GUILTY MI - Renisha McBride, 19, shot while trying to get help, Detroit, Nov 2013

[liljim]

The defense tried very hard to show Renisha had attempted to break into Wafer's house, but the evidence simply wasn't there. And that was all they had -- no breaking in, no castle doctrine, no self defense. It was fairly clear cut when you looked at the actual evidence.

they didnt have to show that she was trying to break in, they had to show that he could have reasonably felt that she was trying to break in. if the jury found him to be credible but didnt believe that she was trying to break in he is still not guilty.

 

[liljim]

im pretty surprised that they were able to convict on 2nd degree, not because i didnt think it was possible that he was guilty of it, but because i didnt think there was any way all 12 would agree on it.

i forget who said that the defense didnt need to revisit the anger issues and the details about the actual trigger pull on redirect, i guarantee they wish they had now. there was definitely more to be explained there for the jury, or maybe there wasnt anymore to say and thats why they didnt bring it up...

obviously some if not most of the jurors complete discounted his testimony due to believability, i just hope we dont hear any comments from the jury like the oft repeated "you can shoot someone in the face for knocking on your door looking for help"...

 

[liljim]

someone mentioned that the defense trashed the victim - when did they do this? i followed every day thru the live blogs on two sites and never heard this.

 

[mbutterfly]

I wondered whether the jury pool wouldn't be county-wide. That is true where I live so we have a mix of inner-city families, re-gentrified yuppies, suburbans -- all ethnicities in our jury pools.

 

[mbutterfly]

They suggested as strongly as the judge would allow that Renisha was breaking in. They attempted to bring in her tweets and facebook comments from some time ago (and remember she was a teenager so some time ago is significant). None of these related to what happened at Wafer's house. There were myriad examples though I know it was difficult to follow everything from the blogs. Some of this was earlier before the judge turned off the cameras.

 

[browneyes]

I love your post and yes, he should have manned up and taken a damn plea. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. His attorney led him astray thinking if he got on the stand he could elicit sympathy. problem was he gave two entirely different accounts of what happened. In the end the jurors came to the only correct conclusion: he did not act reasonably under the circumstances.

I agree with this. He should have accepted responsibility and taken a plea. IMO, testifying was a mistake. I am so happy this jury gave justice to Renisha.

 

[liljim]

They suggested as strongly as the judge would allow that Renisha was breaking in. They attempted to bring in her tweets and facebook comments from some time ago (and remember she was a teenager so some time ago is significant). None of these related to what happened at Wafer's house. There were myriad examples though I know it was difficult to follow everything from the blogs. Some of this was earlier before the judge turned off the cameras.

the defense had to show that her actions could have been perceived as an attempt to gain entry, i dont consider that trashing the victim. the tweets and facebook were not allowed so since it never happened it is hard to say how the defense would have handled it at trial. any other of the myriad examples that you can remember? thanx.

 

[Credence]

I have been following with you all but not posting but I have a question. I thought the conviction would be either guilty for Murder 2 OR manslaughter; not both. Could someone be kind enough to explain. Thank you.

Murder 2 carries life and manslaughter carries up to 15 years -- just confused they found him guilty on both .....

 

[mbutterfly]

I do see your point on the gaining entry. The other examples were not allowed but attempted. I grant you the defense was not allowed to bring improper testimony into the trial. I really don't want to list points they attempted to make because then I would be the one making negative remarks. I don't want to do that, of course.

 

[mbutterfly]

He never stood a chance of having a fair trial in Detroit. I have never seen a Judge so biased against the defense. She hamstrung the defense when it came to being able to defend their client. To this day the state never entered any evidence supporting McBride was at Mr. Wafer's home seeking help. In fact all the evidence entered showed she refused help and assistance from everyone yet this Judge allowed the state to throw speculation around like it was water. She didn't even enter evidence to support a good faith basis or foundation that RM was seeking help.

Even the locals were predicting from the minute it happened they were going to throw the book at him before they even knew any of the evidence and way before the trial even started saying it was because he was white and the victim was AA. Isn't Detroit predominately AA?

I hope he has a great appellate lawyer because I see several appellate issues that can be raised especially when it comes to the Judge's rulings which is the basis for cases to be overturned most of the time

If this had happened in another state Mr. Wafer would be going home a free man tonight. My heart breaks for him. Why oh why did RM have to pound on his doors making him think she was breaking in? GAH! If she had just stayed put like she legally should have done when she had her wreck Mr. Wafer's life would have gone on as peaceful as it always has been.

Actually Wayne Country from which came the jury pool is not predominantly AA, if that makes a difference. It is predominantly white. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_County,_Michigan

 

[islandmixed]

I am shocked he was found guilty on all counts, truly am, even thoe I never believed his story from the jump. I still do not feel like he was a cold blooded killer, but all along, like a lot of you said, if his story never changed, he would have come off better, or maybe not. I just know that his stories were conflicting which led to there decisions.

It's justice for sure, but watching the verdict being read and seeing Mr wafer's face, I felt sorry for him. Like wow, you are going to jail for life, all because you acted very carelessly with your damn gun. It's very sad, no matter how you look at it.

Lastly, i am glad the jury did the right thing, because it was the right thing to do. U live and learn...

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[daisy7]

I am shocked he was found guilty on all counts, truly am, even thoe I never believed his story from the jump. I still do not feel like he was a cold blooded killer, but all along, like a lot of you said, if his story never changed, he would have come off better, or maybe not. I just know that his stories were conflicting which led to there decisions.

It's justice for sure, but watching the verdict being read and seeing Mr wafer's face, I felt sorry for him. Like wow, you are going to jail for life, all because you acted very carelessly with your damn gun. It's very sad, no matter how you look at it.

Lastly, i am glad the jury did the right thing, because it was the right thing to do. U live and learn...

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

Respectfully, BBM. ITA!!! I also felt bad for him, but owning and using a gun is a HUGE responsibility that it seems far too many many gun owners don't seem to understand. I will never understand the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. I am glad Renisha and her family got justice!!

 

[Film_At11]

This was the proper verdict IMO.

Have a good night Inmate Wafer. You're about to learn what REAL Fear is. Oh, the BANGING on the cell doors will go away....in about 25 years.

 

[Danta]

A far better investment is a land line. I live in a neighborhood that has odd things happen. A bear walked into someones house and they called the police who came and killed it.

If you have fears you protect yourself, not with a cell phone that can be misplaced or out of a charge. A land line is great and secure. A locked door is great and secure. A phone. A connection to a human being who will stay on the line with you. Less expensive than the local pub tab or a shotgun and shells.

What did we learn? Get a land line, and do not open your door unless you think it is OK. I do have neighbors that have emergencies and I do not believe that either person never talked to each other.

 

[ilovewings]

I feel badly for Mr. Wafer too even though I believe it was a just verdict ( though I thought he would get manslaughter and I could have lived with that). He made a terrible terrible decision to not call the police, open his door and shoot the poor woman dead. He will have a lot of time to think about the options he had and what he could have done to avoid the situation. Renisha would be alive and he would not be going to jail for 25 years.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Good morning. The little snippets I saw of Ted Wafer's testimony didn't elicit sympathy I didn't see real remorse, no real tears but tried to act as if he was crying. His own words put it all in perspective. His interview with LE, his changing his stance from an accidental discharge to a SD stance was stretching it. His attorney tried to create evidence not there. I wonder if he will be granted an appeal on ineffective counsel. His defense team did him no favors by trying to blame Renisha for the actions Wafer took. So happy this jury didn't fall for that.

Since the days of Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman, it appears to me the way our judicial system is set up an attorney can bring forth lies and some fool on the jury will accept it as fact. I am so very relieved this jury saw through all the bells and whistles and held this man responsible.

Wafer knew nothing about Renisha being in a car accident, drunk or smoking weed. As I saw the photo of the vehicle, it's quite possible she had a head injury, was confused and went to the first home she saw with a light on. Wafer did say when the banging on his door, he shut his lights. So, it's reasonable to believe Renisha only wanted help.

Frantic banging on the door he misconstrued to be those pesky teens who paintballed his vehicle. Being full of piss and vinegar, he let his anger get the better of him. So, just because one thinks they can take a life and walk, one shouldn't...

I don't believe he will fare well in prison...but he made that choice when he took a life before he tried other options.

I know that justice is to be blind but she's not deaf...

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Wafer was charged with second-degree murder, but jurors were able to consider the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. He was also charged with manslaughter.

Maria Miller, a spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, said that with the charge of statutory manslaughter, a firearm has to have been used — an element not included under the charge of second-degree murder. Because of this, they are separate crimes, she said.

She also said involuntary manslaughter does not include the firearm element.

In a statement Thursday, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said: “We are obviously very pleased with the jury verdict and feel that justice was served today. We sincerely hope that this brings some comfort to the family of Renisha McBride.”

Cheryl Carpenter, Wafer’s attorney, said she is confused at how the jury convicted her client of second-degree murder. She said that, for Wafer, “it will be a death sentence.”

Carpenter said Wafer “acted instinctively to protect himself and now he’s going to die in prison, and it’s not fair.”

She said the conviction will be appealed.

http://www.freep.com/article/201408...s-applaud-Wafer-conviction-Justice-was-served


Found the explanation of why 2nd degree murder and manslaughter...

 

[AnaTeresa]

Good morning. The little snippets I saw of Ted Wafer's testimony didn't elicit sympathy I didn't see real remorse, no real tears but tried to act as if he was crying. His own words put it all in perspective. His interview with LE, his changing his stance from an accidental discharge to a SD stance was stretching it. His attorney tried to create evidence not there. I wonder if he will be granted an appeal on ineffective counsel. His defense team did him no favors by trying to blame Renisha for the actions Wafer took. So happy this jury didn't fall for that.

Since the days of Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman, it appears to me the way our judicial system is set up an attorney can bring forth lies and some fool on the jury will accept it as fact. I am so very relieved this jury saw through all the bells and whistles and held this man responsible.

Wafer knew nothing about Renisha being in a car accident, drunk or smoking weed. As I saw the photo of the vehicle, it's quite possible she had a head injury, was confused and went to the first home she saw with a light on. Wafer did say when the banging on his door, he shut his lights. So, it's reasonable to believe Renisha only wanted help.

Frantic banging on the door he misconstrued to be those pesky teens who paintballed his vehicle. Being full of piss and vinegar, he let his anger get the better of him. So, just because one thinks they can take a life and walk, one shouldn't...

I don't believe he will fare well in prison...but he made that choice when he took a life before he tried other options.

I know that justice is to be blind but she's not deaf...

BBM. Ineffective assistance of counsel is a high bar to make it over.

Under the two-prong Strickland standard, criminal convictions have been affirmed on appeal even where the defense attorney fell asleep during the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant,[3] was heavily intoxicated on alcohol throughout the trial,[4] was in extremely poor health and senile,[5] was mentally ill (and even discussed his delusions in opening argument),[6] or was himself a convicted felon whose sentence included community service in the form of defending accused murderers (despite his lack of experience in such cases).[7]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel

Defense counsel tactical choices, if they turn out to be the wrong choice, aren't ineffective assistance. (See US v. Datavs; McMann v. Richardson; Tollett v. Henderson; Us. v. Agurs; etc. etc.).

In my opinion, Wafer has no viable claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I love your post and yes, he should have manned up and taken a damn plea. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions. His attorney led him astray thinking if he got on the stand he could elicit sympathy. problem was he gave two entirely different accounts of what happened. In the end the jurors came to the only correct conclusion: he did not act reasonably under the circumstances.

It's Wafer's choice whether to testify. For all we know, his attorney could have tried to talk him out of testifying. I know that battle all too well. As an attorney, you can advise your client, but you can't force them to do anything. In the end, it's their choice whether to testify, whether to take a plea, etc.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Thank you AnaTeresa for that information.

So, since Wafer's counsel might have made wrong tactical choices, it's not enough to overturn his conviction on appeal. Good to know