Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Mehserle sentencing: Jury verdict’s mixed signals

November 4, 2010 by David Shirley

From: SF Chronicle

Demian Bulwa, 11/4/10

A trial was held and a verdict reached. But as a judge prepares to sentence former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle on Friday for killing an unarmed rider, the prosecution and defense are still fighting over who won the hearts of jurors on the case’s key question.

Prosecutors say Mehserle should be sentenced for intentionally shooting Oscar Grant during an arrest on Jan. 1, 2009, at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland. The defense says he should be sentenced for a tragic accident that occurred when he confused his Taser with his gun.

How Judge Robert Perry resolves the disagreement could mean a difference of several years in state prison for Mehserle, or even prompt a sentence of probation only.

The battle rages four months after Mehserle, 28, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. As the defense points out in asking for a lenient sentence, jurors acquitted Mehserle of murder and voluntary manslaughter, both of which require an intent to kill.

Prosecutors seeking a longer prison term say that although jurors found that Mehserle did not intend to kill Grant, they did conclude that he intended to shoot him.

Jurors signaled that when they convicted Mehserle of a gun enhancement, the prosecution says, a charge that required the panel to find that the defendant fired a gun on purpose.

Defense attorneys say it is not possible that the jury found that Mehserle intended to shoot Grant from a distance of just a few feet, but not kill him. Their conclusion: The jury believed that the shooting was an accident but misapplied the gun enhancement.

Heated words

The disagreement is heating up as sentencing nears. On Tuesday, defense attorney Michael Rains said in a court filing that prosecutors’ refusal to concede that the jury believed Mehserle when he testified he didn’t mean to shoot Grant “borders on misconduct” and is part of a “dense fog of avoidance, obfuscation, misdirection and patent falsehoods.”

Prosecutor David Stein said the defense was trying to substitute its judgment for that of the jurors.

“It’s a bit of a mess,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor who watched parts of the trial, which was moved to Los Angeles from Alameda County because of extensive publicity in the Bay Area about the killing. “We tolerate inconsistent verdicts, but this one is of such great consequence that it might give the judge pause.”

Overlooked charge

The prime inconsistency involves the gun-enhancement conviction, which could add several years to Mehserle’s sentence.

During the trial, attorneys focused so heavily on the issue of whether Mehserle had committed murder that they never mentioned the gun charge. But while involuntary manslaughter carries a sentence of as much as four years in state prison, the gun crime means as much as 10 years.

“Now it’s the tail wagging the dog,” Levenson said.

Judge Perry has a lot to sort out on the gun question. Not only do the two sides disagree on whether police officers should be punished for using firearms they are required to carry, they differ on something more basic – what jurors were saying when they convicted Mehserle of the gun count.

Instructions key

The jury’s verdict form said only that Mehserle “personally used a firearm … within the meaning of Penal Code Section 12022.5(a).” The shooting was captured on video, and no one contests that point.

But the judge instructed the jurors that the enhancement referred to an intentional firing of a gun. Prosecutors say jurors followed those instructions, concluding that Mehserle lost control and chose to shoot Grant, 22, as the Hayward man lay unarmed on the Fruitvale platform.

Defense attorneys, though, say that when the jurors acquitted Mehserle of murder – agreeing that he did not intend to kill Grant – that meant they believed the former officer when he said he had mistakenly shot Grant while intending to subdue him with a Taser.

According to the defense, jurors clearly ignored or misunderstood the judge’s instructions on the gun enhancement count when they convicted Mehserle of it. They want the gun conviction thrown out.

Jury needed help

Jurors asked about the gun enhancement during deliberations, after getting no input from the lawyers. At 1:20 p.m. on July 8, they sent a note to Perry asking, “What is Penal Code Section 12022.5?”

The judge, with the consent of both sides, replied in a note that the section was “an allegation that the defendant personally used a firearm.”

Filed Under: RLS In The News Tagged With: michael-l-rains

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.