Hope nobody minds, but I figured now that the trial is starting and I'll be attending, I would start a new trial thread to post updates.

Ersland just entered the courtroom. Weird thing is, he arrived without his attorneys and was led in and seems to being shadowed by 'crazy protestor guy.' Those who frequent the courthouse know who I'm talking about. He reminds me of the crazy homeless lady on TMZ that is always leading celebs into restaurants etc.

Opening statements have begun. Prater is addressing the jury with 'the information.'

The courtroom is 3/4 full.

Prater is done. Ersland's attorneys have objected about 6 times (all overruled). Joe Brett Reynolds is now opening for the defense. In only 6 minutes Prater has objected no less than 9 times (all sustained).

Not a good start for the defense.

More sustained objections by Prater. The defense has lost their flow and the judge is starting to admonish the defense. We haven't gone 30 seconds without a prosecution objection. Judge has called a 30 minute recess to admonish the defense for their continued grand standing.

The judge just accused defense attorneys of trying to harpoon the jury and said they have one more chance to follow the rules.

Opening statements by defense are resuming. Already two more objections.

To avoid further objections, the defense has hurriedly wrapped up their opening.

1st prosecution witness being called - A female clerk from Reliable Pharmacy the day of the shooting.

Thanks for doing this, Brian.

Witness testified that her mother buzzed Ingram and Parker into the pharmacy. She said she heard one say, "I'm going to shoot your ass!" She stated there were multiple guns kept in the pharmacy, including a shotgun and 1-2 pistols. She testified she & her mother retreated to the back room. She stated that Ersland did not come looking for them after the shooting. She testified she never heard any voices after Ersland returned, produced a second gun and shot Parker 5 more times. (meaning Parker was not saying anything to Ersland - threatening or otherwise - even though Ersland had stated the opposite)

Prosecution passes the witness to the defense.

Under prosecution questioning; Clerk witness stated she tripped while retreating to the back room and Ersland could have thought she had been shot. Ersland was positioned between the female employees and the threat Ingram and Parker posed. She thought two people were shooting and that she thought Ersland is a hero and saved her life.

Redirect now from prosecution.

Very brief. Simply established that she did not see any of the shooting and left the room immediately.

Witness dismissed.

Judge had to excuse himself to deal with another matter. Returned and has asked both sides to meet with him in chambers away from the jury.

very cool reading a firsthand account of the proceedings... thanks! -M

Still on hold. Jury seems very alert (often not the case in criminal trials). Only one minority on the jury and she looks Asian. Ersland probably likes those odds.

Very neat to read a first-hand account like this!

Next witness, lives across the street from Reliable Pharmacy. Being questioned by the prosecution (Prater).

Testimony under questioning by Prater: She was in her front yard removing an old boat from her yard (by order of the city). She witnessed Ersland fire three shots outside the pharmacy in pursuit of Ingram. She stated that Ingram was running away and not returning fire or pointing a weapon at Ersland. She stated her son was in the direct line of fire of Ersland's gun. Her and her son had to take cover. Ingram ran through a vacant lot but was unable to get over a fence. Ingram then got into a vehicle. Vehicle was not at the end of the pharmacy building or near it [Ersland claimed he came into contact with the getaway vehicle at the edge of the pharmacy and one occupant produced a shotgun].

Witness passed to defense.

Under cross by Irvin Box: Witness admits she did not know who was chasing who (name, race, etc.). Did not see a gun in Ingram's hand. She got into her truck and followed the fleeing suspects. She witnessed the vehicle crash 1-2 blocks away. The driver was arrested and Ingram fled on foot.

She stated she has seen police respond to other incidents at Reliable Pharmacy.

Witness passed back to prosecution [Prater]

Prater got the witness to clarify that even though she didn't know who was chasing who, it was a white male chasing a black male. She assumed the pharmacy was being robbed.

Witnessed dismissed

Lunch from 11:45 - 1:15pm

UPDATE: apparently the recess with the judge and attorneys was to tell them there is a security alert. Deputies then scanned the public seating areas visually and are walking each floor looking for an individual.

Hope nobody minds, but I figured now that the trial is starting and I'll be attending, I would start a new trial thread to post updates.

Cool. I almost feel like I am tweeting. Seriously, this in very interesting - thanks.

The judge just accused defense attorneys of trying to harpoon the jury and said they have one more chance to follow the rules.
Good lord.

Thanks for the updates!

I'm surprised they let you have your phone/computer in the court room

But I'm glad you can!

Trial is resuming from lunch break - noticeable security increase. Courtroom is only 1/3 full.

Witness: Son of previous witness (17, 15 at the time of the robbery), lives across from the pharmacy.

Being questioned by prosecution (Prater).

Testimony: Saw Ingram running towards him. Heard gun shots and heard the .410 pellets 'zip' by him. Took cover and did not see Ersland. Confirmed the getaway car was never on the Pharmacy property. Also confirmed the car wrecked and the driver waited around until arrested while Ingram fled.

Witness passed to defense.

Testimony under cross, by defense attorney Irvin Box:
Witness did not see a gun. Witness admitted while he never saw Ingram he didn't see him the entire time because he was running for cover (meaning Ingram could have pointed a weapon at Ersland).

Witness released.

Next witness is a 5-year veteran of the Oklahoma City Police Department:
Questioned by prosecution (Prater)
He was dispatched to the armed robbery at the Reliable Pharmacy. Arrived within 2 minutes of the call. Arrived at the front door of Reliable Pharmacy and took a tactical position. He saw a victim on the floor and another male behind the counter (Parker and Ersland). Secured the immediate area and checked Parker for vital signs. Parker had no vital signs. Ersland said he was trying to protect the ladies. Parker was not armed.

EMSA was allowed to confirm he was dead and then they were asked to leave.

The female employees were in the back and were kept separated from Ersland.

The most noticeable injury to Parker was a single shot to the forehead. Then he noticed 5 close proximity bullet wounds to Parker's chest. Powder residue indicated the shots were fired extremely close to the victim.

OCPD witness is identifying photos:
1. Photo of Parker with a pool of blood around his head.
2. Similar photo also showing he is wearing a backpack, laying flat on the floor and the ski mask is covering his eyes as he was shot while putting it on and never moved it again. Also shows merchandise on Parker's body (indicating he most likely never set up or moved after he hit the floor)
3. Photo showing the close grouping of the 5 gun shots to his chest (indicating Parker was not moving).
4. Photo showing powder burns and stippling on Parker's shirt.

Are they going to try to show that the forehead injury was the first one and that it was fatal?

Cross examination by the defense (Jeff Box):
Confirmed he was trained for 1 year to become a police officer. Has never had a gun pulled on him or pulled a gun on someone else while working for OCPD.

Several objections are being fired off by the prosecution regarding the defenses line of questioning regarding situations involving a weapon.

Has never responded to the pharmacy regarding any other crime.

When he arrived at the pharmacy the door was locked and he had to be buzzed in by Ersland.

He did not search or move Parker's body in any way. He did not touch Parker to confirm his lack of vital signs.

He said Ersland picked up and moved at least one shell casing at the scene. Saw some brain matter and skull from the forehead shot.

Defense is pointing out the boxes on Parker could have been knocked down by Parker's as he tried to get up. Witness does not know.

Officer believed the head wound was fatal but admitted he has no training in that area.

Witness dismissed

Next witness;
Another police officer (of 19 yrs on the department).
Responded to the armed robbery call. Took him 5 minutes or less to respond. Made contact with the females in the furthest storage room. She was separated and left in a patrol car until taken to be interviewed by homicide.

He noticed the chest wounds on Parker first. He then maintained the crime scene security.

Witness passed to defense.

Are they going to try to show that the forehead injury was the first one and that it was fatal?

I don't see how the prosecution could prove the first shot wasn't fatal, the other 5 wouldn't make it murder.

I don't see how the prosecution could prove the first shot wasn't fatal, the other 5 wouldn't make it murder.

Yup, if the first shot killed him, murder wouldn't work no matter what sort of statements he said or what he did, afterwards. But it would depend on what the autopsy showed, presumably. I thought the autopsy said it wasn't fatal but I may be misremembering. A shot to the head with brain matter and an officer who didn't check for signs of life won't trump the ME but raises a question, seems like.

Prater is done. Ersland's attorneys have objected about 6 times (all overruled). Joe Brett Reynolds is now opening for the defense. In only 6 minutes Prater has objected no less than 9 times (all sustained).

Not a good start for the defense.

BINGO! Rigged Judge right there. Now it all goes down to the Jury when the time comes.

BINGO! Rigged Judge right there. Now it all goes down to the Jury when the time comes.

Oh stop, Thunder. It will come down to the jury, regardless. The judge is just keeping order and making sure things go according to Hoyle.

Oh stop, Thunder. It will come down to the jury, regardless. The judge is just keeping order and making sure things go according to Hoyle.

I know, but still... Judge is not allowing the defense team the freedom while Prater roamed free. That is what Brian reported.

And I like these reports coming from Brian. Really interesting to read.

Thunder, Brian did not have time to specify the objections nor what they regarded. You might consider them legit if you heard the whole thing.

Yeah. I'd like to know about those objections and such.

Okay - I'll sum up the rest of the day. They had three cell phones go off so I had to turn my ipad2 off.

Had some major fireworks erupt with the police officer on the stand. Went something like this....
Irvin Box (defense) kept asking questions he knew would be successfully objected to, but he simply wanted the jury to hear the questions. The questions were basically asking the officer if its OCPD police that if you fire your weapon your intent should be to kill, not simply wound. The others had to do with the state of mind a person would be in if being confronted by an armed robber.

Prater (prosecution), finally called Irvin on the purpose of his questioning and described it as poisoning the jury and "slimy." Irvin responded with something like "Why don't you call me slimy to my face Mr. Prater." Prater didn't back down and then Irvin made some comment about how should try to hit him, because he doesn't have M.S. (reference to the defendant in the previous trial that attacked Prater).

Judge Elliot cleared the jury out of the room and admonished both attorneys.

The next witness was an EMSA worker who arrived on scene.

The EMSA worker stated Ersland claimed he suffered a gun shot wound. The witness said it was a tiny scratch requiring nothing more than a small bandaid. The witness stated the wound looked like it was caused by Ersland's watch.

The defense on cross examination basically just had the witness admit he is not a gun shot expert and that the would might have been caused by a ricocheting bullet - the witness said he didn't think that was possible.

The next witness was a female police officer. She helped secure the perimeter and was later asked to transport Ersland to the downtown police headquarters to be questioned by detectives.

The officer stated Ersland engaged in conversation with her on the way downtown. Ersland stated that he was wearing a backbrace because of injuries he received in a IUD explosion in a Humvee he was in while fighting in the war. He also claimed he had sustained a gunshot wound during the robbery.

Brian, did you see the picture of the bullet hole in his head? Where was the exact position? Was there an exit hole?

The last witness was a computer forensic police officer.

He was the officer to collect the surveillance video from the computers at Reliable Pharmacy. He testified that once shot the first time, Parker was no longer a danger to Ersland and that Ersland simply "executed him."

Under cross examination however he admitted that he couldn't see any part of Parker once he was shot and fell the first time and that he actually had no idea if Parker posed a threat.

Testimony for the day ended.

I'll be back in the courtroom on Monday. But, since I can't turn my ipad2 on in the courtroom I'll have to post during breaks or when I step out.

Are they going to try to show that the forehead injury was the first one and that it was fatal?

The defense is once again forwarding two possibilities; The initial shot was fatal and justified and/or Parker was still a threat to Ersland because he was conscious and moving so the subsequent shots were justified also.

Yup, if the first shot killed him, murder wouldn't work no matter what sort of statements he said or what he did, afterwards. But it would depend on what the autopsy showed, presumably. I thought the autopsy said it wasn't fatal but I may be misremembering. A shot to the head with brain matter and an officer who didn't check for signs of life won't trump the ME but raises a question, seems like.

EMSA arrived within 10 or so of the police and their medic did check more thoroughly for vitals. Of course, that doesn't prove when Parker died. Yes, the initial ME's report said the first shot was not fatal. Reports by other ME's only varied by how fatal the first shot was..... As in, would he have died without immediate treatment or could he have ultimately survived if he got help in a reasonable amount of time. I believe all ME reports would agree the first shot was not immediately fatal and that there is absolute medical evidence Parker was alive when he was shot 5 more times - how long hev would have lived after the first shot is in question.

BINGO! Rigged Judge right there. Now it all goes down to the Jury when the time comes.

No Thunder. Elliot is the most fair and unwavering judge in the whole court house. Very by the book. The defense was out of line in their opening statements. They were indeed grandstanding and talking about things that were not within the boundaries of opening statements.

I know, but still... Judge is not allowing the defense team the freedom while Prater roamed free. That is what Brian reported.

And I like these reports coming from Brian. Really interesting to read.

Basically the defense was editorializing and getting into topics that are not to be brought up in opening remarks (but could potentially be brought up in closing). Opening remarks should be limited to summarizing what FACTS that are directly pertinent to the case that are going to be presented. The defense was getting into things like the original ME being fired not long after do the autopsy on Parker.

Closing arguments are all about editorializing and swaying the jury (within reason).

Brian, did you see the picture of the bullet hole in his head? Where was the exact position? Was there an exit hole?

Yes, we saw the pictures (depending on where you were sitting). The forehead shot was not very big and the amounts of brain matter and skull showing was very small.

My impression after the first day is that the prosecution was much better at presenting their information - it flowed well, was easy to understand, Prater was likable and very few objections from the defense.

The defense started off really bad with their opening. However, it got much better. Irvin was good at attacking the prosecution fearlessly. His son Jeff did very well at picking prosecution witnesses apart and exposing their weaknesses in their testimony.

After day one, I still feel Ersland technically broke the law and should be punished. But, I'm not convinced the jury would find him guilty at this point. So far the jury has exactly what I think they will desperately want - any excuse to find reasonable doubt.

The ME's testimony will really mean alot.

Noticed two jurors (one man and one woman) nodding off during the last couple of witnesses.

We'll see how next week goes. Hope you enjoy the updates. I encourage anyone who can attend to do so.

Had some major fireworks erupt with the police officer on the stand. Went something like this....
Irvin Box (defense) kept asking questions he knew would be successfully objected to, but he simply wanted the jury to hear the questions. The questions were basically asking the officer if its OCPD police that if you fire your weapon your intent should be to kill, not simply wound. The others had to do with the state of mind a person would be in if being confronted by an armed robber.

Prater (prosecution), finally called Irvin on the purpose of his questioning and described it as poisoning the jury and "slimy." Irvin responded with something like "Why don't you call me slimy to my face Mr. Prater." Prater didn't back down and then Irvin made some comment about how should try to hit him, because he doesn't have M.S. (reference to the defendant in the previous trial that attacked Prater).

Judge Elliot cleared the jury out of the room and admonished both attorneys.

This went on in front of the jury?????? Admonishment was kind. They are lucky it wasn't worse.

EMSA arrived within 10 or so of the police and their medic did check more thoroughly for vitals. Of course, that doesn't prove when Parker died. Yes, the initial ME's report said the first shot was not fatal. Reports by other ME's only varied by how fatal the first shot was..... As in, would he have died without immediate treatment or could he have ultimately survived if he got help in a reasonable amount of time. I believe all ME reports would agree the first shot was not immediately fatal and that there is absolute medical evidence Parker was alive when he was shot 5 more times - how long hev would have lived after the first shot is in question.

I'm thinking the jury will hang a hat on that for a reduced charge or an acquital if they can convince themselves that despite his bad acts, it didn't change the fact that the child would die from the first shot. Just my thoughts without knowing more of the facts and how it will play. So basically, my opinion is worthless, I realize. I should think the bullet holes to the chest wouldn't have been bleeding like you'd expect if he'd already been dead for several minutes. Any testimony on that?

Very nice, Penny. If he was brain-dead, then chances are the heart stopped pumping and the blood stopped flowing. All the multiple shots into his chest should have blood racing out if he was alive. If there was no blood coming out in that way, he was dead. I wonder if the defense attorneys are reading this thread. They can question the ME about this. Its more likely that he was dead already.

Very nice, Penny. If he was brain-dead, then chances are the heart stopped pumping and the blood stopped flowing. All the multiple shots into his chest should have blood racing out if he was alive. If there was no blood coming out in that way, he was dead. I wonder if the defense attorneys are reading this thread. They can question the ME about this. Its more likely that he was dead already.
I'm fairly certain this has already occurred to them.

Very nice, Penny. If he was brain-dead, then chances are the heart stopped pumping and the blood stopped flowing. All the multiple shots into his chest should have blood racing out if he was alive. If there was no blood coming out in that way, he was dead. I wonder if the defense attorneys are reading this thread. They can question the ME about this. Its more likely that he was dead already.

Hmmm, I'm no doctor, but if you're brain dead and your heart isn't pumping, I'm pretty certain that qualifies you as just plain dead. Matter of fact, I think it just comes down to the heart - when it does the brain follows pretty quickly. But, not necessarily the other way around.

Like I said, there is ample evidence Parker was alive when he was shot the final 5 times.

Basically the defense was editorializing and getting into topics that are not to be brought up in opening remarks (but could potentially be brought up in closing). Opening remarks should be limited to summarizing what FACTS that are directly pertinent to the case that are going to be presented. The defense was getting into things like the original ME being fired not long after do the autopsy on Parker.

Closing arguments are all about editorializing and swaying the jury (within reason).Well given the fact that in 2009 the ME’s office lost their accreditation and then all the problems with the ME’s office like botched investigations. Like as in the Kelsey Briggs case where that poor little girl’s body was dug up twice because they didn’t do it right the first time. Add to that the strange investigation by DHS employee Jill Kinney who was paid to investigate the ME’s office. However during her so called investigation it was proven that she destroyed documents pertaining to more than one case.

Well given the fact that in 2009 the ME’s office lost their accreditation and then all the problems with the ME’s office like botched investigations. Like as in the Kelsey Briggs case where that poor little girl’s body was dug up twice because they didn’t do it right the first time. Add to that the strange investigation by DHS employee Jill Kinney who was paid to investigate the ME’s office. However during her so called investigation it was proven that she destroyed documents pertaining to more than one case.

Dana, Your past few posts have told me you have a big beef with the county/state system of justice in our state. I went back and read some of your previous postings and read how you feel you have all this evidence, you are being denied your legal rights, etc. You mentioned an attorney in one of the posts, has he or she ever mentioned the possibility of going to the U.S. Attorney's office and discuss investigation of possible violations of federal civil rights laws? If things are really as strong and black and white as you make them sound - maybe even present the evidence to a federal grand jury? I mention that specifically because you talked of having recordings in your possession, yet judges will not allow them to be heard. This is where the grand jury system can be of help because they can hear, see, just about anything (that otherwise wouldn't be admissible in court) and if the evidence is as clear as you say - act on it. There are ways to get justice if you feel the ones in charge of seeing that justice is done are not doing their jobs. Just food for thought. Best of luck.

Dana, Your past few posts have told me you have a big beef with the county/state system of justice in our state. I went back and read some of your previous postings and read how you feel you have all this evidence, you are being denied your legal rights, etc. You mentioned an attorney in one of the posts, has he or she ever mentioned the possibility of going to the U.S. Attorney's office and discuss investigation of possible violations of federal civil rights laws? If things are really as strong and black and white as you make them sound - maybe even present the evidence to a federal grand jury? I mention that specifically because you talked of having recordings in your possession, yet judges will not allow them to be heard. This is where the grand jury system can be of help because they can hear, see, just about anything (that otherwise wouldn't be admissible in court) and if the evidence is as clear as you say - act on it. There are ways to get justice if you feel the ones in charge of seeing that justice is done are not doing their jobs. Just food for thought. Best of luck.Yea this all sounds good in theory but have you ever tried as a citizen to get access to the Grand Jury? First you have to go through the Attorney General which getting to him is almost impossible just ask Jim Hall he has been trying like me for several years. His judge got so mad at what DHS did to him he did something that has never been done before when it comes to DHS. He filed a public order for the whole world to see and now 3 years later we still can't get that public order to the Attorney General because it disappears right after it gets there so the AG never gets to see it.

Yea this all sounds good in theory but have you ever tried as a citizen to get access to the Grand Jury? First you have to go through the Attorney General which getting to him is almost impossible just ask Jim Hall he has been trying like me for several years. His judge got so mad at what DHS did to him he did something that has never been done before when it comes to DHS. He filed a public order for the whole world to see and now 3 years later we still can't get that public order to the Attorney General because it disappears right after it gets there so the AG never gets to see it.

That's why I suggested the U.S. Attorney. Get the political process involved in the judicial process. Have their friends insist they listen. There's always another step to take. No, it's not easy, but the squeaky wheel....well, you know all that. Good luck. Believe me, I know it's imperfect.

That's why I suggested the U.S. Attorney. Get the political process involved in the judicial process. Have their friends insist they listen. There's always another step to take. No, it's not easy, but the squeaky wheel....well, you know all that. Good luck. Believe me, I know it's imperfect.Once again all I did was state the facts and once again I am personally attacked. I can't help it if you can't deal with the truth as the old saying don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.