Post by CCADP on Apr 16, 2006 14:45:01 GMT -5
Jurors Doubted Lagrone's Attempts To Save Kids.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2006 The Pantagraph
Byline: Edith Brady-Lunny and Brett Nauman eblunny@mchsi.com
Apr. 13--BLOOMINGTON -- Doubts and questions seemed to lead the Maurice LaGrone Jr. jury more than facts to convict him of drowning his then-girlfriend's three children.
Several jurors talked with reporters after they were dismissed Wednesday, having found LaGrone ineligible for the death penalty in the deaths of his former girlfriend's three children. The girlfriend, Amanda Hamm, still faces murder charges and may be tried in the fall.
Jurors spent 23 hours reviewing the prosecution and defense evidence and testimony, but jurors said they ultimately couldn't understand why LaGrone and Hamm let her children drown as her car sank in Clinton Lake. Other factors, such as LaGrone's demeanor on the stand, also shaped their decision.
"From my perspective, it really wasn't the big pieces that mattered, it was the little details, like he watched them go into the water," said juror Greg Haddock.
Haddock and fellow juror Louis Villafuerte said LaGrone's testimony was believable, but his lack of emotion during the trial was troublesome.
"He showed emotion when his family was testifying, but I didn't see much emotion when he spoke," said Villafuerte.
Jurors said they did not believe a plan existed between Hamm and LaGrone to deliberately put the car into Clinton Lake with the three children inside.
Andrew Marshal, a former active duty member of the U.S. Army who is from LeRoy, said jurors did not believe the car went into Clinton Lake accidentally but it was done as a prank to scare the children -- an explanation proposed by the defense. However, jurors also could not understand why neither LaGrone nor Hamm tried to save the children, he said.
Ironically, a video prepared by the defense, which showed the car floating for between 10 to 20 seconds, helped the panel realize LaGrone and Hamm had plenty of time to save the children, Marshal said.
"We wanted to believe they tried to save those kids, but that's not what the evidence supported," Marshal said. "They did very little or nothing to save those kids. They could swim and they were responsible for those children."
While that inaction helped lead to a guilty verdict, Marshal said none of the jurors thought the prosecution's case was strong enough to show LaGrone and Hamm intentionally killed the children.
"If I was betting, I'd say, 'Yes, I think they went out there to do that,'" Marshal said. "Do I think they proved that? No. I don't think they proved intent. We all agreed we couldn't vote for death because of that."
Jurors spent more than three days going over evidence from the trial, but never voted about whether to convict LaGrone until late Tuesday afternoon, Marshal said.
Jurors confirmed the speculation among attorneys that the jury reviewed all the prosecution's case before looking at the defense evidence and then moving to discuss a verdict.
After two hours of arguing about guilt or innocence, 11 jurors wanted to convict while one juror continued to hold out, Marshal said.
The juror then told other members of the panel he needed a minute to gather his thoughts, Marshall said. After taking a five-minute break, the man returned and told others he was ready to convict, he said.
After signing the verdict forms, many members of the panel cried.
The pressure of deliberations was evident on the juror's faces when they filed into the courtroom with their verdict at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. Most jurors appeared more relaxed the following day when they came back to settle the death penalty issue.
Copyright (c) 2006, The Pantagraph, Bloomington, Ill.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2006 The Pantagraph
Byline: Edith Brady-Lunny and Brett Nauman eblunny@mchsi.com
Apr. 13--BLOOMINGTON -- Doubts and questions seemed to lead the Maurice LaGrone Jr. jury more than facts to convict him of drowning his then-girlfriend's three children.
Several jurors talked with reporters after they were dismissed Wednesday, having found LaGrone ineligible for the death penalty in the deaths of his former girlfriend's three children. The girlfriend, Amanda Hamm, still faces murder charges and may be tried in the fall.
Jurors spent 23 hours reviewing the prosecution and defense evidence and testimony, but jurors said they ultimately couldn't understand why LaGrone and Hamm let her children drown as her car sank in Clinton Lake. Other factors, such as LaGrone's demeanor on the stand, also shaped their decision.
"From my perspective, it really wasn't the big pieces that mattered, it was the little details, like he watched them go into the water," said juror Greg Haddock.
Haddock and fellow juror Louis Villafuerte said LaGrone's testimony was believable, but his lack of emotion during the trial was troublesome.
"He showed emotion when his family was testifying, but I didn't see much emotion when he spoke," said Villafuerte.
Jurors said they did not believe a plan existed between Hamm and LaGrone to deliberately put the car into Clinton Lake with the three children inside.
Andrew Marshal, a former active duty member of the U.S. Army who is from LeRoy, said jurors did not believe the car went into Clinton Lake accidentally but it was done as a prank to scare the children -- an explanation proposed by the defense. However, jurors also could not understand why neither LaGrone nor Hamm tried to save the children, he said.
Ironically, a video prepared by the defense, which showed the car floating for between 10 to 20 seconds, helped the panel realize LaGrone and Hamm had plenty of time to save the children, Marshal said.
"We wanted to believe they tried to save those kids, but that's not what the evidence supported," Marshal said. "They did very little or nothing to save those kids. They could swim and they were responsible for those children."
While that inaction helped lead to a guilty verdict, Marshal said none of the jurors thought the prosecution's case was strong enough to show LaGrone and Hamm intentionally killed the children.
"If I was betting, I'd say, 'Yes, I think they went out there to do that,'" Marshal said. "Do I think they proved that? No. I don't think they proved intent. We all agreed we couldn't vote for death because of that."
Jurors spent more than three days going over evidence from the trial, but never voted about whether to convict LaGrone until late Tuesday afternoon, Marshal said.
Jurors confirmed the speculation among attorneys that the jury reviewed all the prosecution's case before looking at the defense evidence and then moving to discuss a verdict.
After two hours of arguing about guilt or innocence, 11 jurors wanted to convict while one juror continued to hold out, Marshal said.
The juror then told other members of the panel he needed a minute to gather his thoughts, Marshall said. After taking a five-minute break, the man returned and told others he was ready to convict, he said.
After signing the verdict forms, many members of the panel cried.
The pressure of deliberations was evident on the juror's faces when they filed into the courtroom with their verdict at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday. Most jurors appeared more relaxed the following day when they came back to settle the death penalty issue.
Copyright (c) 2006, The Pantagraph, Bloomington, Ill.
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.