Posted on 10/21/2002 6:46:11 PM PDT by Mulder
ATHENS, Alabama — With 11 law enforcement men standing guard in the courtroom Friday night, Limestone County Circuit Court Judge Jimmy Woodroof Jr. read a jury's guilty verdict in the manslaughter case of a game warden who shot and killed motorist James Sharpley.
John Raley, 49, of Holly Pond stood with his hands folded in front of him and showed no emotion. The audience re-mained inside the courtroom while Limestone County deputies and an investigator escorted him from the crowded courtroom.
His wife, Elaine, cried as she followed him. A prosecutor said her husband could face up to 25 years in prison for the fatal shooting of the 33-year-old Sharpley of Decatur.
Two members of Sharpley's family hugged and cried. Some uttered, "There is justice."
When Woodroof dismissed court, Sharpley's family and supporters applauded.
Neither Raley's nor Sharpley's family would speak to the media. A niece of Sharpley's, who did not give her name, said she trusted God was going to do the right thing.
Defense attorney Dan Totten said he has some post–trial motions before he starts looking at an appeal.
"It was a tough case for the jury," he said. "You can't do anything but thank them."
The jury, comprised of six white women, three black women and three white men, deliberated for about 4 hours and 10 minutes. When they entered the courtroom to render the verdict, some had tears in their eyes.
The audience remained inside the courtroom while the jury members left.
Raley was the last defense witness to testify Friday.
Raley started his law enforcement career in 1972 as a military policeman. He served in the Marines for eight years and has been in the National Guard since 1984. He also has worked as a police officer and deputy. He started work as a game warden in 1996.
Raley testified that he had gone to Huntsville to get his mounted radio fixed in his state vehicle. The repair store could not fix it, and it is not fixed today, he said. He expected state prosecutors or the Alabama Bureau of Investigation to check his radio, but no one did. Raley had told the ABI that he could not call for backup because that radio was broke and he did not have signal on his hand-held radio.
Motorist pursued
According to Raley, he saw Sharpley pass vehicles on Interstate 565 at possibly 90 miles per hour on the right shoulder of the road. Raley pursued Sharpley and Sharpley pulled over on the interstate. When Sharpley realized Raley was a game warden, he left the scene. Raley pursued him.
Sharpley's passenger testified earlier in the week that he told Sharpley he was afraid of getting into trouble, so Sharpley pulled up to a gas pump at the RaceTrac service station on Alabama 20 near where I-565 and I-65 converge.
Raley said Sharpley got out of his car and walked toward his truck with clenched fists. Raley got out and asked him to put his hands on the truck's hood, but Sharpley refused and yelled, "Don't touch my clothes!"
Raley asked him again, but Sharpley wouldn't comply. Raley said he then asked for a driver license, and Sharpley said, "I'll give you something and call it a driver license."
Sharpley walked back to his car, and Raley thought it was to get a gun. Raley, who is taller and weighs about 100 pounds more than Sharpley, decided that tackling him wasn't safe because there was a passenger in the car. He also decided that returning to his truck and pulling his weapon wasn't safe because if Sharpley aimed a gun, there were other motorists at the gas station.
Raley followed Sharpley, got behind him as Sharpley searched the floorboard, and yelled, "Don't!" after seeing something white in Sharpley's left hand. When Sharpley continued rising from a bent position, Raley stepped to the side and fired once. The bullet hit Sharpley under his right armpit toward his back. He fell and his driver license landed beside him.
State prosecutor Don Valeska asked Raley, "The fact is, there ain't no gun?"
"The point is I believed that there was," Raley replied.
No mistake
"You made a mistake?" Valeska asked.
"No, sir," Raley said.
Valeska asked how shooting an unarmed man in the backside wasn't a mistake.
"James Sharpley made the mistake," Raley replied.
"What mistake?" Valeska countered.
"James Sharpley did everything under the sun to convince me he had a gun ... by body language and what he said," Raley said.
During Totten's closing argument, he said Sharpley was contemptuous of authority and meant to scare the game warden.
"He (Sharpley) said, 'I'll get you something and call it a license,' " Totten said. "Then he reached into his car and got shot. This was not a polite tete-a-tete the two were having. He meant to frighten John Raley because he despised him!"
Don Rhea, co-council for the defense and a friend of Raley's for 21 years, told the jury this case was the most important case tried in Limestone County in the last 50 years because families of law enforcement officers throughout the state are watching for the verdict.
During his closing argument, Valeska questioned Raley's use of the one-word command "Don't!"
"Don't what? For God's sake tell him, 'Don't move!' 'Don't get out of the car!'"
Valeska also agreed the case was drawing attention.
"Everyone who has a driver license ought to be interested (in the verdict)," he said.
Valeska ended his argument to the jury by saying, "If you can find something out there to justify James Sharpley getting killed, then you just find him (Raley) not guilty."
Woodroof did not set a date for sentencing. State prosecutor Mike Ballentine said Raley could get up to 25 years. Raley will remain out of jail on $25,000 bond until the sentencing hearing.
Hang the cop.
The Officer Got a raw deal this bastard didnt care if he crashed into someone..he was doing 90mph and driving erraticly...Had he not been stopped there is no telling how many innocents he may have killed... I am glad he shot the prick..and sorry he is going to jail...
What's up with that?
Was this on State park property or public highway?
My understanding is that in Alabama, they can. At least that's what some folks said on glocktalk.
You can disagree with the verdict, but calling it a raw deal is out of line when the prosecutor is so confident in his closing argument. He didn't think it was close at all.
Hypothetically speaking, does that apply to, "innocent," unarmed citizens making every effort to give the impression they are armed?
Consider the following scenario:
You are on the highway, cognizant of the fact there is a uniformed state game warden traveling behind you. You are passed by an out of control vehicle doing 90+, placing the lives of yourself and your passengers in jeopardy. You would be content to watch the GW mosey along at 55 in your rear view?
From the above account, I sure hope so.
There may have been testimony/argument about this at the trial.
This guy failed to establish "command authority", i.e. he failed to take control of the situation. He should have never confronted the guy with no backup, no contact with backup, unless this guy was in the act of shooting at someone. While the perp was reckless, and yeah, I agree wielding a 90 MPH weapon, the officer was reckless in pursuing him. Follow at a distance? Yes. Get his lincense and make of vehicle? Yes. Pursue him at high speed, make a uniformed car stop, WITHOUT BACKUP? Even if he was a state trooper charged with patrolling that highway, it would not be wise.
When he confronted the guy, and the perp resisted his lawful authority he had no alternative but to take him down right there. Or, back off and flee. You DON'T allow him to return to the vehicle. But again, the guy had got himself into a lose-lose situation with no backup. If he had backup coming 3 minute out, he might have tackled him. If, he had a bataan. All he had was his hands or deadly force. A gun is a good weapon, but it's also a liability in a struggle, which is why you don't want to be alone with a gun against one or more suspects. You want an alternative weapon ready, something less than deadly force, with a partner covering you in case someone does pull a gun. The bad guy might have a lot of bravado, might even be a little drunk, might even charge the officer. But after you take out his knees, he'll probably settle down, and no one gets killed. Pepper spray could have helped, and most uniform officers have that. Hard for the guy to reenter the car if he can't find the door knob. He could have hit him before he reached the car. But, with only a handgun?? This guy got in over his head.
Once he lost control of the perp and the situation, he was in pure defensive, reactive mode. Someone was going to get seriously hurt. That fact has to be in every officer's mind. You're not only worried about your own safety, you're worried about the passenger (who could be an innocent or even a hostage), passers by, etc.. The perp was a "bad guy", but there are all sorts of idiots and bad guys out on the road. An Officer can't shoot all of them just because he has lousy "car-stop" procedures, or because he (probably) violated a dozen directives associated with his sworn oath of office when he engaged the suspect, or even if the cause is that the perp is an idiot.
On the other hand: From what I've seen, this officer wasn't acting under color of FALSE authority. He wasn't after the guy because of a personal vendetta, or because of the perps race, religion, or skin color. He misjudged the situation, let his emotion get in the way (anyone wonder why he was a game warden, and no longer an active police officer or deputy sheriff?), and made a serious mistake. He allowed a situation to develop in which he HAD to act with deadly force. He should be fired. Maybe he's civilly liable. But a felon? What was his intent?? A crime requires intent, and the only intent this guy appears to have was enforcing the law.
Bad judgment. No justice here.
Apparently the good citizens of Alabama are wise enough to not believe everything a cop says. 90 mph on the shoulder of the road? I don't think so.
During Totten's closing argument, he said Sharpley was contemptuous of authority and meant to scare the game warden.
Looks to me like Sharpley's possible contempt was well founded. I think the jury just succeeded in appropriately scaring other out-of-control cops.
Don Rhea, co-council for the defense and a friend of Raley's for 21 years, told the jury this case was the most important case tried in Limestone County in the last 50 years because families of law enforcement officers throughout the state are watching for the verdict.
Mr. Rhea would best serve law enforcement officers that they better have a good reason to shoot before doing so. Raley could have protected himself by taking cover rather than just shooting before being threatened. Law enforcement is a riskly line of work, but cops are not entitled to simply eliminate all potential risks.
Valeska ended his argument to the jury by saying, "If you can find something out there to justify James Sharpley getting killed, then you just find him (Raley) not guilty."
Great last statement. Emphsizes the point that there was no justification for Raley to shoot Sharpley.
He will be civilly liable, as well. Pretty much a slam-dunk case on that issue. Since Raley was prosecuted and convicted, it is likely that the state will be able to avoid liability for Raley acting outside the scope of his authority. If he had not been prosecuted, the family could have easily argued that Raley was following a custom and practice of the state of Alabama and then possibly have been liable in a civil action.
Most, but not all crimes, require the prosecutor prove intent. Raley was convicted of manslaughter; not murder in one degree or another. Raley is probably fortunate that he wasn't convicted of a more serious crime. Intent is often 'implied'. When you point a gun at a person and shoot them, you obviously intended to shoot them. Raley did not say the gun went off accidentally; he shot him intentionally. He admitted it! Did Raley intend to actually kill the guy? Maybe; maybe not. The prosecutor apparently decided to not go for a murder conviction, which was probably a concession to the law enforcement community.
Sure Raley used bad judgment, but bad judgment is not a defense. If it was, every criminal who was caught could use the same defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.