DPD Trial - Mistrial declared in manslaughter trial of Detroit cop

**Meddle** · June-03-13, 06:18 PM

Looks like FAUX 2 got their butt spanked by the Judge already:

DETROIT — Twice during the opening day of testimony in the case against Detroit Police Officer Joseph Weekley, who is charged with the manslaughter of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones in May of 2010 during a raid, Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway received a note from her clerk.

It said the court received a call that one of the news stations was broadcasting a live feed that showed members of the jury.

At the end of Monday's testimony, Hathaway said Fox 2 News cameras were no longer allowed in her courtroom for the duration of the trial.

"I took great care, both before and during the jury selection process and today to ask the electronic media to please not film and publish the jurors," she said. "I got a message earlier, we already made a record of it, that jurors faces were being shown... at least on the Internet.

"You said you checked your cameras and it was not taking place."

Hathaway said the media order specifically states jurors' faces may not be shown.

Then "I got a call from the prosecutor's office indicating they were seeing the jurors' faces... and I asked my staff to look on the Internet... to see if they saw anything, and lo and behold they did; they saw one of the juror's half body and another juror's full face," Hathaway said.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...oit_camer.html

**softailrider** · June-04-13, 04:19 AM

To me, it sounds like a good decision from that judge.

**Lowell** · June-18-13, 06:06 PM

A mistrial has been declared in the little Aiyana murder trial.

A judge has declared a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a verdict in the trial of Joseph Weekley, a Detroit police officer, who fatally shot 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones during a 2010 police raid.

Wayne County Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway dismissed jurors about an hour after urging them to keep working Tuesday. The jury sent three notes, the last one indicating it still couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on the third day of deliberations.

I am hearing that the prosecution is coming under fire for blowing it.

**Meddle** · June-18-13, 06:24 PM

I was just coming to look for this.

I can't figure out what the Jury was thinking unless there was a union obstructionist/sympathizer on board. His intent doesn't matter. The charge was Involuntary Manslaughter. That doesn't require intent of any kind. He had the weapon. It fired [[for whatever reason). She died. End of story. Guilty in three minutes of deliberations or less.

**softailrider** · June-18-13, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I was just coming to look for this.

I can't figure out what the Jury was thinking unless there was a union obstructionist/sympathizer on board. His intent doesn't matter. The charge was Involuntary Manslaughter. That doesn't require intent of any kind. He had the weapon. It fired [[for whatever reason). She died. End of story. Guilty in three minutes of deliberations or less.

Some of the jurors must have bought the cops story that the grandmother grabbed his H&K. That's the only explanation I can think of.

**Kevgoblue** · June-18-13, 08:12 PM

But didn't he [[DPD) recant that version of the story a day or so after the incident happened?
I thought that was why she was released from custody 8 hrs later and no charges were ever filed

**Johnnny5** · June-18-13, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I was just coming to look for this.

I can't figure out what the Jury was thinking unless there was a union obstructionist/sympathizer on board. His intent doesn't matter. The charge was Involuntary Manslaughter. That doesn't require intent of any kind. He had the weapon. It fired [[for whatever reason). She died. End of story. Guilty in three minutes of deliberations or less.

I may be wrong, but I think involuntary manslaughter still requires "gross negligence". Otherwise the charge could apply to many accidents where there was no intent to kill. If you're driving down the road at excessive speeds and a pedestrian misjudges the distance and is hit and killed then that could be involuntary manslaughter. If you're driving the posted speed limit and someone steps in front of your car but you still can't stop in time that would just be considered an accident. Apparently after seeing all the evidence at least one or more people on the jury thought that this was truly just a tragic accident.

**Meddle** · June-18-13, 09:14 PM

^ With a firearm, there's no such thing as an accident in the sense you're referring to. Especially in the hands of a trained police officer who is required to maintain control of the weapon at all times. There is only negligence.

**Scottathew** · June-18-13, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

I was just coming to look for this.

I can't figure out what the Jury was thinking unless there was a union obstructionist/sympathizer on board. His intent doesn't matter. The charge was Involuntary Manslaughter. That doesn't require intent of any kind. He had the weapon. It fired [[for whatever reason). She died. End of story. Guilty in three minutes of deliberations or less.

I've been thinking pretty much the same way. I'm passing judgement at 40,000 feet, but often we have to make our own judgement based on limited information.

I just can't imagine someone taking my girl away from me. I would be ruined.

**compn** · June-18-13, 10:09 PM

its called jury nullification.
one person on the jury votes not guilty. bam. defendant walks.
guess someone thought that cop should walk.

happened in kwame cases, will happen again.
the real question is will the prosecutor go for it again with a new jury ?

**Meddle** · June-19-13, 05:31 AM

Has a jury count been published? Was there more than one in disagreement with the others?

**Honky Tonk** · June-19-13, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by 48091

I've been thinking pretty much the same way. I'm passing judgement at 40,000 feet, but often we have to make our own judgement based on limited information.

I just can't imagine someone taking my girl away from me. I would be ruined.

A good lesson then would be not to harbor a known criminal in the same house that your daughter's in, especially if they've just been involved in a murder.

**Bobl** · June-19-13, 12:38 PM

I watched Officer Weekley grow up, and knew his parents. They chose to raise him in a stable home. They did not harbor fugitives. No stolen property could be found in their yard. This case is a tragedy, and a young child is dead. Terrible.
And, it all could have been avoided if the family of this child had done the same.
The post from Honky Tonk is correct: "A good lesson then would be not to harbor a known criminal in the same house that your daughter's in, especially if they've just been involved in a murder."

**jt1** · June-19-13, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Bobl

I watched Officer Weekley grow up, and knew his parents. They chose to raise him in a stable home. They did not harbor fugitives. No stolen property could be found in their yard. This case is a tragedy, and a young child is dead. Terrible.
And, it all could have been avoided if the family of this child had done the same.
The post from Honky Tonk is correct: "A good lesson then would be not to harbor a known criminal in the same house that your daughter's in, especially if they've just been involved in a murder."

So the killing of a 7 year old girl is justifiable based upon the actions of her parents? Hell, if you really believe that we should just bomb any house with a known or suspected felon and consider the loss of anyone else's life the fault of everyone else.

I doubt it was intentional but the refrain that the girl being killed is almost justifiable due to the actions of her parents and grandmother is just sickening.

I don't care if her father was Osama bin Laden and in the house with her, dismissing her death since there was a fugitive in the house is complete and utter bullshit.

I'm also curious why DPD has to serve warrants or go after criminals that way. They could have caught him before he went into the house or after he left since they knew he was there. I guess the others in the house simply don't count.

**Honky Tonk** · June-19-13, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

So the killing of a 7 year old girl is justifiable based upon the actions of her parents? Hell, if you really believe that we should just bomb any house with a known or suspected felon and consider the loss of anyone else's life the fault of everyone else.

I doubt it was intentional but the refrain that the girl being killed is almost justifiable due to the actions of her parents and grandmother is just sickening.

I don't care if her father was Osama bin Laden and in the house with her, dismissing her death since there was a fugitive in the house is complete and utter bullshit.

I'm also curious why DPD has to serve warrants or go after criminals that way. They could have caught him before he went into the house or after he left since they knew he was there. I guess the others in the house simply don't count.

They should have sent him an RSVP invite to surrender. BIG attitude problem in Detroit. It's everybody's damn fault but my own.

**Zacha341** · June-19-13, 01:31 PM

Multiple areas of blame or 'fault' on this one IMO. The gun discharged accidentally some argue and thus the discharge [[accidental) is similar to rear-ending someone when you're driving. The person stopped in front of you short but you were still obligated to have control of your car to not impact car ahead of you. Then you have a dysfunctional household with an innocent child present... not good.

Finally, you have the shooting of a reality film during the apprehension, this has to have an impact on how things are handled, there's an added stress factor IMO... a total mess. Aiyana Jones paid the ultimate price...

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

They should have sent him an RSVP invite to surrender. BIG attitude problem in Detroit. It's everybody's damn fault but my own.

**jt1** · June-19-13, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

They should have sent him an RSVP invite to surrender. BIG attitude problem in Detroit. It's everybody's damn fault but my own.

Either I was not clear or you misunderstood my point. I am not defending the family but I am also not willing to just accept that a 7 year old's death is something we should be indifferent to because of her family's actions.

So, to clarify:
1. Yes, the family put her at risk due to their decisions and actions.
2. The death of a 7 year old due to a DPD weapon should be taken seriously as opposed to just writing her off as collateral damage..
3. The DPD seems to go all Rambo when they are going after people with no regard for others. In some cases this type of force may be necessary but was it necessary in this situation [[especially since an officer saw him earlier on the street)
5. Beyond the trial for the officer, has there been any discussion on how best to go after criminals while protecting the public.

I appreciate the zeal to get the felons off the street but we also should ask that DPD be cognizant that there may be innocent people.

I'm not defending the criminals or those that protect them. I am asking if we can also consider the safety of children or other innocent people.

**downtownguy** · June-19-13, 02:48 PM

^^ Well put, jt1

**rb336** · June-19-13, 02:57 PM

Frankly, I have an easier time believing the grandmother grabbed the gun than a highly-trained officer accidentally firing

**jt1** · June-19-13, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Frankly, I have an easier time believing the grandmother grabbed the gun than a highly-trained officer accidentally firing

Agreed. My issues don't lie with the officer on trial, it lies with DPD brass that seems to think this is the only way to apprehend suspects. I still have issues with the past statements from DPD that an officer saw the suspect on the street but couldn't pick him up because he was undercover. Clearly DPD doesn't know about those fancy things called radios or cell phones.

With close to a national low in close rates with violent crime I would assume that they do everything in their power to apprehend a criminal the second he is seen, not wait to go all swat.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised is the scumbag killed someone between the first sighting and the SRT team's apprehension.

**JBMcB** · June-19-13, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

Hell, if you really believe that we should just bomb any house with a known or suspected felon and consider the loss of anyone else's life the fault of everyone else.

Not to get too off-topic, but we do that pretty much every day in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc...

It's a rather awful mentality that's crept in to local and federal governments.

**Meddle** · June-19-13, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bobl

I watched Officer Weekley grow up, ....

And an elderly woman watched him kill a 7 year old.

So, what was your point again?

**Meddle** · June-19-13, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

Frankly, I have an easier time believing the grandmother grabbed the gun than a highly-trained officer accidentally firing

You haven't been watching much news lately, have you?

Maybe you missed the 'training accident' in Baltimore when PO were 'fooling around' with live weapons and one shot another?

Him being a 'highly trained officer' is exactly why he should be convicted. They should not be making such mistakes, even if she did grab it, which another officer testified she did not.

**firstandten** · June-19-13, 05:38 PM

I saw officer Weekley on the reality show Detroit SWAT and on screen he seems like a decent person. While shows like that and 48 Hours gives people some insight into the personalities of these officers the need to show the raids is a bit much. Raids are inherently dangerous many things can go wrong. Why didn't they just surround the house and waited the guy out ?

**Honky Tonk** · June-19-13, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

And an elderly woman watched him kill a 7 year old.

So, what was your point again?

Did Officer Weekley intentionally kill Alyana Stanley-Jones? Did he even know she was in the house? Do you think they went to a picnic, or that this is some kind of video game? The perp JUST murdered someone, I believe, "because he didn't like the way the guy looked @ him". Went BACK and murdered him. This is a horrid tragedy, but if I were sent in to apprehend the perp, my finger would be on the trigger and the safety off. You don't get a do-over. Grandma should have picked up the 7 year old and headed for cover, not played tug-o-war with someone's loaded weapon in the middle of a police raid. My first thought would have been GTFO, not "I can take him". I can't entirely fault the cop in this.