state's going to have to do some serious selling to get me to buy anything that office comes up with.

kevinpate
08-22-2010, 09:11 AM
It's a good thing though that a high profile case such as this is helping to bring to light just how screwed up things are at the ME office. And frankly, if I'm a juror in an Oklahoma case where the ME's office is involved, the state's going to have to do some serious selling to get me to buy anything that office comes up with.

Not sure I'm all the way out there with you Mid, but I easily concede more than once in the last couple of years it has crossed my mind just how much I miss Fred Jordan.

BBatesokc
08-24-2010, 05:46 PM
I personally don't think the ME's office is going to be that big of a 'problem' in this case. When you remove all the hype, none of the findings are all that different. I know Dr. Trant (formerly the Chief ME) and have spoken to him several times and he's an extremely smart, kind and professional person. The only problem or discrepancy comes down to the definition of "fatal" and under what conditions the first shot to the deceased's head would have caused death. Anyone who has actually read the reports knows there is no real dispute that the victim was 'alive' when he was shot again repeatedly by Ersland due to the presence of blood in the lungs that was pumped from a beating heart. The questions are was he conscious and how imminent would death have been if the head shot was the only shot fired.

In my opinion the biggest problems are in the defense camp. You've got a defense lawyer who foolishly allowed his client to talk way too much and neither the defense lawyer or the defendant can seem to pick a defense and stick to it. First, Ersland was justified because the victim was moving for a non-existent gun and posed a threat. Then, he's innocent because the first shot was justified and it killed him so the subsequent shots were fired into a corpse.

All that said though, I highly doubt any jury in Oklahoma will find Ersland guilty of anything with the word 'murder' in it.

Midtowner
08-27-2010, 07:57 PM
If he was alive and the shots fired hastened death, then you have a murder.

nighttrain12
08-27-2010, 10:21 PM
If he was alive and the shots fired hastened death, then you have a murder.

Not if the 'vigilante pharmicist' thought he was still a threat to him.

Thunder
08-28-2010, 12:04 AM
... Its over. Old news to me. The kid is dead. 6 feet under where he deserved. The mother is on drugs, so she dunno what the hell she was saying. The real hero is the Pharmacist. Game over.

flintysooner
08-28-2010, 04:19 AM
It is a sad story. It easily could have been a different outcome and we would be discussing how awful it was that the kid killed the pharmacist and the two women.

I read an article yesterday about a 14 year old girl who killed a man she was robbing because he laughed. First thing I thought about when I read the article was the Jerome Ersland case even though the facts were substantially different.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/08/young_female_murder_suspect_ca.html

The age of the criminal doesn't seem to make much difference to the gun or the bullet or the death of the victim.

BBatesokc
08-28-2010, 05:56 AM
If he was alive and the shots fired hastened death, then you have a murder.

Not if a jury believes he "perceived" the boy to be a threat. I think how each camp explains the application of "perceived" under the law and in this situation is going to be key in this case. While I personally feel Ersland should face some sort of charge (even if only for discharging his first gun recklessly across four lanes of traffic on S. Penn) it shouldn't be any real act of magic to convince a jury that in the 30 seconds following an armed robbery the victim could still perceive a possibly moving robber as a threat.

OKCisOK4me
08-28-2010, 08:39 AM
Ummmm, what his momma said, that's takin it a little too far!

In regards to this case, I hope Jerome is convicted for murder. How old was this kid again? Do you think he had enough years of deceitfulness to want to create a threatful move whilst laying on the floor of the pharmacy?? I don't think it was his intention to try to get away while laying on the ground with a gun pointed at him. For all we know, it could have been a reaction from his nervous system because of where the first bullet went in. Maybe having been shot he was in shock and his body twitched. Did he deserve that first bullet? Most definitely so--he was robbing the place. But multiple shots afterward for God knows why?

I agree with poster above, I'm definitely a tad bit skeptical of this Ersland cat. For all we know, he was thrown into a PTSD mode and thought an Iraqi was at his feet. I think in an act of war it's probably justified to shoot an enemy multiple times to defend your life if you think you will be cleared by your superiors for that kind of action but in America with a court of law and a jury? They better be glad I'm not on that jury cause I believe that this guy deserves death. And I would pray that it goes that way. I don't think there will be a riot if this guy goes free but OKC doesn't need to be put on the map for the wrong reasons...

Edmond_Outsider
08-28-2010, 01:42 PM
There are no heros in this case.

Vigilantism will always be wrong. Ersland had lots of options after his first shot. He choose to seek vengence not self-defence. If Parker was a threat, he left his employees vulnerable so he didn't even choose to protect his people.

He choose vengence and vengence isn't covered under self-defense.

All he had to do was stand over Parker and wait for the police. Had he done that, there would be no issue. Clean shot within his rights.

I'm a bit conflicted over using lethal force over property as a personal choice. As a societal choice, it seems reasonable to allow self-defence.

This isn't that.

BBatesokc
08-28-2010, 02:00 PM
There are no heros in this case.

Vigilantism will always be wrong. Ersland had lots of options after his first shot. He choose to seek vengence not self-defence. If Parker was a threat, he left his employees vulnerable so he didn't even choose to protect his people.

He choose vengence and vengence isn't covered under self-defense.

All he had to do was stand over Parker and wait for the police. Had he done that, there would be no issue. Clean shot within his rights.

I'm a bit conflicted over using lethal force over property as a personal choice. As a societal choice, it seems reasonable to allow self-defence.

This isn't that.

Interesting take, but I don't think a jury would ever be convinced that 'vengeance' was an element of any professed crime in this case. Its very easy to sit back and watch the surveillance video over and over and determine what could and should have taken place. The reality is Ersland reported for work that day like any other day. In an instant two young thugs (at the prompting of older more cowardly thugs) entered the pharmacy, produced a weapon and proceeded to rob the place. That same pharmacy had been victimized by robbers in the past and the most recent robbery resulting in the pistol whipping of at least one employee. The danger in the area was so great you had to be buzzed in/out of the pharmacy itself. Unfortunately we are individuals and as such we each have our own individual response to any given stimuli. I dare say many people would have simply froze when confronted with an armed robber and very well could have been killed. Others would have calmly complied and possibly lived or been killed. While others would have done exactly what Ersland did and gone for their weapon to protect themselves, their co-workers and any patrons.

As hypocritical as it may sound, I truly believe DA Prater was bound by his oath of office to prosecute Ersland and the jury is just as obligated to find him innocent of murder.

bluedogok
08-28-2010, 02:11 PM
There are no heros in this case.
I would say that statement is pretty accurate, certainly not the the original criminal which precipitated this case even though his mother seems to think so. Some people just won't accept what their children really are.


Vigilantism will always be wrong. Ersland had lots of options after his first shot. He choose to seek vengence not self-defence. If Parker was a threat, he left his employees vulnerable so he didn't even choose to protect his people.

He choose vengence and vengence isn't covered under self-defense.

All he had to do was stand over Parker and wait for the police. Had he done that, there would be no issue. Clean shot within his rights.
Sure he may have "gone off" but after awhile you get sick and tired of dealing with the scum that criminals like this are. I still find it ridiculous that one bullet is OK but multiple bullets are not, talk about splitting hairs. Talk to any police officer, paramedic/fireman about dealing with an injured patient and many times persons with multiple gunshot wounds can still fight. My cousin was working at a hospital emergency room in Sacramento while she was in nursing school, they brought in an obvious gang shooting victim and he had 22 entry wounds and was still alive, he and had to be restrained to be attend to. Someone who has served in combat has probably seen similar feats of those who have been injured and I could see why they wouldn't stop until they thought they were sure the other person was dead. That is not murder, that is the "kill or be killed" survival mentality.


I'm a bit conflicted over using lethal force over property as a personal choice. As a societal choice, it seems reasonable to allow self-defence.

This isn't that.
Anytime YOUR property is threatened it erodes a bit of your "self" as well as I have found out with my home being burglarized twice in the past year. They are not only stealing "things" they are stealing away a bit of the victim as well. Every time I come home I am wary of the door being left open like it was that day and I would have no qualms about sending the perpetrator out of MY HOME in a body bag. The thought that a criminal is a victim in these type of cases is absurd at best.

To me if someone makes the conscious decision to commit a crime of this nature, then they by their action they consent to the possible outcomes which could be arrest or death. I weep for no one (including this kid) who makes that choice to PUT THEIR OWN LIVES AT RISK in the commission of a crime. That is part of the price they pay for the wrong decision. If Antwun hadn't of committed the crime, he would still be alive...that is what seems to get lost.

kevinpate
08-28-2010, 02:37 PM
It's not really whether 1 is ok, but many are bad.
It's more like one opportunity to shoot (whether 1 or several rounds) can be seen as self defense, but then departing the store after the other perp, coming back, realizing your empty, walking over to take aother firearm, walking back, looking down at a perp, emptying a clip into a downed perp, then subsequently telling a variety of tales of just what it was that took place, and misrepresenting your background along the way, along with other evidence from the scene, body, etc. does raise a fair question for a jury to hear it all, assess what is the most credible and then decide whether the conduct constitutes murder, or a lesser crime or whether a reasonable doubt exists as to whether a crime occurred at all.

I can see how Prater reached the decision to charge murder one. It'll be up to the 12 jurors to decide if, in their opinion, that was overreaching.

One thing I am convinced of - the defendant here, like so many before him, lacks any significant filtering mechanism between his brain and his lips.

BBatesokc
08-28-2010, 03:02 PM
I'll be very curious to see what is deemed inadmissible as far as previous statements, etc.

gen70
08-28-2010, 03:20 PM
I would say that statement is pretty accurate, certainly not the the original criminal which precipitated this case even though his mother seems to think so. Some people just won't accept what their children really are.


Sure he may have "gone off" but after awhile you get sick and tired of dealing with the scum that criminals like this are. I still find it ridiculous that one bullet is OK but multiple bullets are not, talk about splitting hairs. Talk to any police officer, paramedic/fireman about dealing with an injured patient and many times persons with multiple gunshot wounds can still fight. My cousin was working at a hospital emergency room in Sacramento while she was in nursing school, they brought in an obvious gang shooting victim and he had 22 entry wounds and was still alive, he and had to be restrained to be attend to. Someone who has served in combat has probably seen similar feats of those who have been injured and I could see why they wouldn't stop until they thought they were sure the other person was dead. That is not murder, that is the "kill or be killed" survival mentality.


Anytime YOUR property is threatened it erodes a bit of your "self" as well as I have found out with my home being burglarized twice in the past year. They are not only stealing "things" they are stealing away a bit of the victim as well. Every time I come home I am wary of the door being left open like it was that day and I would have no qualms about sending the perpetrator out of MY HOME in a body bag. The thought that a criminal is a victim in these type of cases is absurd at best.

To me if someone makes the conscious decision to commit a crime of this nature, then they by their action they consent to the possible outcomes which could be arrest or death. I weep for no one (including this kid) who makes that choice to PUT THEIR OWN LIVES AT RISK in the commission of a crime. That is part of the price they pay for the wrong decision. If Antwun hadn't of committed the crime, he would still be alive...that is what seems to get lost.
Agreed..

sharpshooter
08-28-2010, 06:57 PM
Ersland will never be convicted. Prater won't find 12 jurors here that will agree to convict Ersland of anything. Things might be different if this all went down on the left or right coast, but not here.

As for Parker's mother saying her son is a hero; rediculous! A good reporter would have asked her just exactly what it was that her son did that was heroic.

BBatesokc
08-31-2010, 03:42 PM
Well looks like this case will be delayed for awhile. Just got back from the court house and its a buzz regarding the judge stepping down. Seems a friend of hers who is also a criminal defendant agreed to wear a wire at the urging of her civil defense attorney and Prater and got the judge saying some things that appear to make her bias for the defense. Prater 'may' have been weary of a last minute blind plea to a bias judge that could have harpooned his hopes for a meaningful conviction.

Double Edge
12-13-2010, 11:48 AM
Grounds for appeal if need be I suppose...


Judge refuses recusal request in murder case involving Oklahoma City pharmacist
Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott has refused a request to step aside from the murder trial of Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland in the shooting death of a 16-year-old would-be robber.


Read more: http://newsok.com/judge-refuses-recusal-request-in-murder-case-involving-oklahoma-city-pharmacist/article/3523287#ixzz181E48PH8

kevinpate
12-13-2010, 03:25 PM
Grounds for appeal if need be I suppose...


Judge refuses recusal request in murder case involving Oklahoma City pharmacist
Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott has refused a request to step aside from the murder trial of Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland in the shooting death of a 16-year-old would-be robber.


Read more: http://newsok.com/judge-refuses-recusal-request-in-murder-case-involving-oklahoma-city-pharmacist/article/3523287#ixzz181E48PH8


Next step for the defense, assuming as I do they are willing to ride this pony a while, is for them to go to the presiding judge and try to persuade him Judge Elliot's decision was not proper.

Double Edge
12-13-2010, 04:14 PM
Assuming there is not something else going on that's not being talked about, what would be a legitimate beef over the judge being an alleged bigot, that Ersland, Box, Box's staff or some defense witnesses are possibly Hispanic? Or does it just mean if he allegedly can't be impartial in one aspect of his beliefs and professional life it follows he could not be trusted in others?

MustangGT
12-13-2010, 05:10 PM
Box is going to bleed this case for all the publicity and dinero he can.

BBatesokc
12-13-2010, 05:47 PM
The position of Ersland's defense attorneys makes no sense at all. They represent a client with no money, no cameras are going to be in the courtroom, and no jury will convict. There is no upside. Especially considering all the bridges they have no burned with the judges and DA's office. It's professional suicide.

kevinpate
12-13-2010, 05:52 PM
Assuming there is not something else going on that's not being talked about, what would be a legitimate beef over the judge being an alleged bigot, that Ersland, Box, Box's staff or some defense witnesses are possibly Hispanic? Or does it just mean if he allegedly can't be impartial in one aspect of his beliefs and professional life it follows he could not be trusted in others?

Well, if one takes the position, as the defense team has, that Judge Elliot is bigoted on matter A, what assurances are there he is not bigoted in other areas not yet revealed?

Note. I dinna say it's an overly convincing argument, but if one is seeking a different judge, a concern of bias provides an argument that won't get the defense team rapped on the knuckles.

BBatesokc
12-13-2010, 06:30 PM
Problem is, you'd better provide some damn good evidence if you're going to take that stance. I didn't see any convincing evidence presented.

Double Edge
12-13-2010, 06:50 PM
Tales of a former coworker counts for something.

BBatesokc
12-13-2010, 07:06 PM
Tales of a former coworker counts for something.

I assume you mean the much younger former co-worker now married to the lead defense attorney? Yeah, no bias there.

There ONLY 'evidence' to speak of was that Elliot made what some would consider racist remarks regarding Hispanics. While many will get on their high horse about that, the fact is, if that was the measure of a fair or unprejudiced person, then most everyone would be guilty.

Midtowner
12-13-2010, 08:10 PM
I assume you mean the much younger former co-worker now married to the lead defense attorney? Yeah, no bias there.

There ONLY 'evidence' to speak of was that Elliot made what some would consider racist remarks regarding Hispanics. While many will get on their high horse about that, the fact is, if that was the measure of a fair or unprejudiced person, then most everyone would be guilty.

I have a judge and a former judge in my immediate family. None of them have ever said a word like that (and one's my father, so I would've heard it). I also know a good number of the judges at Oklahoma County professionally and couldn't imagine any of them saying something like that. We're not talking high horse, we're talking lapse in professionalism.

I do think that Judge Elliot's disposition with minority defendants is in question and he probably shouldn't be doing criminal cases as a result of this, but I don't think this should disqualify him in this case.

I also don't fault Mr. Box for giving Ersland a vigorous defense. As you probably know, as a defense attorney in a case like this, to preserve issues on appeal, they have to be raised at the trial level. And a big part of defending at the trial level is setting one's client up for a successful remand should the jury come back with a guilty verdict.

From what the public knows about this case, constructing a case of reasonable doubt doesn't seem to be that difficult. What the D.A.'s office is saying is largely based upon the testimony of the medical examiner. And as we know, the Oklahoma Medical Examiner's office is just plain awful in some cases. I can't imagine Prater going forward with a case like this unless the ME's testimony and the forensics makes the case fairly clear. The only thing he has left to overcome is the astounding belief some folks have that having a gun automatically entitles you to kill someone after they are no longer really a threat. Some of the comments on newsok.com are just disturbing.

Also, Box, for someone who has handled a number of cases where the media has been involved has done an astoundingly awful job. Not only did he let his client talk to the media, he let his client give multiple accounts of the events in the store and let him flat out lie about his background. Ersland goes into this trial looking like an extremely sketchy dude, and it didn't have to be like that.

BBatesokc
12-13-2010, 08:26 PM
we're talking lapse in professionalism

IMO the biggest lapse in professionalism is coming from the defense attorneys and their decision to use conversations that occurred behind closed doors and in chambers as part of their motion.

I also question their professionalism and ethics due to the fact they never brought their concerns about Elliot to light when they were defending minority criminal defendants.

As for Elliot's 'wetback' comment. I would not believe a single person if they told me they have NEVER used a derogatory term about another ethnicity or told an off color joke to someone they knew would not be offended. Maybe those people exist, but I think they do so only in other people's minds. I have no problem admitting I've done so. I try to refrain in most instances and feel I most likely have only done so in company who realized the context in which it was spoken. But, then again, political correctness is the furthest thing on my mind.

PennyQuilts
12-13-2010, 08:31 PM
I'm 52 years old and the only slurs I've ever heard behind closed doors have been used by people with a twinkle in their eye trying to get a rise out of someone by saying something outrageous and using them to tease. I hear people insist that people maliciously use that kind of language behind closed doors all the time and I have to wonder what kind of people they hang with.

Midtowner
12-13-2010, 08:39 PM
IMO the biggest lapse in professionalism is coming from the defense attorneys and their decision to use conversations that occurred behind closed doors and in chambers as part of their motion.

When you're a judge, the robe never comes off. You either have a demeanor which is judicial 24/7 or you don't. What Judge Elliot said actually was a violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct, not some trifling mistake. That Box might have had a questionable motive to further turn this thing into a circus doesn't relate to the fact that Judge Elliot as a judge presiding over criminal trials often involving minorities has some 'splainin to do.

It's not that Judge Elliot said something racist. I might be able to deal with that. But he said it while at the courthouse and in front of his staff. Did you know a judge is even responsible for the conduct of his staff? And that he's making these sort of remarks in front of his staff is actually a fairly serious thing.

As for Box' professionalism, he should have made a report to the folks who are supposed to look after judicial ethics, but what would have been the point? To my knowledge, they haven't ever gone after a judge in Oklahoma or Tulsa counties or any of the nicer surrounding counties, and they haven't even done anything since 2003. Not even to Judge Thompson who masturbated on the bench during murder trials.


I also question their professionalism and ethics due to the fact they never brought their concerns about Elliot to light when they were defending minority criminal defendants.

It depends on when they came across this information. But you're right, that'd be alarming.

kevinpate
12-13-2010, 10:13 PM
Some of the problems the defense will have to overcome developed before Box was in the case, if my memory serves correctly.
It's not ideal when it happens, but this is not the first defense team to take a seat at the table after the cards are already dealt.

BBatesokc
12-14-2010, 06:49 AM
Actually, Ersland had representation by Box and Reynolds from very early on. The problem was that Box not only went on a media tour, but also allowed Ersland to speak. Also, the defense doesn't seem to know what their defense is. They have so far proposed two different defenses that are in contrast to one another - something that obviously has not escaped the prosecution.

One forwarded defense is that Parker still posed a threat and was moving and supposedly trying to get up and Ersland felt in danger and shot him again (and again, and again, and again, and again) and if believed by the jury would be a justifiable shooting.

When the evidence at the scene didn't really match that defense they went to defense number two.... That the first shot to Parker's head was lethal and therefore the subsequent shots could not have killed him, case closed.

Obviously they don't think either defense is air tight or they wouldn't be trying these goofy stall tactics.

I also think a good indicator that this motion that Elliot is a racist is bunk is the fact the head of the public defender's office would not back that claim up and felt the opposite of Elliot.

Thunder
12-14-2010, 08:44 AM
A shot in the head is not always deadly. Some have survived and lived normally or in a unfavorable condition. That is not a good defense to work with. As for defense number one, there is really not much evidence that I can remember to sway the case in one direction.

The jury can see Ersland in the video walking by/over the bad kid's body when leaving the store for a moment, so right then, Ersland obviously did not feel threatened. I dunno if the bad kid was brain dead at that time or not. If he was dead, would there be a crime at shooting a dead body?

Midtowner
12-14-2010, 08:55 AM
Obviously they don't think either defense is air tight or they wouldn't be trying these goofy stall tactics.

These aren't goofy stall tactics. As I explained, one of the things attorneys should do is keep every issue for appeal alive that they possibly can. Ersland wouldn't have this issue on appeal unless it was raised in the trial court.

BBatesokc
12-14-2010, 09:12 AM
These aren't goofy stall tactics. As I explained, one of the things attorneys should do is keep every issue for appeal alive that they possibly can. Ersland wouldn't have this issue on appeal unless it was raised in the trial court.

I understand and respect where you are coming from. I guess I'm just not as idealistic (probably not the right word). If your statement was true, then Box and Reynolds would have an obligation to raise this same objection every time they represented someone in front of Elliot (which they won't) and should have raised this during their many cases where they were actually representing a minority criminal defendant (which they didn't, but had no problem presenting 'evidence' going back quite some time).

Also, in the real world these lawyers actions (as with all lawyers) have real consequences for them professionally and their other clients. Like it or not, you play these games and it comes back to bite you. I for one would not want any of those three defense lawyers representing me in the wake of this. Most cases are ended by negotiation and that often comes down to personal and professional relationships between the prosecutor and defense attorney. The biggest power a prosecutor has is discretion and the motivation to use it (like it or not) can come down to mood and relationships. I guarantee you they will not get as many favorable pleas as they otherwise would have on other cases.

Just the other day I was going to the DA's office and I noticed one of Ersland's defense lawyers is not allowed in the DA's office and has to hand his paperwork through the window while others are buzzed inside. I confirmed this with someone who works in the office.

Midtowner
12-14-2010, 09:50 AM
I understand and respect where you are coming from. I guess I'm just not as idealistic (probably not the right word). If your statement was true, then Box and Reynolds would have an obligation to raise this same objection every time they represented someone in front of Elliot (which they won't) and should have raised this during their many cases where they were actually representing a minority criminal defendant (which they didn't, but had no problem presenting 'evidence' going back quite some time).

There's no obligation to raise the same defense in every case. Ethically, attorneys have pretty broad discretion to choose the tactics they want to use in each case. I agree, it seems boneheaded to be playing this card at this point considering the Defendant is white. But I'll give Box the benefit of the doubt. He's a seasoned criminal lawyer while I am decidedly not, so I'm going to go ahead and defer to his judgment here.

I'll agree that the politics should be a concern to Box' clients, however, I would hope that the prosecutors wouldn't be vindictive in such a way. Taking out a personal beef on the clients of an attorney because of who the attorney is seems to be a kind of sh**ty thing to do.

As for not being allowed back... that's funny. Yeah, you don't want to burn those bridges.

BBatesokc
12-14-2010, 10:16 AM
I know all three lawyers personally, to the point of going to dinners with two of them in the past. All are pretty good people and seasoned professionals ~ which is why this strategy baffles me.

In a perfect world it wouldn't really matter who your lawyer is, because the law is the law and the facts are the facts ~ but it just doesn't seem to work that way.

I won't get into examples and hijack the thread, but I've seen countless times where relationships weighed more heavily on the outcome of a case than justice.

In my anti-prostitution activism I see it all the time. The list of people who get arrested but never charged for prostitution is staggering (and it 90% of it comes down to either the defendants reputation or their attorneys). But some Joe Smith will get arrested and charged every time.

Double Edge
12-18-2010, 10:43 PM
KOCO...

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Defense attorneys for pharmacist Jerome Ersland have asked again that Judge Ray Elliot be removed from Ersland's upcoming murder trial.

Elliot announced Monday that he would not remove himself from the case.

Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said Elliot cannot be impartial in the trial. He filed a second motion that will put the decision of Elliot's status in the hands of Judge Bill Graves.

Ersland is charged in the shooting death of Antwun Parker, 16, who was involved in a robbery at the pharmacy. Ersland has claimed self-defense, but prosecutors said that the pharmacist fired additional shots that killed the teenager after he was injured and no longer posed a threat.

BBatesokc
12-19-2010, 07:44 AM
I HIGLHY doubt that Judge Graves will find in favor of Erlsand - the motion is so vague that it would essentially remove Elliot from all criminal cases.

kevinpate
12-19-2010, 11:37 AM
Whenever the defense atty elected to press an on the record motion to remove the judge from a case, it was a foregone conclusion he would continue the process to the next step if, as here, the trial judge did not recuse. Anything less would give the appearance the effort was a tactic unrelated to the judge, and only a rube would put himself in that position. Whatever else anyone may or may not think of lead defense counsel in the case, he's not a rube.

That said, if one were wanting to wager, go ahead and bet on Judge Elliot hearing this case, barring any unknown health issues between now and the kickoff for jury pickin'

Double Edge
01-18-2011, 02:28 PM
A pharmacist lost again today in his legal effort to get a different judge to oversee his murder trial.

Oklahoma County District Judge Bill Graves refused to disqualify District Judge Ray C. Elliott from the trial.

The pharmacist's defense attorneys now will ask the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to disqualify Elliott.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-loses-legal-motion-to-disqualify-trial-judge/article/3533328#ixzz1BQOP9h2G

kevinpate
01-18-2011, 03:04 PM
With no surprise at all, there is an announcement by the defense they will press on to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Same song, different judges ... same ending (at least, that's my prediction for this next appeal.

Judge Elliot ultimately will hear this case, barring any unknown health issues between now and the kickoff for jury pickin'.

Double Edge
01-18-2011, 03:11 PM
I guess the defendant buys some time before trial if that's one of the goals.

kevinpate
01-18-2011, 03:23 PM
I won't call it a goal, but without question it is an unavoidable side effect in the process involved when someone is pressing a request for a judge to step down.

BBatesokc
01-18-2011, 04:09 PM
I won't call it a goal, but without question it is an unavoidable side effect in the process involved when someone is pressing a request for a judge to step down.

Ersland is a very fortunate defendant. For one he was granted bail - and bail he could pay - and two, he was able to keep his job. That is often not the case for most criminal defendants. People don't realize the system often punishes without ever getting a conviction and sometimes that is the goal.

kevinpate
01-21-2011, 03:46 PM
Beyond fortunate. Though it has perhaps happened and I just never heard of it, I canna recall any other Murder 1 defendant in the state having a prosecutor both not oppose reasonable bail and advocate the defendant be allowed to be armed pending trial.


In other news, the judge who was previously assigned the case, until the State requested she step down, has been charged, along with her spouse, in Oklahoma County District Court. The charges do not relate to the prior case assignment.

kevinpate
03-04-2011, 04:42 AM
The Court of Criminal Appeals has, not unexpectedly, turned away the attempt of Ersland's defense team to have Judge Elliot removed from the case.

Defense attorneys wanted Oklahoma County (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Oklahoma+County&CATEGORY=COUNTY) District Judge Ray C. Elliott (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Ray+Elliott&CATEGORY=PERSON) disqualified from the case. The Oklahoma (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Oklahoma&CATEGORY=STATE) Court of Criminal Appeals refused in a unanimous two-page order. “The facts of this case do not demonstrate the trial judge has exhibited any personal bias, prejudice or lack of impartiality toward petitioner or his counsel,” the five appeals judges wrote. The case has been on hold. Lead defense attorney Irven Box (http://www.newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Irven+Box&CATEGORY=PERSON) said he next will try to have the district attorney disqualified from the case.


Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-loses-request-for-different-trial-judge/article/3545552#ixzz1Fd8bmHPO

Double Edge
03-04-2011, 06:35 AM
I noticed that. Guess we'll have a trial someday.

Achilleslastand
03-04-2011, 11:25 PM
This keeps getting stranger and stranger......
http://newsok.com/okc-pharmacist-jerome-erslands-attorney-wants-original-judge-reinstated/article/3546103
Box wants original judge{tammy bass lesure}back on the case.

kevinpate
03-05-2011, 07:11 AM
I noticed that. Guess we'll have a trial someday.

just a guess on my part ... fall 2012 ... at the earliest.

Double Edge
03-31-2011, 06:30 AM
Associated Press - March 31, 2011 5:15 AM ET

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A defense attorney wants an Oklahoma County prosecutor removed from the case of a pharmacist charged in the shooting death of a 16-year-old boy during an attempted robbery.

Pharmacist Jerome Ersland is charged with first-degree murder in the May 2009 fatal shooting of Antwun Parker. Defense attorney Irven Box has asked District Judge Ray Elliott to recuse District Attorney David Prater from prosecuting Ersland.

Box alleges Prater has made Ersland's prosecution personal. Prater says Ersland's case is no different than any other his office handles. Elliott will hear oral arguments on the issue Thursday.

OKCTalker
03-31-2011, 09:17 AM
Who is paying Irven Box's legal fees in this matter? I can't believe that pharmacist Jerome Ersland has this kind of money.

And as for Box accusing the prosecution of making this "personal," didn't he (Box) step over that line when he accused the judge of being a racist while seeking HIS disqualification?

kevinpate
03-31-2011, 10:24 PM
Who is paying Irven Box's legal fees in this matter? I can't believe that pharmacist Jerome Ersland has this kind of money.

And as for Box accusing the prosecution of making this "personal," didn't he (Box) step over that line when he accused the judge of being a racist while seeking HIS disqualification?

Last I saw in the press, Ersland mentioned he was tapping out all savings etc. and was seeking donations. I've no doubt it's been an incredibly expensive proposition for him. A multiple lawyer defense team, does not usually come cheap.

BBatesokc
04-01-2011, 06:54 AM
He will either be carrying a load of debt into the future or Box (Box Jr. and Reynolds) have agreed to charge far less than they normally would - they may find this a unique challenge - or, possibly for the exposure (though Box Sr. doesn't necessarily 'need' it) but Jr. and Reynolds have a new firm and could probably use the media time.
Ersland went in to this with very little money. From the start he used his guns as payment and what little he had in the bank.

I know when I faced charges it wasn't long before I was taking out a home equity loan. Fortunately I had good equity in our older small home. I don't see Ersland being so fortunate as he lives in a 1,000 sq. Foot home built in 1935 with no central air and an assessed value of about $24,000.

This is the side of criminal cases the news doesn't cover and you never see in those primetime TV dramas. Win or lose you're financially ruined.

If this goes to trial it will most likely be a longer trial and that is where the fees really add up fast. My lawyer charged $7,500/day to be in court plus expenses for trial, motions, unsealing of indictment, etc. I hit $70k really fast with my case and Ersland has had far more motions and prep than mine.