Mom Says Antwun Parker Was a Hero

[Double Edge]

Assuming there is not something else going on that's not being talked about, what would be a legitimate beef over the judge being an alleged bigot, that Ersland, Box, Box's staff or some defense witnesses are possibly Hispanic? Or does it just mean if he allegedly can't be impartial in one aspect of his beliefs and professional life it follows he could not be trusted in others?

[MustangGT]

Box is going to bleed this case for all the publicity and dinero he can.

[BBatesokc]

The position of Ersland's defense attorneys makes no sense at all. They represent a client with no money, no cameras are going to be in the courtroom, and no jury will convict. There is no upside. Especially considering all the bridges they have no burned with the judges and DA's office. It's professional suicide.

[kevinpate]

Assuming there is not something else going on that's not being talked about, what would be a legitimate beef over the judge being an alleged bigot, that Ersland, Box, Box's staff or some defense witnesses are possibly Hispanic? Or does it just mean if he allegedly can't be impartial in one aspect of his beliefs and professional life it follows he could not be trusted in others?

Well, if one takes the position, as the defense team has, that Judge Elliot is bigoted on matter A, what assurances are there he is not bigoted in other areas not yet revealed?

Note. I dinna say it's an overly convincing argument, but if one is seeking a different judge, a concern of bias provides an argument that won't get the defense team rapped on the knuckles.

[BBatesokc]

Problem is, you'd better provide some damn good evidence if you're going to take that stance. I didn't see any convincing evidence presented.

[Double Edge]

Tales of a former coworker counts for something.

[BBatesokc]

Tales of a former coworker counts for something.

I assume you mean the much younger former co-worker now married to the lead defense attorney? Yeah, no bias there.

There ONLY 'evidence' to speak of was that Elliot made what some would consider racist remarks regarding Hispanics. While many will get on their high horse about that, the fact is, if that was the measure of a fair or unprejudiced person, then most everyone would be guilty.

[Midtowner]

I assume you mean the much younger former co-worker now married to the lead defense attorney? Yeah, no bias there.

There ONLY 'evidence' to speak of was that Elliot made what some would consider racist remarks regarding Hispanics. While many will get on their high horse about that, the fact is, if that was the measure of a fair or unprejudiced person, then most everyone would be guilty.

I have a judge and a former judge in my immediate family. None of them have ever said a word like that (and one's my father, so I would've heard it). I also know a good number of the judges at Oklahoma County professionally and couldn't imagine any of them saying something like that. We're not talking high horse, we're talking lapse in professionalism.

I do think that Judge Elliot's disposition with minority defendants is in question and he probably shouldn't be doing criminal cases as a result of this, but I don't think this should disqualify him in this case.

I also don't fault Mr. Box for giving Ersland a vigorous defense. As you probably know, as a defense attorney in a case like this, to preserve issues on appeal, they have to be raised at the trial level. And a big part of defending at the trial level is setting one's client up for a successful remand should the jury come back with a guilty verdict.

From what the public knows about this case, constructing a case of reasonable doubt doesn't seem to be that difficult. What the D.A.'s office is saying is largely based upon the testimony of the medical examiner. And as we know, the Oklahoma Medical Examiner's office is just plain awful in some cases. I can't imagine Prater going forward with a case like this unless the ME's testimony and the forensics makes the case fairly clear. The only thing he has left to overcome is the astounding belief some folks have that having a gun automatically entitles you to kill someone after they are no longer really a threat. Some of the comments on newsok.com are just disturbing.

Also, Box, for someone who has handled a number of cases where the media has been involved has done an astoundingly awful job. Not only did he let his client talk to the media, he let his client give multiple accounts of the events in the store and let him flat out lie about his background. Ersland goes into this trial looking like an extremely sketchy dude, and it didn't have to be like that.

[BBatesokc]

we're talking lapse in professionalism

IMO the biggest lapse in professionalism is coming from the defense attorneys and their decision to use conversations that occurred behind closed doors and in chambers as part of their motion.

I also question their professionalism and ethics due to the fact they never brought their concerns about Elliot to light when they were defending minority criminal defendants.

As for Elliot's 'wetback' comment. I would not believe a single person if they told me they have NEVER used a derogatory term about another ethnicity or told an off color joke to someone they knew would not be offended. Maybe those people exist, but I think they do so only in other people's minds. I have no problem admitting I've done so. I try to refrain in most instances and feel I most likely have only done so in company who realized the context in which it was spoken. But, then again, political correctness is the furthest thing on my mind.

[PennyQuilts]

I'm 52 years old and the only slurs I've ever heard behind closed doors have been used by people with a twinkle in their eye trying to get a rise out of someone by saying something outrageous and using them to tease. I hear people insist that people maliciously use that kind of language behind closed doors all the time and I have to wonder what kind of people they hang with.

[Midtowner]

IMO the biggest lapse in professionalism is coming from the defense attorneys and their decision to use conversations that occurred behind closed doors and in chambers as part of their motion.

When you're a judge, the robe never comes off. You either have a demeanor which is judicial 24/7 or you don't. What Judge Elliot said actually was a violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct, not some trifling mistake. That Box might have had a questionable motive to further turn this thing into a circus doesn't relate to the fact that Judge Elliot as a judge presiding over criminal trials often involving minorities has some 'splainin to do.

It's not that Judge Elliot said something racist. I might be able to deal with that. But he said it while at the courthouse and in front of his staff. Did you know a judge is even responsible for the conduct of his staff? And that he's making these sort of remarks in front of his staff is actually a fairly serious thing.

As for Box' professionalism, he should have made a report to the folks who are supposed to look after judicial ethics, but what would have been the point? To my knowledge, they haven't ever gone after a judge in Oklahoma or Tulsa counties or any of the nicer surrounding counties, and they haven't even done anything since 2003. Not even to Judge Thompson who masturbated on the bench during murder trials.

I also question their professionalism and ethics due to the fact they never brought their concerns about Elliot to light when they were defending minority criminal defendants.

It depends on when they came across this information. But you're right, that'd be alarming.

[kevinpate]

Some of the problems the defense will have to overcome developed before Box was in the case, if my memory serves correctly.
It's not ideal when it happens, but this is not the first defense team to take a seat at the table after the cards are already dealt.

[BBatesokc]

Actually, Ersland had representation by Box and Reynolds from very early on. The problem was that Box not only went on a media tour, but also allowed Ersland to speak. Also, the defense doesn't seem to know what their defense is. They have so far proposed two different defenses that are in contrast to one another - something that obviously has not escaped the prosecution.

One forwarded defense is that Parker still posed a threat and was moving and supposedly trying to get up and Ersland felt in danger and shot him again (and again, and again, and again, and again) and if believed by the jury would be a justifiable shooting.

When the evidence at the scene didn't really match that defense they went to defense number two.... That the first shot to Parker's head was lethal and therefore the subsequent shots could not have killed him, case closed.

Obviously they don't think either defense is air tight or they wouldn't be trying these goofy stall tactics.

I also think a good indicator that this motion that Elliot is a racist is bunk is the fact the head of the public defender's office would not back that claim up and felt the opposite of Elliot.

[Thunder]

A shot in the head is not always deadly. Some have survived and lived normally or in a unfavorable condition. That is not a good defense to work with. As for defense number one, there is really not much evidence that I can remember to sway the case in one direction.

The jury can see Ersland in the video walking by/over the bad kid's body when leaving the store for a moment, so right then, Ersland obviously did not feel threatened. I dunno if the bad kid was brain dead at that time or not. If he was dead, would there be a crime at shooting a dead body?

[Midtowner]

Obviously they don't think either defense is air tight or they wouldn't be trying these goofy stall tactics.

These aren't goofy stall tactics. As I explained, one of the things attorneys should do is keep every issue for appeal alive that they possibly can. Ersland wouldn't have this issue on appeal unless it was raised in the trial court.

[BBatesokc]

These aren't goofy stall tactics. As I explained, one of the things attorneys should do is keep every issue for appeal alive that they possibly can. Ersland wouldn't have this issue on appeal unless it was raised in the trial court.

I understand and respect where you are coming from. I guess I'm just not as idealistic (probably not the right word). If your statement was true, then Box and Reynolds would have an obligation to raise this same objection every time they represented someone in front of Elliot (which they won't) and should have raised this during their many cases where they were actually representing a minority criminal defendant (which they didn't, but had no problem presenting 'evidence' going back quite some time).

Also, in the real world these lawyers actions (as with all lawyers) have real consequences for them professionally and their other clients. Like it or not, you play these games and it comes back to bite you. I for one would not want any of those three defense lawyers representing me in the wake of this. Most cases are ended by negotiation and that often comes down to personal and professional relationships between the prosecutor and defense attorney. The biggest power a prosecutor has is discretion and the motivation to use it (like it or not) can come down to mood and relationships. I guarantee you they will not get as many favorable pleas as they otherwise would have on other cases.

Just the other day I was going to the DA's office and I noticed one of Ersland's defense lawyers is not allowed in the DA's office and has to hand his paperwork through the window while others are buzzed inside. I confirmed this with someone who works in the office.

[Midtowner]

I understand and respect where you are coming from. I guess I'm just not as idealistic (probably not the right word). If your statement was true, then Box and Reynolds would have an obligation to raise this same objection every time they represented someone in front of Elliot (which they won't) and should have raised this during their many cases where they were actually representing a minority criminal defendant (which they didn't, but had no problem presenting 'evidence' going back quite some time).

There's no obligation to raise the same defense in every case. Ethically, attorneys have pretty broad discretion to choose the tactics they want to use in each case. I agree, it seems boneheaded to be playing this card at this point considering the Defendant is white. But I'll give Box the benefit of the doubt. He's a seasoned criminal lawyer while I am decidedly not, so I'm going to go ahead and defer to his judgment here.

I'll agree that the politics should be a concern to Box' clients, however, I would hope that the prosecutors wouldn't be vindictive in such a way. Taking out a personal beef on the clients of an attorney because of who the attorney is seems to be a kind of sh**ty thing to do.

As for not being allowed back... that's funny. Yeah, you don't want to burn those bridges.

[BBatesokc]

I know all three lawyers personally, to the point of going to dinners with two of them in the past. All are pretty good people and seasoned professionals ~ which is why this strategy baffles me.

In a perfect world it wouldn't really matter who your lawyer is, because the law is the law and the facts are the facts ~ but it just doesn't seem to work that way.

I won't get into examples and hijack the thread, but I've seen countless times where relationships weighed more heavily on the outcome of a case than justice.

In my anti-prostitution activism I see it all the time. The list of people who get arrested but never charged for prostitution is staggering (and it 90% of it comes down to either the defendants reputation or their attorneys). But some Joe Smith will get arrested and charged every time.

[Double Edge]

KOCO...

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Defense attorneys for pharmacist Jerome Ersland have asked again that Judge Ray Elliot be removed from Ersland's upcoming murder trial.

Elliot announced Monday that he would not remove himself from the case.

Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said Elliot cannot be impartial in the trial. He filed a second motion that will put the decision of Elliot's status in the hands of Judge Bill Graves.

Ersland is charged in the shooting death of Antwun Parker, 16, who was involved in a robbery at the pharmacy. Ersland has claimed self-defense, but prosecutors said that the pharmacist fired additional shots that killed the teenager after he was injured and no longer posed a threat.

[BBatesokc]

I HIGLHY doubt that Judge Graves will find in favor of Erlsand - the motion is so vague that it would essentially remove Elliot from all criminal cases.

[kevinpate]

Whenever the defense atty elected to press an on the record motion to remove the judge from a case, it was a foregone conclusion he would continue the process to the next step if, as here, the trial judge did not recuse. Anything less would give the appearance the effort was a tactic unrelated to the judge, and only a rube would put himself in that position. Whatever else anyone may or may not think of lead defense counsel in the case, he's not a rube.

That said, if one were wanting to wager, go ahead and bet on Judge Elliot hearing this case, barring any unknown health issues between now and the kickoff for jury pickin'

[Double Edge]

A pharmacist lost again today in his legal effort to get a different judge to oversee his murder trial.

Oklahoma County District Judge Bill Graves refused to disqualify District Judge Ray C. Elliott from the trial.

The pharmacist's defense attorneys now will ask the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to disqualify Elliott.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-phar...#ixzz1BQOP9h2G

[kevinpate]

With no surprise at all, there is an announcement by the defense they will press on to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Same song, different judges ... same ending (at least, that's my prediction for this next appeal.

Judge Elliot ultimately will hear this case, barring any unknown health issues between now and the kickoff for jury pickin'.

[Double Edge]

I guess the defendant buys some time before trial if that's one of the goals.

[kevinpate]

I won't call it a goal, but without question it is an unavoidable side effect in the process involved when someone is pressing a request for a judge to step down.