Posted on 11/15/2006 6:35:29 AM PST by robertpaulsen
Racine man fatally shot teen trying to break into car.
Racine - Rejecting the defense's argument of self-defense, a jury Monday found Adrial C. White of Racine guilty of first-degree intentional homicide and two counts of attempted homicide in the shooting death of a Racine man and the wounding of another in a case that divided the community.
The verdict means White could face life in prison when he is sentenced Jan. 8. White, 29, had contended that he was acting in self-defense when he went outside his house early Jan. 18 and found three teens attempting to break into his girlfriend's car.
White was found guilty of first-degree intentional homicide in the shooting death of Christopher "Eric" Carbajal, 19. He was also found guilty of attempted second-degree intentional homicide and attempted first-degree reckless homicide, both of which were reduced by the jury, for shooting at two other young men, seriously wounding one of them.
No emotion shown
Immediately after the verdict was announced, White showed no emotion. Members of his family said in interviews after the verdict that White didn't receive a fair trial because he was convicted by a mostly white jury.
"This is garbage," said Edwina Woodington, White's sister. "This happened because he is a black man. I have no faith in the system. I'm hurt and I'm angry."
Carbajal's family members, who were escorted by court officials into and out of the courtroom, did not comment on the verdict.
White testified that he felt threatened when he confronted the young men and one of them raised a tire iron above his head. Prosecutors, however, contended that White had no right to use lethal force to defend property.
"He did not have to use a gun," said Michael Nieskes, Racine County's district attorney, who commended the prosecutors in the case. "This was a tough case to get through."
Race allegation denied
Nieskes rejected accusations that the verdict was based on race.
"It wasn't a decision on race; it was a situation of what the defendant did," he said.
Some in the community thought White had acted like a vigilante in the shooting; others thought he had the right to take a stand against crime in his neighborhood.
"This has been unjust. My son was protecting his family," said Henry White, the convicted man's father. "He is my son, working every day to raise his family."
Minutes after the jury's verdict, White's fiancée, Ruth Stickles, broke down in tears.
Deliberations started Friday
The jury in the White murder trial started deliberating the case Friday afternoon and resumed deliberations Monday morning. More than an hour into deliberations Monday, jury members asked to see a tire iron, which had been submitted as evidence during the trial.
Defense lawyer Robert D'Arruda said White had testified that one of the young men who were breaking into his girlfriend's car had held the tire iron above his head before White began shooting.
"I'm obviously disappointed in the verdict," said D'Arruda, adding that he plans an appeal. "It appears that there was some kind of compromise reached by the jury. You are supposed to seek the truth and not compromise."
Reason for appeal
He said he will base his appeal on that, as well as the jury being mostly white.
"I understand their frustration," he said. "There was one African-American on the jury."
D'Arruda said White is "shocked, stunned and in disbelief" at the verdict.
White faces life in prison, plus five years, on the first-degree intentional homicide conviction and 35 years each for the attempted homicide convictions.
Next time, he better hit them with fluffy pillows and make them sit in the comfy chair until teatime while he is protecting his life and property.
Does anyone know the law in Wisconisn regarding defense of person and property? The little the DA says implies that homeowners have no right to self defense.
That being said I wonder why the DA did not charge the guy with manslaughter or a lesser count of homicide. Must be election time in ol Milwaukee.
Perhaps he should have engaged in a dialogue with the three animals breaking into the girlfriend's car?/sarc
How do you get first degree out of this... did he park the car in front of the perp's house to entice them to come rob him?
A controversial case. It didn't help the defendant that the dead guy was shot in the back.
Comfy chair, good idea. "NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION"
Since when?!
"This happened because he is a black man."
No... It happened because you've got idiot prosecutors, jurors, legislators, and judges.
Ummm, I'd have fired a gun too, at least at the fellow with the tire iron. I don't know if I'd have fired at the other two; that might be overdoing it if they were unarmed.
Nevertheless, this fellow got shafted. Whether it was race, I can't say; but he shouldn't have faced first degree homicide for defending property against three criminals bent on theft, IMO.
An over-zealous DA, is my guess. If you go to the link, there are some related stories that may shed more light.
How far from the car was the dead guy? If he was right nearby, I don't see the big deal. But if he was halfway down the block, then I agree the defendent has a hard case to make about self-defense.
Not the comfy chair!
Surprised the Defense Attorney did not know cop lingo,
"Perpertrator spun on his heel while making a
"... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope!"
Self defense is allowed, unless you're in an area with a rat DA, that has a rat jury pool. If the defense said there was a tire iron, the cops had it and that's a lethal weapon, plus there were 3 assailants.
"Nice rack."
Shot in the back is not self defense.
OK Class, I want everyone to memorize that phrase.
If the man's lawyer is any good there will certainly be an appeal.
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.