Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[OuTcAsT]

I suspect his attorney has told him not to talk but that Ersland is a bit of a loose cannon.

This might be true....but I'm not so sure. I have a hard time convincing myself that Mr. Box would not require that every word the defendant spoke, or wrote, would go through his office. Now he has sent an almost incoherent, rambling, written full statement to the OSBI, apparently in hopes of keeping his CCW permit. This begs the question why? He now has no guns, of what use is the permit ? The only way I can see that he will ever be allowed to even own a gun is in the extremely unlikely event he is fully exonerated.

The second thing that occurs to me is; If I were going to write such a letter, I would likely have my attorney write it, or at least peruse it. It appears that didn't happen, or did it ?

Could be that Mr. Box will use these ramblings, and lies to his advantage, to show some sort of diminished capacity, in the hope of mitigating mens rea. It leads me to one of two conclusions, Mr. Box is either very wise, or very incompetent. As for the "loose cannon" He would either shut up, or find a new attorney. (Unless I planned for him to look like a lunatic)

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Dear God - what a read. Thanks for the update. Who knows what is going on in this man's mind.

I guess he won't be making commercials or testimonials for the Judge though.

This should be a required text for permit holders.

 

[DeltaB]

Oklahoma statutes dictate that anyone charged with a felony will have their CCW suspended until the outcome is decided. I'm not too sure his attorney knew of this letter. If in fact he did, I would certainly agree with OuTcAsT in the position his attorney is asleep at the wheel....

 

[Cincy_Ron]

He certainly has a different way of looking at things doesn't he?

 

[Ricky B]

Box may be a fox.

None of the letter can come into evidence at trial unless all of it comes in. If the DA takes the bait, he allows Ersland to present his side of the story without Ersland having to take the stand.

The letter presents the following "facts" favorable to Ersland:

• The pharmacy had been robbed four times before (probably true)
• The pharmacy employees had been threatened with death by robbers (probably true)
• Ersland knew all this (probably true)
• Ersland had recently had back surgery (probably true)
• Ersland was wearing a double back brace (true)
• Ersland was a "cripple"
• Ersland was a former Lt. Col. in the armed forces (probably true)
• Erlsand is a member of the DAV (probably true)
• The robbers used four-letter words--the robbers threatened to kill Ersland and the employees if they didn't hand over drugs and money (probably true)
• Ersland had never been in any sort of trouble before (probably true)
• Ersland felt a bee-like sting on his hand (which Box could use to argue why Ersland thought he had been shot--Box can argue that it was the watch band on Ersland's "$133 Stauer watch that got caught on something and that made Ersland legitimately think he had been shot on the wrist) (might be true)
• Ersland merely "grazed" the second robber in the head
• Ersland did not shoot a black man because "he posed no immediate threat to me" even though this black man "raised a shotgun up" (and if you believe that, then you will believe that Ersland would not have shot the robber in the pharmacy unless he posed an immediate threat and you will believe that Ersland is not prejudiced)
• Ersland goes back to the pharmacy and hears statements that lead him to believe that one of his co-workers had been shot and killed (might be true that he heard the co-worker saying I'm so sorry repeatedly)
• Ersland switches guns only because he was out of ammo (might be true)
• Ersland has Meniere's Disease and will one day go deaf (and even if the co-worker doesn't testify that she kept saying what Ersland says in the letter, well, Ersland is hard of hearing because of his Meniere's Disease) (might be true)
• A third party (the guy in the green car) said "he's getting up."
• Parker was approximately 6 feet tall (probably true)
• Parker was getting up
• Ersland thought the other robbers were coming back to finish him off (a sentiment, BTW, not infrequently expressed here on TFL by posters who seek to justify shooting someone-they might come back with their buddies)
• Not only was the robber getting up, but he shouted an epithet at Ersland
• Ersland has no idea of how many times he fired (might be true--there are many experts who could testify that this is a common occurrence with police officers)
• Ersland was pumped up with adrenalin (no doubt true)
• Ersland was reponsible for keeping 20,000 doses of narcotics from going out on the street.
• Ersland was reponsible for keeping thousands of dollars out of the hands of "murderers"
• Ersland had some kind of wound on his wrist that others sought to treat (might be true)
• The wound was a "simple graze" (and could have been a scratch that Ersland took for a bullet wound in all the chaos)
• Ersland threw his Stauer watch into the trash (so don't expect him to produce it a trial to show why he thought it was hit by a bullet)
• He threw his Stauer watch into the trash only after he was told by the authorities that there was no chance he would be charged with a crime (and therefore no need to preserve this evidence)
• Ersland is a gentleman in allowing his female co-workers to be interviewed first (the police choose who to interview first and would probably want to interview non-shooter witnesses first so they can be prepared for discrepancies when they interview the shooter but this spins it so Ersland is chivalrous)
• Ersland is all alone in the world, with only a Pug to keep him company

If the DA tries to introduce into evidence any statement in the letter, the defense is entitled to introduce the entire letter. Ersland can not be cross-examined about this letter (or anything that he previously said) unless he takes the stand, and of course, a defendant is not required to testify. With this letter in evidence, Ersland would have no need to take the stand. Defense counsel can argue all the statements in the letter are facts the jury should take into account.

Will Prater take the bait? I don't think so.

Will the judge allow Fox to introduce the letter? I don't think so.

If the letter never comes into evidence, does it do any good? Yes. It presents Ersland's side of the case to the public. If the letter never comes into evidence, does it do any harm? None that I can see.

Did Box have a hand in writing the letter? I suspect he did. Is Fox incompetent? I think not.

Am I Donald Rumsfeld in disguise? No, but I think I'm starting to sound like him.

 

[Wildalaska]

From the news article:

"He said, "That night, I did give some inaccurate information but, at the time, I thought it was the truth.”

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha

Does anyone in the class want to try...o gawd talk about loading the gun!

I hope the DA has some smarts! That one should be good for an hour if Ersland testifies

WildsizzleAlaska TM

 

[OuTcAsT]

None of the letter can come into evidence at trial unless all of it comes in. If the DA takes the bait, he allows Ersland to present his side of the story without Ersland having to take the stand.

Did Box have a hand in writing the letter? I suspect he did.

This is my suspicion as well, and for some of the same reasons you cited. I would hope Prater is intelligent enough to see through this sly little attempt, but a nice angle none the less.

if Ersland testifies

Given his penchant for flapping his lips at anyone who will listen, I think it is almost a foregone conclusion that Ersland will, regardless of advice from counsel, take the stand. It will be like "Joe Isuzu" testifying. He may be the first man in the US to get convicted of "Capital Perjury"

 

[hogdogs]

This case should be a precedent we refer every TFl member to that states that "dead man tell no lies" mentality!
As for the letter... Doesn't it also play into the hand of the DA as it shows yet another set of discrepancies? The BS about treating a non existent GSW being a blatant lie unless it is a hammer or slide wound he got from not knowing how to handle either gun...
Brent

 

[OuTcAsT]

As for the letter... Doesn't it also play into the hand of the DA as it shows yet another set of discrepancies?

That's the catch Brent, as Ricky B said;

None of the letter can come into evidence at trial unless all of it comes in. If the DA takes the bait, he allows Ersland to present his side of the story without Ersland having to take the stand.

And;

Ersland can not be cross-examined about this letter (or anything that he previously said) unless he takes the stand, and of course, a defendant is not required to testify. With this letter in evidence, Ersland would have no need to take the stand. Defense counsel can argue all the statements in the letter are facts the jury should take into account.

For the DA, this letter could be bad juju, It would be like Ersland gets to testify, and not cross examined, But I doubt the judge would admit it, and I'm pretty sure the DA won't take that bait.

 

[DeltaB]

Ersland has no idea of how many times he fired (might be true--there are many experts who could testify that this is a common occurrence with police officers)

Well, in the initial investigative report of the homicide officer, Ersland stated...

"He said he shot at the subject on the ground (Parker) five times, and the running subject (Ingram) once in the store, and three outside. Ersland said he used the Kel-Tec on the subject on the ground (Parker), and the “Judge” on the running guy (Ingram). I asked Ersland for the total rounds he fired, and he said six from the Kel-Tec, and four from the “Judge”. Ersland said there were ten shots total that he fired from the two guns."

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/y31erslandinterview.doc

 

[Playboypenguin]

For the DA, this letter could be bad juju, It would be like Ersland gets to testify, and not cross examined, But I doubt the judge would admit it, and I'm pretty sure the DA won't take that bait.

Doesn't the letter being admitted open him up to cross examination since he is the author and available? I know when I worked for CPS if the author of any statement pro or con was available to the court that they could be cross examined.

 

[Ricky B]

The Fifth Amendment:

No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

 

[hogdogs]

Ricky, Would it not be against his fifth to be forced to testify about the validity of the contents of something he personally authored in regards to a pending case?
I am not very well versed in court proceedings so please expound on these particular details...

I would think that if it were presented as evidence regarding this particular case, I should be able to call the author (not as the defendant) to the stand to clear up my questions about the content...
Brent

 

[Ricky B]

if it were presented as evidence regarding this particular case, I should be able to call the author (not as the defendant) to the stand to clear up my questions about the content...

If it were a civil case, yes. But in a criminal case, we have that pesky Bill of Rights. The defendant does not have to take the stand unless he chooses to.

In some other countries, the defendant can make a statement to the court without being sworn. This was what I read about the case in Italy where an American girl is accused of murdering her roommate in a sex party gone bad scenario. (That'll get TFL'ers Googling, won't it.) She was allowed to present her story without being sworn. I don't know if she could be cross-examined about it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The defendant does not have to take the stand unless he chooses to.

It seems odd to me that the letter would not count as "taking the stand" and therefor qualify for cross-examination. Otherwise, it would seem as though the defense could present anything written by the defendant as evidence without the prosecutor having the ability to refute it.

 

[Playboypenguin]

It seems odd to me that the letter would not count as "taking the stand" and therefor qualify for cross-examination. Otherwise, it would seem as though the defense could present anything written by the defendant as evidence without the prosecutor having the ability to refute it.

I do believe that presenting the letter would open him up to cross examination. During that examination he could refuse to answer questions, but he would be doing so on the record in front of a jury who would most likely assume his refusal to answer is not a positive thing. I do not see any positive impact the letter could have on his trial.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I do believe that presenting the letter would open him up to cross examination. During that examination he could refuse to answer questions, but he would be doing so on the record in front of a jury who would most likely assume his refusal to answer is not a positive thing.

It has always seemed to me that "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that the answer may serve to incriminate me." was code speak for "Please, PLEASE, send me to jail."

 

[Ricky B]

It seems odd to me that the letter would not count as "taking the stand" and therefor qualify for cross-examination. Otherwise, it would seem as though the defense could present anything written by the defendant as evidence without the prosecutor having the ability to refute it.

What counts as "taking the stand" is taking the stand.

Where you are mistaken is the concept of "the defense could present anything written by the defendant as evidence." Absolutely not.

Remember I said that if the DA tries to introduce into evidence any statement in the letter, the defense is entitled to introduce the entire letter. I also said that the judge is unlikely to allow Box introduce the letter. Anything that a party says outside of court can be used against him in a court of law. You must have heard this statement hundreds of times watching TV shows. The key word is "against."

What a party says outside of court can not be introduced by him into evidence (except in certain instances not applicable here).

That's why Box has to hope that the DA tries to introduce a statement from the letter, which would allow Box to demand the entire letter be introduced into evidence. If the DA doesn't bite, the letter doesn't come in.

 

[Ricky B]

It has always seemed to me that "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that the answer may serve to incriminate me." was code speak for "Please, PLEASE, send me to jail."

Which is one reason why the prosecution calling the defendant to the stand to testify so he can take the Fifth is considered compelling him to be a witness against himself. If it were actually to happen and the defendant were convicted, it would be a guaranteed reversal on appeal (and new trial).

 

[DeltaB]

In this month's episode of "Code 3 Cowboy" we find our self-appointed Marshal Ersland in hot pursuit of fleeing suspects, as he runs out of the Pharmacy. As he trots down the front of the store and comes around the corner, he's confronted by a shotgun toting black man, but not to fear, "I got the drop on him!" declares Marshal Ersland. Of course, he states he "feels no threat" by having a "Mossberg 500 or Maverick" pointed at him, he has his trusty "Judge"... But Marshal Ersland has more on his mind than simply hanging out with this armed man, he has fleeing suspects "to get" and starts "unloading on him" because he "has to get him before he hurt anybody else." But alas, Marshal Ersland now finds himself out of ammo, and must return for his other backup, and finish this job. Of course, before exiting the Pharmacy, in last month's episode, when Marshal Ersland said that’s why he had to “get him” with the Kel-Tec as he was running by in hot pursuit of the armed suspect out the door. He said "he shot at him five times, but he kept staying up”. But again, not to fear, Marshal Ersland knows he's "the guy I nailed.”

Will the suspect left inside the Pharmacy find his super-human powers able to overcome the prescription of 5 lead aspirins to care for his splitting headache given by our Marshal Ersland? Stay tuned for the next episode of "Code 3 Cowboy" and find out!