In a case personally prosecuted by District Attorney Tim Harris, Tulsans rejected the DA's case (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070303_Ne_A1_Juror2034%22) and acquitted the bouncer charged with the death.
Scott Bolton's mom reacts to the outrage at another forum here (//%22http://voicesoftulsa.com/viewtopic.php?t=594%22).
While I agree with the mom that licensing & training bouncers is a good thing (we do it for security guards) The case seems full of "probablies."
Reasonable doubt is there to protect the innocent at the cost of letting some real criminals go.
That they deliberated for 11 hours says that it wasn't clear. They probably could have gotten a "guilty" on a lesser charge (like Involuntary Manslaughter), but it's been my jury experience, that the DA goes for the big ones. And the Jury isn't allowed to simply drop it down a notch.
I only know about this case from what I have read in the World, seen on local TV, and read on this forum. I did not attend the trial or hear the evidence presented. The legal system worked as it is designed is all I can say.
I have been on juries twice in Tulsa Co. District Court, on a drunk driving trial and a child molestation/rape trial. I have experienced the system first hand, so I am very reluctant to second-guess a jury's decision.
The DA's grant of immunity to the co-defendant wont extend to a civil trial.
Yeah, can't blame the jury. I wouldn't even blame the DA. Of course, some will think it's a travesty, and complain anyway.
With First Degree Manslaughter, the DA had to convince 12 people that there was "intent" at some point. If I were making bets, I'd be betting "intent" was discussed for most of the 11 hours in the jury room.
From what I saw of reported testimony in the paper and on TV is that you had witnesses with the credibility and memory of gang-bangers. I was foreman on a gang murder trial ten years ago. We didn't deliberate for 11 hours, it was more like 5 or 6 hours, but essentially had the same problem of who to believe.
It's pretty hard for a jury to convict when you have a case based mostly on eyewitness testimony and the witnesses either don't remember what they saw, didn't see it happen- even though they were within 30 feet when it happened, or have pathological problems with the truth.
In the bouncer case, it didn't help matters either that the decedent's buddy was so drunk, he didn't remember anything either. I guess testifying against a 300 pound gorilla would help with the memory problems too.
Comparing Harris to Nifong in this case is comparing apples to oranges. Nifong fabricated a case. Harris had a bunch of un-willing witnesses.
That scumbag walked? Lame.