Texas CHL Holder-Saustrup Case Update...

Gopher .45

New member
From 24 May 2000 www.austin360.com

"Defense pushes theory at trial"
By Leah Quin
American-Statesman Staff
Wednesday, May 24, 2000

As the state began its murder case Tuesday against Paul Anders Saustrup, the defendant's lawyer laid the groundwork for a self-defense theory -- referring to statements that were heard only by his client.

Saustrup, on trial for shooting Eric Demart Smith in 1998, is expected to testify later in the trial. His girlfriend, Sasha Sessums, testified for most of the day Tuesday about the estimated three minutes that started with an attempted car burglary and ended with a shooting death.

Though she backed up Saustrup's assertion that Smith seemed about to turn on him, Sessums also said she could hear only a "low mumble" from Smith throughout the confrontation.

From the beginning, Saustrup has said he shot Smith in self-defense after the would-be burglar turned on him.

But prosecutor Doug O'Connell, in his opening statement, explained to jurors why the state believes Saustrup committed murder.

After finding Smith in Sessums' car just before 2 a.m. on July 8, Saustrup aimed a gun at him and followed him for 855 feet -- or "three football fields" -- before shooting him twice in the back in a dim alley across from the Austin Convention Center, O'Connell said.

"Eric Smith never had a weapon," the prosecutor said. "Eric Smith repeatedly tried to get away. If Eric Smith wanted to attack the defendant, he had plenty of opportunity before then."

O'Connell then questioned Sessums, who called police on Saustrup's cell phone after finding Smith in her Chevrolet Suburban, its passenger window broken out where it was parked on Fourth Street and San Jacinto Boulevard. She and Saustrup were returning to the car from the Black Cat Lounge, which Sessums owns and manages.

Both she and Saustrup are licensed to carry concealed guns. Saustrup's lawyer, Joe Turner, said they obtained the guns for protection against Sixth Street's increasingly dangerous environment and because both own small businesses.

Sessums said she recognized Smith as a patron that night whom she had asked to leave because he didn't have identification or money for admission.

After Saustrup aimed his pistol at Smith and told him to keep his hands visible, he and Smith tussled briefly, and Smith's shirt came off.

In his opening statement, Turner said Smith pointed at his gang tattoos at that point and said, "You see this, (expletive)? This means you're dead." He then told Saustrup that he knew where he and Sessums lived, Turner said.

Sessums, however, said she could never understand what Smith was saying, even as he began walking and sometimes running away, pursued by Saustrup and Sessums as she relayed their location to a 911 operator.

As Sessums turned the corner into an alley, Smith made a sidestep while turning his head the other way and lowering his hands to his waist, she testified.

On the 911 tape that O'Connell played in court, Sessums said, gasping, "That guy turned around to attack him."

Prosecutor Buddy Meyer also questioned a witness who saw the three walking quickly down Trinity Boulevard.

"The black male looked scared," said Michael Hamilton, a roofer who at the time lived in an alley nearby. "He wanted to run."

At the end of the first day of testimony, Turner cross-examined the first police officer at the scene, who said Saustrup laid down the gun immediately, obeyed all instructions and told him that Smith had turned to attack him.

"Sounds like self-defense, doesn't it?" Turner said, prompting Meyer to object forcefully because self-defense is an issue the lawyers have agreed to confer on before such a question is asked. Turner withdrew the question.

Testimony is expected to last throughout the week in State District Judge Bob Perkins' court.
-----
You may contact Leah Quin at lquin@statesman.com or 445-3621.
 
Thanks, Gopher. I'm no authority, but it sounds like Saustrup's attorney is doing a good job so far.
 
It sounds good to me too and being from Texas, this holds a definite interest for me. That being said and NOT arguing tactics, I personally think Saustrup should have let Smith runaway and have insurance take care of things. Besides, if I understand right, it wasn't even his car! When it comes to nabbing BGs, the police are more knowing than me, Saustrup, and most Joe and Jane Citizens - armed or not. Besides, that is the job of the police (no comments please on whether they do it well or not - that is not my point here). The poor guy, Saustrup, meant well and he certainly may have been defending his life when the ally even occurred, but I am sure that broken window of his FRIEND'S vehicle wasn't worth what he has had to go through. Let's see, $200 window or 2 years of legal problems plus expenses and public evaluation. Hmmm? Insurance is a good thing, I think, and even without it, I am sure he would trade $200, if he could, for all the hassle.
 
I agree that it was dumb to go after the guy. But what about the threats the BG was making? Are they on tape and can we confirm them? I would be tempted to follow the guy too if he said he would kill my female companion and then recited her address. I would not want her to run into this creep at a later time. I'd want him incarcerated right there. Even if you let him go and told the cops of his threat, what are they gonna do in the absence of an actionable offense? Did the shooter know that the Smith guy had his address before following him and is there any was we can find out?
 
I thought he was wrong when I imagined the alley a few feet away. But 855 plus feet?! He was wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
If Smith had indeed made death threats, it would be in the best interest of the defendant to apprehend Smith, as making a death threat is a serious crime. I would prefer to have the scum bag behind bars than roaming the streets, able to make good of his threats. If, during the time of the persuit, Smith made threats to attack, I think it justified that the defendant used what force he deemed necessary at the time.
It seems like the defendant went out of his way in persuing the burgler. But when someone makes death threats, the last thing you want is them being free to make good of those threats. The defendant should not have been expected to let Smith flee and then live in fear of a violent, retalitory attack...
Just my .02
 
This guy Sasstrup or whatever is wrong and he gives the rest of us a bad name. 855'----for crying out loud!



------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
I hate to argue the self governance issue, but if Smith had never been breaking into cars that night, he'd still be free to terrify the populus, and smoke all the pot & crack his homies could provide him. When he took on the notion of "Criminal mischief beyond the hours of darkness" a reason for deadly force in Texas, he was taking his life into his own hands.
That being said, the shooter should have to pay for his error in judgment. Here's what I'd like to see:
1. His CWP revoked.
2. Him fined for unlawful discharge of a firearm in the city limits. Of course the fine would be paid by time served.
3. A stern rebuke by the judge.

That's about all I would agree to on that jury. I have an awful low amount of sympathy for dead gang-bangers, hoodlums, and career criminals. Let the dead bury the dead.
 
Back
Top