# Jury upholds self defense argument in shooting



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Jury finds Kansas man not guilty of murder, Upholds self defense argument in shooting
By CHRIS BRISTOL
YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/287419680179830

SARA GETTYS/Yakima Herald-Republic

Willie Rodriguez asked for it, he got it, and a jury Friday exonerated the man who did it.

Deliberating barely two hours, the jury of 10 women and two men acquitted Judd Stephen Hurst of second-degree murder for gunning down Rodriguez, 19, in a gun-waving confrontation last year alongside a dark road outside Toppenish.

*In a separate verdict, the jury ruled the shooting was justified under a state law that protects the right of self-defense and ordered that Hurst, 27, receive reimbursement in the form of civil damages. A dollar figure will be decided later.*









Judd Hurst, right, listens to closing arguments from his defense attorney, Ken Therrien, in Yakima County Superior Court on Friday. A jury found Hurst not guilty of murder in a fatal shooting that occurred outside Toppenish on Aug. 28, 2005.

Yakima County Superior Court Judge Jim Lust signed papers on the spot freeing Hurst from jail, where he had spent the past 14 months awaiting trial. A related gun charge was also dismissed.

Afterwards, Hurst's trial attorney, Ken Therrien, said the verdict was one of the most satisfying in his career. His client earlier had rejected a plea bargain to a charge of second-degree manslaughter. "He didn't need any prodding," Therrien said of Hurst. "He said, 'I can't take that. That's not what happened.' " The verdict came as no surprise to those who followed the trial, which began two weeks ago and often seemed more like a coroner's inquest. The jury also rejected a lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter.

The shooting on Aug. 28, 2005, culminated a confrontation that began at a party attended by Hurst, who is from Overland Park, Kan., and was visiting friends in the area. Witnesses testified Rodriguez, a member of a reputed street gang called the Outlaws, became angry when Hurst and a friend offered to give a woman named Angelica Gopher a ride home. Gopher was Rodriguez's off-and-on girlfriend, and they had a child together.

Rodriguez pursued the Hurst car, forcing it off McDonald Road. Rodriguez's 2-year-old daughter was in the back seat with Gopher. Witnesses testified Rodriguez got out and began threatening Hurst and the other occupants of the car with a .25-caliber chrome-plated pistol.

Hurst then grabbed a Glock semiautomatic pistol from under his car seat and opened fire at close range, firing 13 bullets in just a few seconds. Rodriguez was hit 11 times, including five or six times at almost point-blank range after he collapsed to the ground. A pathologist testified eight of Rodriguez's bullet wounds were fatal.

The sticking point in the case was whether Hurst knew that Rodriguez was unarmed by then. Evidence showed that Rodriguez had set down his pistol in his car just before Hurst shot him. The gun was unloaded.

In closing arguments, deputy prosecutor Duane Knittle argued Hurst knew Rodriguez was no longer armed and fired in retaliation for being threatened by Rodriguez.

An occupant of the Hurst car testified she had gotten Rodriguez to calm down and that, in the glare of the headlights alongside the road, she could see Rodriguez was no longer armed.

Hurst "shot him because he was tired having that gun pointed at him," Knittle told the jury. "This is not self-defense, because the moment of self-defense was over."

Noting that Hurst fled the scene, asking witnesses not to tell anyone what had happened and not turning himself for 14 hours suggested "consciousness of guilt." "What Mr. Hurst did wasn't justified," Knittle argued. "It wasn't reasonable. It wasn't self-defense. It was murder."

But Therrien countered the shooting was the result of Rodriguez's "hell-bent on evil" behavior, and he assailed the prosecution for bringing charges in the case. "It's wrong to spin it like the state has spun it," Therrien complained to the jury, shouting at Knittle, "Have you no shame! Have you no shame!" Therrien reminded the jury that Rodriguez was very drunk, that he had a history of abusive, violent behavior and that he attacked his girlfriend at the party, angrily dousing her with beer while she was holding her daughter in her arms. "I don't want to kick around this guy," Therrien told the jury, "but being dead doesn't make you a better person than when you were alive."

He also reminded the jury that Hurst testified he didn't realize Rodriguez had put down his gun, and he noted that nobody at the scene of the shooting realized Rodriguez's gun was unloaded. Testimony indicated Rodriguez's friends -- fearful of his drunken penchant for gunplay -- had secretly unloaded his pistol at the party, and that not even Rodriguez knew it wasn't loaded.

*A former FBI trainer also testified for the defense on the use of deadly force, telling the jury that if the first bullet was justified, the rest of the shots were irrelevant.*

Therrien argued prosecutors never would have brought charges if a police officer had shot Rodriguez under similar circumstances, and he accused prosecutors of "armchair quarterbacking" a confrontation that had been confusing and stressful. "Basically they want to punish him for not shooting (Rodriguez) sooner," he complained. It was not Hurst's first brush with the law. *According to court records, he was convicted of attempted murder in 1995 for shooting at a motorist in Lawrence, Kan., hours after he tried to firebomb a rival teen's car.*He was 16 at the time and was tried as an adult, serving four years in prison.

It also was not the first time Rodriguez acted out. In May 2005, three months before his shooting, Rodriguez was convicted of reckless endangerment for firing a pistol seven or eight times into the air while cruising around Toppenish with friends. He told police he fired after somebody in a large group made threatening whistle sounds at him. The judge sentenced him to 20 days in jail.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

While I applaud the jury for upholding what seems to be a justified case of self defense, how did someone convicted of attempted murder get ahold of a Glock? Does the fact that he was a minor at the time of the crime somehow figure in? I read nothing about him having his rights restored. Also, wouldn't a loaded pistol under the seat of your car require a valid CWP? While he seemingly did us a public service by removing the would-be assailant from the gene pool, there seems to be multiple reasons why the shooter shouldn't have been armed in such a situation. Tough call.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Horsager said:


> While I applaud the jury for upholding what seems to be a justified case of self defense, how did someone convicted of attempted murder get ahold of a Glock? Does the fact that he was a minor at the time of the crime somehow figure in? I read nothing about him having his rights restored. Also, wouldn't a loaded pistol under the seat of your car require a valid CWP? While he seemingly did us a public service by removing the would-be assailant from the gene pool, there seems to be multiple reasons why the shooter shouldn't have been armed in such a situation. Tough call.


Agreed. Very tough call... that's why I thought it was a good topic to post and discuss...

Ryan


----------

