The Jury
WHAT’S UP WITH THE JURY?
A story of undue influence.
They compromised. They were told not to by the Judge, but they did. Why?
Watch the videos. You see what the jury saw. Is Eddie just protecting himself? Or has he set about consciously to kill Tyrone? Before you answer, you must know this: in order to say that it was NOT self defense, you must be certain it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the standard that must be used to defeat a self-defense claim.
Let’s say that you came in with a bias and really wanted to find Eddie guilty of murder or manslaughter, the two charges leveled against him. In watching the video you would have to have ZERO reasonable doubt that he was going after Tyrone and not simply trying to defend himself where the guards had disappeared and no one was there to help him against someone who was already mentally unstable and had just slashed the throat of his cellmate.
Can you watch those videos and not believe that Eddie was only trying to defend himself? There was even testimony by Lt. Anthony Garrow that Eddie was standing still on his “front porch” while Tyrone again advanced against Eddie. [Trial Page 66: 16-20] If you can agree with this statement even a little bit, then you have reasonable doubt and you would have HAD to have found that he was not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Many people watched the videos prior to the release of this website. No one came away saying they were unsure about it being self-defense. So out of a jury of 12 people, how is it that none of the 12 believed it was self-defense? What could have influenced them to rush to a conclusion that was simply not justified by the facts?
1. It was Halloween. Friday, October 31, 2008. The jury members must have been anxious to get home with their families, and did not want to deliberate until 6 or 7 pm, or worse, come back the following Monday.
2. The jury had lunch before deliberations. They began deliberations with lunch at 11:35 am. About 30 minutes later, the judge got a request from the jurors that they be allowed a smoke break. The judge refused their request and would not allow them a smoke break until 2:00 pm.
The jurors’ haste was made that much easier by the fact that they had seen Eddie in the corridor still in his prison clothes and laden with handcuffs, waist chains and leg irons. That was before he changed into the business suit we got him for trial. The jurors were not supposed to see him like that – courts have found that can prejudice a jury. It certainly did not help. What they must have seen was not Eddie, but a convict. Arms tattooed. Scary looking. Bad first impressions are almost impossible to erase, and it’s so easy to say, well, if he’s not guilty of this, he’s guilty of something.
“Ms. Gibbens: The jury saw him shackled this morning.
The [Judge]: Well, that’s not unusual.” [Trial Page 43: 9-11]
The point of this is, it should be unusual! That’s why defendants do not come into court in shackles or in prison clothes. Jurys are just people, and to that date their only exposure to the courts has probably just been for traffic tickets. And now, Eddie’s trial was full of convicts – Eddie, those testifying for him and those testifying against him.
They were told they could not compromise – the “I can’t agree with murder, but I’ll agree to manslaughter if it means we can get out of here” kind of thing. Yet they did. They must have. No group of 12 people could have watched those videos without at least ONE of them saying it was self-defense.
Who is to say where the tipping point is for a jury. If they can remain dispassionate, then the facts of the case alone will guide them.
THE ELEMENTS OF SELF DEFENSE ARE CLEAR CUT IN THIS CASE
By the Government’s own definition of self-defense, Branch was only protecting himself. This defense strategy was not
aggressively pursued or challenged.
The defendant did not provoke the conflict
6:44:00 Johnson turns around to walk across the unit to get to Branch, who
returned to the area in front of his cell at 6:44:07, confirming that Johnson
instructed Branch to get his weapons and that he was going to attack him
again
6:44:15 Johnson swings first at Branch
The defendant reasonably believed that he was in immediate danger of harm
or serious bodily injury. Branch was stabbed seven times and witnessed Sparks fatal stabbing.
The defendant used only such force as was reasonably necessary to prevent the danger.
Johnson is shown raising his left arm, rolling over and responsive at the end of
the video. He subsequently required sedation in the Emergency Room due to
his movements and nobody knew he was mortally wounded.
Branch was fending off an attack, not forming malice afterthought of how to
kill Johnson.
P. 204 – Four elements of self defense:
Defendant has to prove under imminent and impending threat of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded fear of
death. Branch was stabbed seven times and saw the murder of Sparks by the same assailant.
The defendant had not recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be forced to
choose the criminal conduct.
Unprovoked attack – Johnson turns around to finish Branch off at 6:44:00. Branch was not even back to his cell until
6:44:07.
In an incident that lasts under two minutes, each second and each frame of the video must be analyzed.
The defendant had no reasonable legal alternative.
Established time and time again on the video evidence, in which ten guards are watching, not helping. There was an ongoing
racial riot at USP Pollock on that day, making the yard unsafe for Branch.
A reasonable person would believe that by committing the criminal action, he would directly avoid threatened harm. It is very difficult for someone who is not familiar with prison politics and conditions to understand this case. But it is imperative that the verdict is approached with an open mind, based on the fact. After watching Sparks fatally stabbed, multiple guards and inmates around that were NOT going to provide assistance, and the attacker telling you it’s not over yet…reasonable must be carefully evaluated in a setting most will never be familiar with.
1) P. 196 – How could the jury ascertain the credibility of the witnesses? They were never
told about the huge sentence reductions and there was very little cross examination, even
in light of huge testimony discrepancies.
1) P. 201 – the jury should consider all the facts and circumstances preceding (Johnson’s record
not allowed into trial), surrounding (Johnson walking across unit to get to Branch) and
following the killing (Johnson was alive and Branch was waiting for officers to get him out of
there). It is irrelevant if Branch said anything to Johnson, even though only one witness (18
year reduction in sentence) stated this. The fact is that Johnson walked across the unit to get to
Branch. Branch did not approach Johnson and this fact should have been stated countless times
in the trial.
Resource: For the Jury Instructions as to the elements of voluntary manslaughter, see Trial Page 202: 2 – 15. The Four Elements Eddie had to prove are found on Trial Page 204: 6-20.
Branch is facing a 25 year to life sentence if there is a new trial, as the prosecution will once again try him for second degree murder. The stakes are high, his life…but he will fight every day to defend his name, that he acted in self-defense. And he pursues a new trial understanding all of the risks involved, but is driven to correct this injustice and hold the Government accountable for use of false evidence, and bartering for testimony with sentence reductions. And then continuing the fight for others in the same situation. This goes on more than the public would like to know in the federal prison system. A racially charged environment, prevalence of violence and no intention to intervene when a conflict escalates. And then charging an inmate for defending his life.
