SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A court case with far-ranging consequences concluded Tuesday in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Ray Rosas is a free man tonight after a jury of his peers found him not guilty of shooting three Corpus Christi police officers on February 19, 2015. On that day, early in the morning, CCPD executed a no-knock search warrant, forcing entry into the home without first knocking and announcing they were the police.
A flash bang grenade was fired into Rosas' bedroom, reportedly stunning the 47-year-old, who then opened fire on the intruders. Three officers were wounded; officers Steven Ruebelmann, Steven Brown, and Andrew Jordan. Police were looking for drugs and Rosas' nephew, who they suspected to be a dealer. However, the unnamed nephew was not home at the time of the raid.
Rosas spent nearly 2 years in jail awaiting trial, which concluded Tuesday with a Nueces County jury finding him not guilty. Rosas' defense maintained, based on statements he made immediately following the shooting and later in jail that he did not know the men breaking into his home were police officers and there was no way he could've known, having been disoriented by the flash-bang stun grenade. "The case is so easy, this is a self-defense case," said Rosas' lawyer in closing arguments.
Rosas originally faced three counts of attempted capital murder, but the prosecution dropped those charges just before the trial began, opting instead to try him for three counts of aggravated assault on the police officers. The jury sided with his defense attorney's argument he had a right to defend his home and found him not guilty on all charges.
takyon: Also at the Corpus Christi Caller Times.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:50PM
sort of. There is no precedence here as the jury acquitted him rather than an appellate court overturning a conviction. So this might give people hope, but is relatively meaningless for future cases.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:11AM
If I'm not mistaken, even an acquittal does lay down a precedent. And even if it didn't, it might embolden other juries to return more acquittals in the future. (Dear God! No knock warrants are such a travesty!) But IANAL so you should take what I have to say with a grain of salt.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Friday December 16 2016, @01:18AM
And I shall. The result of a jury trial is indeed no precedent. As a general rule, a court judgment that establishes a precedent is one in which the court says it is "for publication", or something along those lines. Publication means that it's published in a hardbound collection of court opinions, such as the Federal Reports (I think it's called that). Each state has its own series of reports. When it is published, the opinion then can be cited (usually) in subsequent court petitions. It should be noted that the opinions of federal district courts and some state non-appellate courts can also be published. These are all based upon the rules of court, which are, of course, written by the courts.
However, you are correct. The precedent could be made with jurors who learn about this case. Let's hope the news gets spread far and wide.
On the subject of no-knock warrants, sometimes they are necessary, such as in cases where there is a possibility that evidence will be destroyed. But in this case the cops completely blew it and got what they deserved. They went in unprepared for the possibility that an armed person could be there and will start shooting.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @02:15AM
Thanks for the info. I am now (better) educated.
For my part, I would think that no-knock warrants should only be used in rare exigent cases where someone's life is in imminent danger (e.g., a hostage situation or someone who is threatening to "make the call" that will alert their co-conspirators to end someone's life, etc.). I would much rather live in a country where there is the possibility that a bad guy wilfully destroys evidence while the cops are waiting outside ready to enter, rather than one in which the cops are little better than jack-booted thugs. Just my $0.02 there.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DutchUncle on Friday December 16 2016, @04:11AM
>>>>the possibility that an armed person could be there and will start shooting.
So the problem is, as a result of this, will the police start coming in actively firing to suppress any opposition (by killing it first)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @03:29PM
The question is whether the cops' first priority is resolving the situation safety for the public, or staying alive themselves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday December 16 2016, @04:18AM
No-knock warrants may be necessary to secure evidence, but the larger question is if that evidence is worth risking the life and limb of non-consenting innocents. How many drug busts make the brutal death of an innocent a good trade? I argue that it's simply not conscionable.
Even beyond that, I doubt very much that the one and only way to get the goods on a serious drug dealer is a no-knock. The thing about being a dealer is they have to deal. So sorry that tailing someone is a long dull grind instead of an exciting raid, but if it's really about busting the dealer, that's what they should do. If they watch someone 24/7 and can't catch them dealing, the logical conclusion is that they're not a dealer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @01:23AM
The problem with that is that many states do no allow you to cite similar jury verdicts. You could be charged with criminal conspiracy and be unable to tell the jury that all of the other alleged conspirators were already acquitted.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @06:20AM
It's a good thing we put so much emphasis on making it hard to jail innocents.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 16 2016, @01:23PM