Ersland Trial Begins

[BBatesokc]

Not much considering all the original charges remain of public record (not always the case, but that's neither here nor there for this thread.

Dana, just a suggestion, but perhaps starting a new thread, along the lines of TODAY'S COURT SYSTEM AND WHY I THINK IT IS CORRUPT/CRAZY/UNFAIR - DISCUSS!, might not be a bad idea or outlet for you. It's certainly seems more appropriate than continually trying to reroute this thread from its topic. As for myself, that will hopefully be my last off-topic reply.

Returning, or at least trying to return, the topic of the thread, I'm not as sure as BBates is on how helpful the site visit is to the defense, at least not having it come on the same date as hearing the officer testify about, and actually hearing the statements of the defendant, which I believe was the other part of the day.

One; I'm no longer going to respond to Dana within this thread.

Two; If I was Irvin, I'd have some witness(es) to testify that Ersland's claims of PTSD and making himself some hero were not so much covering a crime (guilty conscious the prosecution is pushing) but rather his personality. Have some witnesses testify that he has made the same claims of wounded war hero or otherwise lied to make himself look better long before this robbery ever happened. I think if the jury saw him as a liar before this event they probably wouldn't weigh these lies so heavily against him.

[kevinpate]

I get what you're saying, but I also get there are a large number of folks in DOC who are there in part because of their well documented fanciful fact habits. Flapping lips on tales of being special have often tilted fact-finders to doubt most anything that passed their lips whihc could benefit the accused.

That old little lie, big lie problem. And in the case of this defendant, there seem to be multiple versions of big lie, bigger lie. But, he does have some decent folk on the team working for him, and many do lack such a benefit.

[BBatesokc]

I get what you're saying, but I also get there are a large number of folks in DOC who are there in part because of their well documented fanciful fact habits. Flapping lips on tales of being special have often tilted fact-finders to doubt most anything that passed their lips whihc could benefit the accused.

That old little lie, big lie problem. And in the case of this defendant, there seem to be multiple versions of big lie, bigger lie. But, he does have some decent folk on the team working for him, and many do lack such a benefit.

I would agree in most instances. However, this case is pretty unique and I get the feeling the jury wants any shred of reasonable doubt to let Ersland go with no confinement.

[Dana]

One; I'm no longer going to respond to Dana within this thread.

Two; If I was Irvin, I'd have some witness(es) to testify that Ersland's claims of PTSD and making himself some hero were not so much covering a crime (guilty conscious the prosecution is pushing) but rather his personality. Have some witnesses testify that he has made the same claims of wounded war hero or otherwise lied to make himself look better long before this robbery ever happened. I think if the jury saw him as a liar before this event they probably wouldn't weigh these lies so heavily against him.

That is fine I understand it happens especially when I asked a question people can't or wont answer. Have a nice day.

[MikeOKC]

Two; If I was Irvin, I'd have some witness(es) to testify that Ersland's claims of PTSD and making himself some hero were not so much covering a crime (guilty conscious the prosecution is pushing) but rather his personality. Have some witnesses testify that he has made the same claims of wounded war hero or otherwise lied to make himself look better long before this robbery ever happened. I think if the jury saw him as a liar before this event they probably wouldn't weigh these lies so heavily against him.

That's good thinking, Brian.

[Dana]

Not really sure how Irven prooving what a liar his client is going to help his client but we shall see I would think it would kill the credibility of his client but we shall see.

[BBatesokc]

Not really sure how Irven prooving what a liar his client is going to help his client but we shall see I would think it would kill the credibility of his client but we shall see.

I've said all along Ersland's lies are his biggest obstacle to an acquittal. But, to minimize their impact I think the defense should give the jury a reason to minimize the fact he's a liar. It was the same approach taken in Gassaway's prostitution trial. Just admit he's the definition of a 'scum bag lawyer' but that doesn't change the facts of the case.

[BBatesokc]

Apparently a Erlsand Defense Fund donation jar was on the counter at the pharmacy during the jury visit.

[BBatesokc]

Trial Day 3: Something weird going on. Delay to the 9am start. Then the entire defense team (including Ersland) were called to the judge's chambers. Then a juror was also removed from the jury and taken back to the judge's chambers.

[BBatesokc]

Just heard testimony from an expert prosecution witness stating the first shot to Parker's head would have knocked him unconscious but was not immediately life threatening and certainly recoverable with medical attention.

[USG'60]

Do we know what the meeting was about yet?

[BBatesokc]

No word. I'm thinking possibly about the donation jar sitting in plain view during the tour or some sort of jury misconduct being investigated.

[BBatesokc]

Its over IMO - expert says involuntary movements ARE possible and could be construed as a threat. Since we can't see if he was moving or not, I say doubt goes to the defendant and he walks.

[blangtang]

Do you think it would have mattered had he shot him once while squirming instead of 5?

[BBatesokc]

Do you think it would have mattered had he shot him once while squirming instead of 5?

Nope. You shoot to kill, however many times it takes.

If the jury can remove all the other 'distractions,' this case is simply a matter of whether or not Parker would have been perceived as a threat to Ersland by the average person.

Ersland said he was moving, the forensic pathologist for the prosecution said Parker could have had involuntary movements that could be perceived as a conscious threat. As a juror that may be all I need to acquit.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is a pretty high standard of proof of a crime when you have a scumbag for a victim.

[BBatesokc]

Do we know what the meeting was about yet?

Looks like their was an allegation by one side that a juror had already expressed forming an opinion on the case. Trial proceeded, but the allegation is being documented and investigated.

[BBatesokc]

Trial Day 4: Lawyers spent much of the morning in the judge's chambers. All jurors are present. Don't know what came of the allegations of jury misconduct from yesterday. That 'may' be what they are discussing again today.

A prosecution witness on the stand now. Dr. testifying about Ersland coming in to his office to have the alleged bullet fragments removed. Pretty well documented that Ersland faked the bullet injury.

[BBatesokc]

Getting word that the trial may wrap up today (unless they have more meetings in chambers).

Means closing arguments will most likely be tomorrow.

[OKCTalker]

Brian - are they "on schedule" or is this wrapping up pretty quickly? And question 2: Don't long jury deliberations bode well for Ersland?

[PennyQuilts]

I should think short deliberations would be better. I imagine the jurors want to be done with this sorry mess and if they can find a reason to let him off, they will. No matter what, with the expert testimony that the kid could keep moving, I would think there would be a number who wouldn't stand down in defense of the pharmacist's action - at least not without a long, drawn out argument. He is clearly a liar of the first order but he was also clearly a victim of a robbery that he didn't ask for. The fact that they can't see the kid and whether he was moving, IMO, gives him the benefit, as Brian said. The jury, as a whole or even a few, aren't going to convict him if they can avoid it short of an open and shut case. Again, just my opinion.

[Roadhawg]

It would be interesting to know how much movement was involved.

[PennyQuilts]

It would be interesting to know how much movement was involved.

We'll never know, since the amount, if any, is only known by the defendent. The mere fact that the young man COULD have moved means you can't impeach the defendent as a liar on that account. Some might think he lied about it but the evidence establishes that what he claims is plausible.

[BBatesokc]

Brian - are they "on schedule" or is this wrapping up pretty quickly? And question 2: Don't long jury deliberations bode well for Ersland?

If it does end today or in the morning then they are moving faster than even they expect. Original expectations were 1 - 1.5 weeks.

Usually defense attorneys will ask the jury to come back with a swift verdict of not guilty. I could see the jury sitting out awhile trying to come to a consensus.

[Thunder]

I thought trials take several months. I guess the OJ Simpson trial is the foundation for such belief of trials lasting several months.

[kevinpate]

I thought trials take several months. I guess the OJ Simpson trial is the foundation for such belief of trials lasting several months.

Thunder, some significant differences are:

(a) OJ was in California court, which is its own brand of crazy according to some
(b) OJ was a high profile, and deep pocket, celebrity client

It is exceptionally rare for a trial in Oklahoma to span multiple, multiple weeks. Generally 2 weeks, or less, on a higher profile Murder I. A recent exception may be the Bobbi Parker trial going on out in Mangum, or at least it was still picking the jury when I last saw it in the press.