Oct 23, 2015

Jury deadlocks in Fieldbrook double homicide, 9 guilty, 3 not guilty, new trial date December 14




Dressed in grey khakis and a white shirt, once he heard the final outcome of the case, Jason Arreaga took off his glasses and looked shocked, then anxious.

After, they had been discharged, the jury foreperson told the defense investigator that the witness testimonies were conflicting. When Judge Miles had asked him in court, how the Court could assist in any way with further deliberations so they could reach an unanimous verdict, he responded, "Other than witnesses and more evidence."

The Tully and Hammers families did not wish to comment at this time, Hammers' cousin Irene said "please keep the family in prayers."

The jury took two votes, the last vote was 9 guilty, 3 not guilty.

Jurors spoke with both attorneys for about half an hour.

A mistrial was declared by Judge Marilyn Miles.

New jury trial date is December 14 at 8:30 a.m. because Arreaga did not waive time. Trial confirmation is on December 2.

In the case that just concluded jury trial, Arreaga is charged with the murders of Harley Hammers and Angel Tully. The jury had been deliberating since Monday on this case.

The double homicide took place in Fieldbrook. Jurors had the option to vote not guilty on all three choices or find him guilty of either first degree murder, second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.

For each count of murder, there are special allegations of intentionally discharging a firearm, causing great bodily injury/death and multiple counts of murder.

There is a disposition and reset hearing on his other case, possession of drugs in jail, listed in the court computer for this afternoon but was not scheduled on the court calendar for today.

Two female jurors, each spoke individually with me. One said she believed all the witnesses, including Arreaga, but that motive was one of the reasons for the split vote.

Another juror, who has served on other homicide trials, including one in Humboldt County, said that for some people circumstansial evidence is a difficult concept. She said, "we are not a jury of his peers" referring to the fact that many of the witnesses including the defendant lived a lifestyle that some people would have a hard time relating to. She said that she has noticed "complex cases in Humboldt that are being presented with individuals with questionable lifestyles and credibility."
The closing instructions about Shavonne Hammers being an accomplice was also a factor in the jury's final decision.

This juror said resources are needed to address drug use. She also wanted the victims' families to know that they were in the minds and hearts of the jurors and they tried hard to reach an unanimous decision.

Ms. Heidi Holmquist from the Public Defender's Office represented Arreaga. Deputy District Attorney Zachary Curtis prosecuted the case.

3 comments:

  1. 9-3 is not great, but it's within the realm of possibility to re-try (as opposed to 9-3 the other way, or 6-6). BTW, Mr. Foreman, witnesses always conflict; that's why the defense gets to call witnesses. The question is, who do you believe?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only two votes? Really.

    I've sat on DUI trials that took way many votes more than that. I'm surprised the judge didn't just tell them to come back Monday and go at it again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We took 2 formal votes (actually only one, because one we were all confused about what we were voting on) but we took many informal votes and realized we weren't all on the same page.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.