Larissa Schuster Trial, Deliberations Day3, 12/12/07
Jurors notified the court on Tuesday evening as they were leaving for the day, they had a question. Judge Wayne Ellison said he would take up the question at 9 a.m. today. He chose not to tell the media what the question was in advance. The judge decided the media would be allowed to record the discussion between him and the attorneys regarding the question, but the media would not be allowed to record once the jurors walk in the room to receive a response to the question.
The attorneys walked out of the judge’s chambers at approximately 9:15 a.m. Larissa took her seat and immediately started speaking with her attorney Roger Nuttall. In the courtroom gallery were friends and family of victim Timothy Schuster. Larissa Schuster’s parents were also present.
The judge entered the courtroom at 9:31 a.m. He acknowledged the question being received at 4 p.m. Both sides were given an opportunity to review the issue raised by the jury. The jury has requested further clarification regarding the special circumstance question. Does it have to be the primary reason or the partial reason. The question would seem to indicate the jurors have determined Larissa Schuster is guilty of first degree murder.
The defense objected to the last paragraph, “even the primary reason for the killing,” he also objected the words “or even the primary purpose of the killing,” be removed.
The defense said the only thing the jury needs to know is there may be more purposes than one, and this is not a weighing proposition. 9:37 a.m.
The judge said the court is required to answer the question which uses the words “primary reason.” The defense said it should be a real purpose, not just a likely purpose. “When you talk about primary or not primary, you suggest a weighing process.” 9:38 a.m.
The defense said it’s only the special circumstance enhancement that requires a motive in the case. That is inherent that there is motive, “we’d request the jury be given unanimity instruction.” The jury has to determine if financial gain was the motive in this case, because of the specificity of motive, it seems inherent. There may have been a lot of evidence that wasn’t presented for financial gain, Nuttall said.
The judge asked if there was anything further. The defense said this is an unusual case because of the fact this is a case of all circumstantial evidence Because of that circumstantial evidence, Nuttall said the defense is asking for unanimity instruction, because otherwise the defendant and the court are left to speculate on what was the foundation for any of the jurors’ finding.
The jurors were brought into the room at 9:45 a.m. The judge again acknowledged the question they asked. They asked for a clarification regarding instructions. “Does it have to be the primary reason or a partial reason.” The judge said if the court has not answered the question, he’ll provide further instruction. The judge began by re-reading part of the instruction, “the defendant is charged with a special circumstance….9:47 a.m….in order to find this special circumstance true…for the purpose of obtaining financial gain…it’s not necessary that it be the primary purpose.” The jurors then left the room.