Looks like Ersland is now crying over his defense fees.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-says-attorneys-are-charging-him-5000-a-day-during-murder-trial/article/3566381

Claims he's paid $100k so far and will be on the hook for $5k more per day of his trial.

Personally, I don't have much sympathy in that regard to this lunatic. He agreed to the fees when he signed the contract. Also, its not too bright to publicly embarrasses and criticize your attorney just days before your murder trial.

Yeah, it sucks to have to go bankrupt to defend yourself - I have no argument there - but don't act like you are being taken advantage of.

Also, that 'Friends of Ersland' is a bunch of crap. They could only gave gotten a copy of the contract if Ersland himself gave it to them to publish. Reminds me of when he denied involvement in the friends of Ersland website, with the B.S. Bullet holes and Xray of his wrist. Gee, come to find out he created the site.

Once again Ersland has proven himself his biggest obstacle to an acquittal.

I can imagine Irvin Box dosnt come cheap. I wonder how much of this has been covered by donations to his defense fund.

The entire state of Oklahoma need to band together to set up massive donation drive for his defense funds. No way should he go to jail for what that black kid attempted to do. What would you all be saying if that black kid end up killing the Pharmacist?! The DA simply wanted fame on TV and "something to do."

Some might ponder whether complaining publicly of defense costs a time or two or more prior to trial might resonate amongst some potential jurors as a plea for sympathy based on the claimed financial deprivation.

Some might ponder whether generating any form of potentially sympathetic press might overshadow other press regarding prior direct statements or prior direct actions by a murder defendant.


... Once again Ersland has proven himself his biggest obstacle to an acquittal.

In that sense, he's not all that different from the garden variety defendant. A rather common characteristic of defendants in general is a near total rejection of the notions that (a) silence can be golden and (b) actions can speak louder than words.

Thunder, is it necessary to use such inflammatory characterizations of the deceased?

I'm sure it's been said before on this board, but it seems to me that the prosecution is doing him a favor by charging him with murder in the first degree. They're basically asking for a jury nullification in my mind. If they were truly concerned that he see jail time, they probably would have charged him with a lesser crime.

Thunder, is it necessary to use such inflammatory characterizations of the deceased?

I don't remember his name and I'm used to the deaf way of being very description when speaking about someone.

Thunder, is it necessary to use such inflammatory characterizations of the deceased?

I'm sure it's been said before on this board, but it seems to me that the prosecution is doing him a favor by charging him with murder in the first degree. They're basically asking for a jury nullification in my mind. If they were truly concerned that he see jail time, they probably would have charged him with a lesser crime.

It doesn't mean though that the judge can't include lesser included in jury instructions if it is warranted.

The prosecution will definitely have a lesser included and that is most likely the only charge jurors will truly weigh against the defenses arguments.

$100K plus trial fees is not a bad quote for an Irvin Box level defense attorney. My attorney (Scott Adams) would have charged him closer to $200K and his trial fee is always $7,500 per day.


Some might ponder whether generating any form of potentially sympathetic press might overshadow other press regarding prior direct statements or prior direct actions by a murder defendant.

Nah, its all just fodder before the trial. I seriously doubt Ersland brings it up again. However, I'm also certain ALL of his goofy shenanigans of false facts will be explored in detail at trial.


In that sense, he's not all that different from the garden variety defendant. A rather common characteristic of defendants in general is a near total rejection of the notions that (a) silence can be golden and (b) actions can speak louder than words.

Actually, I find that most lawyers instruct their client to keep their mouths shut. Certainly I can't recall a criminal defendant who has been so outspoken and hurt their own case so severely.

Regardless, I plan to be there to see it play out.

Use the PD crybaby.

Use the PD crybaby.

He is not a cry baby. Put yourself in his shoes.

Its really stupid for all these hotshot lawyers/attorneys to charge $5,000-$10,000 or more a day. REALLY STUPID!

I'd like some kind of laws passed to cap such outrageous rates.

Anyway, Oklahomans really need to get together and start donating toward his defense funds. Send a message to the DA that the people will be backing him up.

Honestly, the DA got no case. We all saw the video. Its inconclusive. Who cares what he did/say afterward. The focus of the case/charges is the event that took place inside the pharmacy. The video did not show the whole bad boy on the floor. The jury could see it as the boy still having a gun in his hand and was a threat.

Brian, I am curious as to why you are attending the trial. Are you with the media or something? Why would you be given special access inside the court room? Its a good thing that you are not on the jury... Geez, what you posted on here is frightening, dude.

Regardless of how much he receives in donations has no bearing on Praters involvement. And im pretty sure anyone can attend the actual trial{may 16th 9am}.

He is not a cry baby. Put yourself in his shoes.

Its really stupid for all these hotshot lawyers/attorneys to charge $5,000-$10,000 or more a day. REALLY STUPID!

I'd like some kind of laws passed to cap such outrageous rates.

Anyway, Oklahomans really need to get together and start donating toward his defense funds. Send a message to the DA that the people will be backing him up.

Honestly, the DA got no case. We all saw the video. Its inconclusive. Who cares what he did/say afterward. The focus of the case/charges is the event that took place inside the pharmacy. The video did not show the whole bad boy on the floor. The jury could see it as the boy still having a gun in his hand and was a threat.

Brian, I am curious as to why you are attending the trial. Are you with the media or something? Why would you be given special access inside the court room? Its a good thing that you are not on the jury... Geez, what you posted on here is frightening, dude.

As to fees: What makes an attorney's fee different from any other kind of transaction, freely entered into in an open market? There are plenty of attorneys, some better than Box, in my humble opinion, who would be able to take this case cheaper. But Ersland apparently thinks the fees are worth it. It's him whose life is essentially on the line, is he too stupid to know that Box is charging him a lot of money? Did he not sign a fee agreement where the cost of the representation was explained? Where do you want to stop? How about with doctors charging exorbitant amounts for surgery? How about with real estate agents who list houses at a rate higher than they should be listed at? How about retailers who mark things up 1000%? Do you want a centralized planned economy where the government controls the price of goods and labor?

As to whether he did it, you're one of those 'low information deciders' we talk about in the political forum. You don't know what evidence Prater has. You haven't heard the forensics. You have seen a video, one, I might add, which with forensics, could paint a pretty damning picture. And then we have the law which only authorizes the use of deadly force in certain situations. If the robber was unconscious when Ersland shot him, it should be a pretty open and shut case of guilt.

You can't take Ersland's word for it. The guy has already been caught in numerous lies and should have just shut up from the get go. Legally speaking, the D.A. certainly could have a good case. And I doubt he'd be pushing things this far without having pretty solid forensics. You don't even get to a criminal trial unless a judge has already found that there is probable cause to show a crime was committed and that the defendant committed the crime, so there's definitely something here. Whether it rises to Murder in the First Degree is up to the jury.

The entire state of Oklahoma need to band together to set up massive donation drive for his defense funds. No way should he go to jail for what that black kid attempted to do. What would you all be saying if that black kid end up killing the Pharmacist?! The DA simply wanted fame on TV and "something to do."

That black kid? The state "needs to band together" to get him off the hook? Huh??

Brian, I am curious as to why you are attending the trial. Are you with the media or something? Why would you be given special access inside the court room? Its a good thing that you are not on the jury... Geez, what you posted on here is frightening, dude.

Actually, the only thing frightening is that someone might stumble upon this forum and and think we are all as clueless as your posts often are. Courtrooms are public places. Its actually a shame the public rarely attends these things - though they often have no problem spewing uninformed opinions. I guess its like voting.


Use the PD crybaby.

You have to qualify to utilize the PD and there is no way he would qualify.


He is not a cry baby. Put yourself in his shoes.

He absolutely is a cry baby and I've been in his shoes. I know for a fact he faced the same decisions about legal representation I did. There were lawyers willing to handle his case for costs plus about 20% (about 10-30% of what he's already paid - depending on the costs of his expert witnesses, etc.). There were also lawyers with fees at all levels between the lowest offer and his current fees. He picked Irvin, he was given a contract and he signed it. This isn't some uneducated, illiterate, individual. The fact is, he thought there would be lots of donations to his legal defense fund and there hasn't. He certainly could have gotten more funds but once he opened his mouth, donors closed their wallets.

I had lawyers who offered to take my case for about $7,500. I instead willingly chose a route that cost in excess of $70K. The fact he'd even share contractual information with the public shows how out of touch Ersland is.


Its really stupid for all these hotshot lawyers/attorneys to charge $5,000-$10,000 or more a day. REALLY STUPID!

I'd like some kind of laws passed to cap such outrageous rates.

That's ludicrous. Lawyers can and should be able to charge whatever they want. There will always be 'cheap' lawyers and high priced ones and all level in between. Nobody is forcing anyone to use an expensive lawyer. I know 3-4 lawyers that spend virtually all day loitering around the courthouse and they represent (mostly desperate thugs) for a few hundred dollars to maybe a couple thousand. But you often get what you pay for. If lawyers couldn't get rich then many great lawyers would have never entered the profession. Same goes for doctors, etc.


Honestly, the DA got no case. We all saw the video. Its inconclusive. Who cares what he did/say afterward. The focus of the case/charges is the event that took place inside the pharmacy. The video did not show the whole bad boy on the floor. The jury could see it as the boy still having a gun in his hand and was a threat.

Actually his case is pretty good. It will ultimately come down to whose expert witnesses are better at convincing the jury what we don't see in the video. The prosecution has always had one version backed by some good evidence. Ersland has now had two stories back by little or nothing. FYI - there is NO debate on whether or not the boy who was killed was armed. He wasn't and never was.

This sounds obvious, but if Ersland would have NOT shot the incapacitated kid, then he wouldn't have had to employ such desperate legal tactics in an attempt to save his own skin. Having stopped the threat by incapacitating the kid, Ersland sealed his own fate by killing him. When Irven Box was considering taking Ersland as a client, he would have quickly ascertained his financial means, and created the best legal defense those funds could buy. I blame Box for deciding that the best tactic involved a prolongued (and appealed) attack of the judge. Box should be remembered for that. Ersland will simply be remembered as the guy who killed someone who no longer posed a threat.

I don't know all the goings on behind closed doors, so I can't comment on whether or not his defense strategy is sound - only time will tell (about 3 weeks of time).

I do know that delays have come from both sides and most cases of this nature take 11-18 months to get to trial.

Honestly, most attorneys I know realize that any publicity is good publicity - though not always in the client's best interest.

The entire state of Oklahoma need to band together to set up massive donation drive for his defense funds. No way should he go to jail for what that black kid attempted to do. What would you all be saying if that black kid end up killing the Pharmacist?! The DA simply wanted fame on TV and "something to do."

Thunder, I have had knock down drag outs with people over being PC but this particular post has me utterly steamed. He was a kid. What the h*ll difference does it make that he was black? If he had it coming (and I am not saying he did), why is his race anything worth mentioning? Jeeze. The kid is dead. Would it make any difference to you if he was white? Because it sure sounds like it from what you just posted.

Okay, edited after I read your reasoning - that deaf people use descriptive language. I still don't like it. Call him the kid who got killed or something. Otherwise, it sounds like you are focusing on his race, as if that made any difference.

Jeesh of course race didnt have anything to do with it. According to his mxxxy mother he was a good boy who loved to draw and play basketball.....and rob pharmacies. He danced with the devil and lost which is probably a good thing being that he was headed down that career criminal path.

:ohno: Did you actually say Mammy? Now THAT is a low blow.

Jeesh of course race didnt have anything to do with it. According to his mxxxy mother he was a good boy who loved to draw and play basketball.....and rob pharmacies. He danced with the devil and lost which is probably a good thing being that he was headed down that career criminal path.

Quoted for posterity.

Wow.

I don't remember his name and I'm used to the deaf way of being very description when speaking about someone.

The "black kid's" name was Antwun Parker. This information is easily obtained through Google or newsok.

Yes, he made a mistake trying to hold up a pharmacy. There is no reason to judge him, because Ersland already did it for us.

As for Ersland's attorney's fees--he signed up for it, he knew what he was getting into. If Box steered him wrong by making Ersland think it was an open and shut case, then shame on Box; however, I don't think anyone with half a brain would have actually believed that. This is a complex case which requires a lot of time on both sides, and time is how lawyers are paid. How much is your time worth?

I don't know all the facts but the more I hear the more it sounds like he executed that kid. His life was not in danger and the immediate threat had passed, not to mention the kid was laying on the floor incapacitated. I'm not excusing what that kid did by any means because he shouldn't have been in there the first place but doing what Ersland did wasn't necessary IMHO.

WOW, some of these posts on this thread are downright sick! Unreal.

My early prediction - hung jury or guilty of a lesser included.

My early prediction - hung jury or guilty of a lesser included.

Shameful if anything but "not guilty"

Shameful if anything but "not guilty"

Many will feel that way. I think its 'shameful' the defendant was put in the situation he was, but I won't find fault with any verdict less than guilty for murder 1. They can find him guilty of manslaughter or acquit him and I'm fine with it. There is no complete justice either way.

I'm a long time fan of the wisdom of putting some strangers together in a room to hash something out. Whatever the jurors collectively do after hearing and seeing all the evidence is an acceptable conclusion to their service.

If they reach their verdict on the primary charge, I won't be surprised.
If they reach their verdict on a lesser charge, I won't be surprised.

I would be somewhat surprised if this ends as an acquittal or have to tried again due to the jury being undecided. While I consider both possibilities remote, I must acknowledge that both exist.

Different state, different specific details - but, cases like these leave me open to the reality Ersland may very well be found not guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

The 911 call: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7jqLie6-Y0

In the Joe Horn case, Texas law allowed the use of deadly force in that circumstance. The only reason he was charged was because Quanell X (sp?) was raising a lot of hell.

In the Joe Horn case, Texas law allowed the use of deadly force in that circumstance. The only reason he was charged was because Quanell X (sp?) was raising a lot of hell.

One interpretation allowed for MR Horn's actions - which is exactly what the Ersland case is going to come down to..... who can best simplify and explain their interpretation of the law as it applied to this set of circumstances.

Indeed, paying a trial lawyer to defend you once you've executed a neutralized suspect must be expensive.

I understand the reality of attorney expenses. But I also see the sickness of a judicial system where guilt and innocence is so often decided by how much money you have in the bank. We can all pretend otherwise, but wealth wins many cases whether they were guilty or not, and poverty brings many wrongful convictions. With that said, it's not a slam against the jury system, just an easy observation to make watching wealthy defense teams overwhelm a local prosecutor and many a prosecutor run roughshod over a public defender who can't afford all the fancy forensics teams and expert witnesses flown in from all corners of the globe. The sad fact is that guilt and innocence too often has everything to do with money and little to do with justice.

This position assumes that prosecutors are loose cannons who, unchecked by expensive defense attorneys, will run roughshod over defendant's rights. I don't find this to be realistic.

I understand the reality of attorney expenses. But I also see the sickness of a judicial system where guilt and innocence is so often decided by how much money you have in the bank. We can all pretend otherwise, but wealth wins many cases whether they were guilty or not, and poverty brings many wrongful convictions. With that said, it's not a slam against the jury system, just an easy observation to make watching wealthy defense teams overwhelm a local prosecutor and many a prosecutor run roughshod over a public defender who can't afford all the fancy forensics teams and expert witnesses flown in from all corners of the globe. The sad fact is that guilt and innocence too often has everything to do with money and little to do with justice.

That certainly does happen, but I have also personally seen MANY examples of public defenders and no-name defense attorneys who get acquittals and dismissals for their indigent clients. Also, keep in mind, only a tiny percentage of cases actually ever go to trial and even though most people want to believe it is primarily the wrongly accused who choose to go to trial - I believe firmly it is the opposite and often guilty defendants who simply won't accept their fate.

Shameful if anything but "not guilty"

Why is that? Did he not murder a kid that was incapacitated?

Why is that? Did he not murder a kid that was incapacitated?

I understand Ersland and his defense team (disclosure: are friends of mine) have their version of events and what threat Parker presented. But the fact they have given two version of events that are in sharp contrast to each other is troubling and not often a thing done by the truly innocent. In one presented defense, Parker was not unconscious, was moving and trying to get up - thus he was a perceived continued threat.

In the second defense that was forwarded, Ersland could not have killed Parker with the final shots on the pharmacy floor because the first gun shot that grazed his head was fatal.

In contrast - the prosecution has been consistent with their version of events; The initial shot to Parker's head was justified and the subsequent shots were not and that the first shot was not imminently fatal. Also, they have pretty solid evidence that Parker never moved once he hit the floor.

Throw in the two polar opposite defenses presented and all the lies and cover-ups by Ersland himself, and I would be a pretty nervous criminal defendant if it was me.

I understand the reality of attorney expenses. But I also see the sickness of a judicial system where guilt and innocence is so often decided by how much money you have in the bank. We can all pretend otherwise, but wealth wins many cases whether they were guilty or not, and poverty brings many wrongful convictions. With that said, it's not a slam against the jury system, just an easy observation to make watching wealthy defense teams overwhelm a local prosecutor and many a prosecutor run roughshod over a public defender who can't afford all the fancy forensics teams and expert witnesses flown in from all corners of the globe. The sad fact is that guilt and innocence too often has everything to do with money and little to do with justice.

Actually, the opposite is often true. Don't assume expensive lawyers are better lawyers. Indigent defendants routinely receive much better representation from public defenders than defendants that pay huge fees to the lawyer he/she saw during a Jerry Springer commercial who promised them great results. That being said, I agree with you - it's always unfortunate to see any trial influenced by anything other than a fair, adversarial presentation of the facts.

Why is that? Did he not murder a kid that was incapacitated?

He did shoot a young man that came into his place of business with a loaded weapon and the intent to rob him at gunpoint. No one can say or predict what they would do if placed in a like situation.

NOT GUILTY

He did shoot a young man that came into his place of business with a loaded weapon and the intent to rob him at gunpoint. No one can say or predict what they would do if placed in a like situation.

NOT GUILTY

I can. Neutralize the threat, then cover until police got there. Not switch to another gun, walk over, and deliver a coup de grace.

I can. Neutralize the threat, then cover until police got there. Not switch to another gun, walk over, and deliver a coup de grace.

He will be found Not Guilty, as he shoud be.

He did shoot a young man that came into his place of business with a loaded weapon and the intent to rob him at gunpoint. No one can say or predict what they would do if placed in a like situation.

NOT GUILTY

Actually, the boy he shot never had a weapon.

I can see a scenario where the jury finds him not guilty, but my money is on manslaughter or hung jury.

He will be found Not Guilty, as he shoud be.

RC, as someone in law enforcement with privy to a bit more information on the case (And, specifically, the video in question) I know that it was murder. He was okay in defending himself with the initial shots that put the suspect down, but after he was neutralized, he was neutralized. He got a second gun and executed him. You can defend yourself, and I'm 110% behind armed citizens doing so. However, once the threat is ended, you have no right to execute the suspect, no matter what your feelings are about the criminal.
I'd be on trial for doing the same thing, were I to do such a thing on duty.

This position assumes that prosecutors are loose cannons who, unchecked by expensive defense attorneys, will run roughshod over defendant's rights. I don't find this to be realistic.

Were you around during the reign of Robert H. Macy?

Were you around during the reign of Robert H. Macy?
Absolutely.

Absolutely.

And you really don't find prosecutors as "loose cannons" and running roughshod as "realistic?" If your answer is what I think you're going to say - I doubt just how close you are to anything.

Break it down. Give me your issues. I'll deal with them.
I've been preparing, filing, and testifying in cases with the Oklahoma County D.A.'s office for over 21 years. The biggest problems I've encountered, by far, are lazy D.A.s who won't take legitimate charges (that meet statutorial requirements) they can't easily plea bargain away. That's not saying all DAs are lazy... they're not, and they aren't paid well, either. I make more than they do. Hence, most of them are doing the job for idealistic reasons, not monetary.

I can. Neutralize the threat, then cover until police got there. Not switch to another gun, walk over, and deliver a coup de grace.

Law says that once the threat is neutralized and or, any other means can be taken to make you safe from further harm you have no further right to use deadly force. Ersland left the building and was safe from the youth he killed as long as he didn't re-enter the building. He, instead, re-entered the building, retrieved a second gun and executed the youth. I'm very pro-gun. I have a permit and carry 90% of the time. I also believe we must obey the carry and self defense laws in order to keep them intact. If we abuse the law we give activists ammunition (no pun intended) to get the laws removed. This was murder by a man who was vengeful and ticked off. Plain and simple. He must be found guilty.

On a side note. I'm not sure that if I owned a business that had been robbed many times that I would not do the same as Ersland did. But if I did I would also be guilty of murder and have to take the consequences.

Although the video does look quite bad and incriminating, I'm sure the jury will be somewhat sympathetic to the likely argument that through all the commotion, the pharmacist was still not certain of his own safety. I suspect he will eventually be convicted of a lesser charge.

This is a tragedy all the way around.

He did shoot a young man that came into his place of business with a loaded weapon and the intent to rob him at gunpoint. No one can say or predict what they would do if placed in a like situation.

NOT GUILTY

So that's it? Because no one can say or predict what they would do, we should let him go? Really?

Law says that once the threat is neutralized and or, any other means can be taken to make you safe from further harm you have no further right to use deadly force. Ersland left the building and was safe from the youth he killed as long as he didn't re-enter the building. He, instead, re-entered the building, retrieved a second gun and executed the youth. I'm very pro-gun. I have a permit and carry 90% of the time. I also believe we must obey the carry and self defense laws in order to keep them intact. If we abuse the law we give activists ammunition (no pun intended) to get the laws removed. This was murder by a man who was vengeful and ticked off. Plain and simple. He must be found guilty.

On a side note. I'm not sure that if I owned a business that had been robbed many times that I would not do the same as Ersland did. But if I did I would also be guilty of murder and have to take the consequences.

So, you are saying the criminal was already dead. And the DA gone overboard with the charges. Shouldn't he only be charged with something like "disrespectful action toward a dead body?"

So, you are saying the criminal was already dead. And the DA gone overboard with the charges. Shouldn't he only be charged with something like "disrespectful action toward a dead body?"

"neutralized" doesn't have to mean "dead." Parker was unconscious on the floor - therefore, "neutralized."

So, you are saying the criminal was already dead. And the DA gone overboard with the charges. Shouldn't he only be charged with something like "disrespectful action toward a dead body?"

An assailant can certainly be neutralized without killing him. If you shoot me, and I'm knocked unconcious on the floor, I'm neutralized.

What really irks me about this whole case is not once have i heard the mother come out and take any of the blame nor place any on her child. Its been the blame game with her since day one blaming either Ersland or the two masterminds behind this. She acts like her son was just caught up and the victim of a violent crime while taking no responsibility at all.
Maybe she needs to learn what cause and effect is.

What really irks me about this whole case is not once have i heard the mother come out and take any of the blame nor place any on her child. Its been the blame game with her since day one blaming either Ersland or the two masterminds behind this. She acts like her son was just caught up and the victim of a violent crime while taking no responsibility at all.
Maybe she needs to learn what cause and effect is.

That's why he wound up dead in a robbery attempt.

I remember a law passed that allows us the use of excessive force. Did that go into effect before or after this event?

I remember a law passed that allows us the use of excessive force. Did that go into effect before or after this event?

No Oklahoma law allows 'excessive force.' Try looking up the word excessive. Also no law allows you to execute another person that no longer presents a valid threat.

So, you are saying the criminal was already dead. And the DA gone overboard with the charges. Shouldn't he only be charged with something like "disrespectful action toward a dead body?" No. I'm saying that Ersland re-entered the building and killed a living criminal who was no longer a threat to him if he had stayed outside the building.

Can they prove/disprove that Mr Parker was clinically dead after the first shot to the head?

Can they prove/disprove that Mr Parker was clinically dead after the first shot to the head?

It could be proven or disproven. The state hasn't made a press release of their forensics just yet.

Can they prove/disprove that Mr Parker was clinically dead after the first shot to the head?

I don't believe that is in dispute on either side. The Medical Examiners office ruled the 5 subsequent shots killed Parker. The only discrepancy was how immediately fatal the first shot would or would not have been if the other shots had never been fired.

Additional evidence shows Parker was either unconscious or immobile while on the floor.