Posted on 04/30/2004 1:58:43 PM PDT by presidio9
SOMERVILLE, N.J. — Former NBA star Jayson Williams was acquitted Friday of the most serious charge against him, aggravated manslaughter. The jury said it could not agree on the charge of reckless manslaughter. Williams, 36, was found guilty on four of the six lesser charges, related to tampering with evidence and attempting to cover up the shooting.
Collectively, the charges carry a maximum penalty of 13 years in prison. But Williams would probably receive a sentence of less than five years, the maximum for the most serious count. No date was set for sentencing.
It was not immediately clear whether he would be retried on the reckless manslaughter charge. A scheduling conference to determine a possible trial date was set for May 21.
The jurors had deliberated for almost 23 hours when Juror No. 5 sent the judge a note shortly after 3 p.m. Its contents were not disclosed.
In response, the judge asked the jurors to return to the deliberation room and send him another note explaining whether they believed it was worthwhile to continue deliberations. The jurors quickly sent a note back saying they could only reach a partial verdict.
The jury said Thursday that it had reached a decision on six of the charges, but could not agree on two others. The jury then requested to rehear testimony from three of the witnesses against the retired NBA star. The readbacks began shortly after 9 a.m. Friday, the fourth day of deliberations for the eight women and four men who have sat since Feb. 10 on the case, which stems from the shooting of a hired driver, Costas “Gus” Christofi.
Williams could have faced up to 55 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
Williams displayed no emotion as he stood with his lawyers. After the verdict was completed, he sat down in his chair, leaned back and kissed his wife, Tanya, who was seated behind him. He remains free on bail.
He did not speak to reporters as he left the courtroom holding hands with his wife.
One criminal defense expert, attorney Alan Zegas, was not surprised Williams was acquitted of the most serious charges.
“I view what happened as a victory for the defense,” said Zegas, a noted New Jersey defense attorney. “On the use of the gun, I think most criminal practicioners would say that the center issue was whether the use was reckless, and the jury divided on that issue.”
The shooting took place as Williams was giving friends and members of the Harlem Globetrotters a tour of his mansion in western New Jersey in the early hours of Feb. 14, 2002. Testimony showed that Williams took a loaded shotgun from a cabinet, cracked it open, turned, uttered an obscenity at Christofi and snapped it closed.
It then fired once, sending 12 pellets into Christofi’s chest. The 55-year-old died within minutes.
Five witnesses testified that Williams then wiped down the shotgun, and four said Williams placed it in the victim’s hands. The defense has maintained the shooting was an accident and that the gun misfired.
It has also asserted that the former NBA All-Star was so distraught after the shooting he could not organize a cover-up.
Why?
In many cases, especially high-profile cases, the prosecution comes half-cocked .....expecting that the evidence that would work against some bloke off the street with no cash for a gilded defense-team. The only problem is that most of these celebrities garner defense lawyers that are the best that money can buy, and consequently the prosecution (which apparently is going by what would work against your run-of-the-mill state-provided attorney) find themselves facing a legal team that can split a hair nine-ways and almost get a camel through a needle's eye! Consequently holes are punched in the prosecution's argument, and once that happens a sea change could easily happen.
Eg: the Oj Simpson case. I believe OJ killed those 2 people. The evidence was immense. People have been sent to the chair or gas chamber for much less than what was brought against him ...people who cannot afford a premier defense team. The prosecution must have thought they had a slam-dunk. However a point occured in the middle of the trial where some of the things the prosecution did (like some of the witnesses they brought) were used against them. Now, i personally find that silly, but it was a good play (as controversial as it might be) by the jury. And with the jury on tenterhooks trying to be, ahem ahem scoff scoff, 'fair', then the hair splicing starts and a case that was previously a 'slam dunk' ends up blowing in the faces of the prosecution (and community in general).
I think they should have a 'crack team' prosecution whenever there is a crack team defense team .,.....because prosecutors who normally go after Joe Blow, Jane Doe and Broke Bill from down the street normally seem to underestimate the abilities of some of these gold-gild defense lawyers, and hence get played right out of a 'perfect' case.
There is a reason some of these defense lawyers get paid multi-millions, they specialize at winning the unwinnable. And prosecutors need to wake up to the fact that there is no slam-dunk case, no matter the mound of evidence, until the gavel hits the block and the case is closed! Sheesh .....that guy, R. Kelly, got off one state even though there is a video-tape of him doing some rather 'peculiar' stuff to some girl! Comeon ....you don't get more incriminating evidence than a bl@@dy video-tape in the guy's house! Unwinnable ....but R.Kelly is out making music videos where he is depcited wearing a 'bandit' mask as if he is some renegade of yore who got away from the authorities (which he did).
(P.S: The prosecution team in the M.Jackson deal is quite good .......do not expect M.J to moonwalk out of that one. Hopefully, since again, the gavel hasn't come down .....yet! And also note, in the Martha stewart case, the prosecution was very well prepared. And i am certain Spitzer will try his best to get Frank Quatronne after he managed to wriggle away the last time .....and Grubman and Blodget in my opinion got off easy. But in all these cases the prosecution was as good, if not better, than the defense. Why, because a point had to be made. But in the most cases the prosecution that goes against the high-dollar higher-octane defense lawyers that celebrities have are weak shadows of the defence ....which is why Eminem can pistol-whip a guy senseless, and walk out of the courtroom in less than a week. Let your average American go and pistol whip a person ....they'll be spending quality time in gaol!)
Jayson Williams was under the influence of alchohol.
Jayson Williams was playing with a shotgun.
The shotgun Jayson Williams was playing with blew a hole in his chaufeurs stomach.
Jayson Williams then conspired to change the story and hide evidence.
Jayson Williams was not found guilty of reckless manslaughter.
But the chaufeur is still DEAD.
Not to worry... they should get a conviction of the criminal who sold the gun to Williams.
Exactly! Where is the justice? There was
a poster on the CTV message board that had the gall to say
that if Mr. Christofi would have stayed in the
van "where he belonged," he wouldn't be dead. Another
said that it was Mr. Christofi's fault that he
walked into Williams' bedroom when the shotgun
blast hit him. :(
It isn't about the lawyers, it is about the strength of the evidence. The prosecution has home court advantage and people like you who are nothing more than rubber stamps who can't wait to vote guilty. Why even bother with trials?
It is interesting that Freepers are distrustful of the media in all other areas, the only exception is the media's reporting of criminal trials, which is nothing more than the prosecutions point of view.
There was a lot more to the OJ case than was ever reported by the media. It was much easier to say that OJ is rich and his lawyers played the "race card" and the jury was ignorant.
The public could understand this and then go back to watching music videos or a silly sitcom on TV or posting how guilty OJ is on some message board.
I never bother debating with some on with such an atrophied ability for intellectual debate and discussion that the only way they can communicate with someone who disagrees with them is through vitriol.
And i would be extremely curious to see how you know i would have voted guilty for anyone (since in your 'omniscience' you called me one of the 'guilty rubber-stampers').
Silly people cannot debate with someone or something they disagree with .....I personally out my rationale out there. All you did is, again using your amazing knowledge of my voting history in jury trials (or even what i thought of the OJ and Williams trials), clumped me in with whatever group of people 'the guilty rubber-stampers' belong to.
You are too silly for me to waste any more time on. Look into fish-oils and beta-carotene ....it is good for the brain.
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.