Any Updates on Richard Venola?

[Edmo]

Anyone heard any news on Venola's status?

Apparently he got into an "incident" where he kill a guy in May, however I haven't heard anything since.

Anyone have an update?

Orignial May Phoenix Times Report

Edmo

[Faulkner]

Venola and O'Neill had been drinking. Detectives don't know what led to the shooting. He declined to speak with detectives until he had a lawyer present.

A Mohave County grand jury indicted Richard Erick Venola, 53, Thursday, May 11th, of second-degree murder. He is expected to be arraigned on the charges May 21 before Superior Court Judge Steven Conn. Venola could face a maximum of 22 years in prison if he is tried and convicted of the murder. He is being held in county jail on a $100,000 bond.

[LVSteve]

According to the AZ court system he posted bail on 26 June.

[Wyo]

The case is winding its way through the process. Venola filed a motion for continuance on 8/16.

[Edmo]

Originally Posted by Wyo

The case is winding its way through the process. Venola filed a motion for continuance on 8/16.

I've read his article through the years and enjoyed his spots on Guns & Ammo TV. I just hope the facts prove he was in the right...

Here is one of my favorite segments of him from G&A TV. This one is a big hit over on the M14 forums when they start ragging the M16's reliability and squawking about how impervious the M14 action is to mud.

G&A Jams a M1A

Edmo

[dmar]

Wow, I missed the news when it happened. Tough times for ol' Richard Venola. From watching the show, he seems like a nice guy, a little goofy, but nice.

Also, that is one awful looking mug shot. How much had this guy been drinking, YIKES!? You hear so much about how "guns kill," but from my observations alcohol sure does its fair share in the equation.

Who knows what happened here, may justice prevail.

[Faulkner]

Originally Posted by Edmo

I just hope the facts prove he was in the right...

Drinking and shootings . . . it'll be hard to find a right side to that.

[eb07]

Happened a few miles from me. I used to see him all the time.

[IFFV]

I wish Richard Venola the best of luck.
If he was indeed drinking it doesn't look good.
You hate to see this happen to anyone.

[Lee in Quartzsite]

He is currently out on bail and going to trial soon.


Golden Valley murder suspect ready for his day in court - Kingman Daily Miner - Kingman, Arizona

[Lee in Quartzsite]

News as of yesterday:

Venola murder trial begins

Mohave Daily News > News > Local > Venola murder trial begins

[Lee in Quartzsite]

As of this afternoon:

Arizona jury deadlocks in murder trial of ex-magazine editor

Arizona jury deadlocks in murder trial of ex-magazine editor

http://kdminer.com/main.asp?SectionI...rticleID=54443

[LVSteve]

Cannot read the azcentral link as it loads then darkens the content. I suspect it is trying to set all manner of cookies and stuff I don't allow.

The kdminer piece is short and sweet but gives no clue how the trial went and what any issues might be. Probably a good thing as too much detail might prejudice a future jury.

[eb07]

The issue was simply whether or not he was in fear of his life and defending himself or whether he was negligent.


5-3 in favor of defending himself.

[Erich]

5-3 in favor of defending himself.

An 8-man jury on a homicide?! Arizona really is barbaric.

[eb07]

Originally Posted by Erich

An 8-man jury on a homicide?! Arizona really is barbaric.

His charges: A second-degree murder conviction brings at least 10 years in jail, and at most 22 years.

AZ statute:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatD...21&DocType=ARS

21-102. Juries; size; degree of unanimity required; waiver

A. A jury for trial of a criminal case in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons, and the concurrence of all shall be necessary to render a verdict.

B. A jury for trial in any court of record of any other criminal case shall consist of eight persons, and the concurrence of all shall be necessary to render a verdict.

C. A jury for trial in any court of record of a civil case shall consist of eight persons, and the concurrence of all but two shall be necessary to render a verdict.

D. In a court not of record, a jury for trial of any case shall consist of six persons. The concurrence of all in a criminal case and all but one in a civil case shall be necessary to render a verdict.

E. The parties in a civil case, and the parties with the consent of the court in a criminal case, may waive trial by jury, or at any time before a verdict is returned consent to try the case with or receive a verdict concurred in by a lesser number of jurors than that specified above.

[Erich]

Wow. I keep thinking about getting barred back in a real American state (I can waive into several with my CO license), but this is the sort of thing that might make me choose Texas instead.

[photoman]

Wow. Sloshed drunk and guns are a recipe for disaster.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by Erich

Wow. I keep thinking about getting barred back in a real American state (I can waive into several with my CO license), but this is the sort of thing that might make me choose Texas instead.

Could you explain that for this ill qualified barrack room lawyers.

[williamlayton]

I really don't see drunk as being a justified reason for conviction.
Just my Texas way of thinking.
Drunk does not mean you can't defend yourownself annd the drunk who threated might just have been drunk enough to do it.
Blessings

[Erich]

LVSteve, I'd have to get into too much explanation about various state law licenses. It's not that interesting and it would take the thread way OT.

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Originally Posted by Erich

LVSteve, I'd have to get into too much explanation about various state law licenses. It's not that interesting and it would take the thread way OT.

Hey Erich come on down here to Louisiana. We have two methods of jury trial, a six pak (for relative felonies) where 6 out of 6 is required to render a verdict and for the big stuff a 12 member jury-NOW LISTEN CAREFULLY- 10 of which must concurr to render a verdict The only time 12 our of 12 is needed is in a capital case. I believe that Louisiana and Colorado are the only two states that still Have the 10 out of 12 concept.
PS I'm thinking of Texas also-I can get grandfathered in based on years of practice and all I have to do is take and pass the multi state ethics exam. Problem is they want to charge you $800 to submit the application.

[Erich]

Right; knew that abt TX. I'd thought AZ b/c I could waive in on my CO license.

Man, I salute you working under those conditions, amigo.

[Wyo]

We still do it the old-fashioned, simple way here. On any felony charge (we don't have felony classifications - it's a felony or it isn't) you get 12 on the jury and verdicts must be unanimous. You really have to work at it to get yourself convicted of a felony in this state!

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by Erich

LVSteve, I'd have to get into too much explanation about various state law licenses. It's not that interesting and it would take the thread way OT.

Form the following posts I am seeing that states allowing majority verdicts does not sit well with some of the legal profession. Having heard some appalling stories of juror ignorance and jury misconduct I do not have a problem with it.

[hittman77]

I'm just so glad I quit drinking.

[jkc]

Originally Posted by hittman77

I'm just so glad I quit drinking.

Well, then, so am I, and unwitting others, as well ...

[straightshooter1]

I've never tried a criminal case that did not require a unanimous vote to convict someone of a crime, whether it is a misdemeanor or felony.

In Florida, 12 for a capital case (only Murder in the First Degree) and 6 for all other crimes, felony or misdemeanor.

After conviction in a capital case, it takes a majority to recommend a sentence of death (7-5 in favor at least) and 6-6 or anything less is a recommendation (actually a mandate) for life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Never had any problem with obtaining convictions under those provisions and don't think I'd like the majority rules verdicts, though they might tend to favor the prosecution.

I've always believed that if we put someone on trial for a crime, we ought to be able to prove it beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt regardless of whether the crime is serious or minor and regardless of the number of jurors.

Bob

[eb07]

In case anyone was interested, the second trial has started:

Mohave Daily News > News > Local > Venola?s second trial gets started

I will update as soon as I get more info.

[Erich]

Thank you for the update!

Originally Posted by LVSteve

Having heard some appalling stories of juror ignorance and jury misconduct I do not have a problem with it.

Yeah, lots of people say that until they find themselves or someone they care about on trial . . .

[Aticus]

Originally Posted by eb07

In case anyone was interested, the second trial has started:

Mohave Daily News > News > Local > Venola?s second trial gets started

I will update as soon as I get more info.

That article has Venola convicted just because he owns a lot of guns. I wish him luck but it doesn't look good.

[eb07]

Second trial....Another hung jury.... 6-2 in favor of acquittal

Hung jury, again: No verdict in Golden Valley shooting death - Kingman Daily Miner - Kingman, Arizona


They may not request a third trial.

[LVSteve]

Originally Posted by eb07

Second trial....Another hung jury.... 6-2 in favor of acquittal

Hung jury, again: No verdict in Golden Valley shooting death - Kingman Daily Miner - Kingman, Arizona


They may not request a third trial.

Can't say I'm too surprised knowing a little about that corner of Arizona.

[rwsmith]

Originally Posted by eb07

The issue was simply whether or not he was in fear of his life and defending himself or whether he was negligent.


5-3 in favor of defending himself.

He could have been defending himself, and yes it could be negligence. But what is it called if he just got mad and shot the guy?

[eb07]

and that is all she wrote.... it is over

No third trial - prosecution drops murder charges - Kingman Daily Miner - Kingman, Arizona

After two trials ended with hung juries, prosecutors have asked Superior Court Judge Steven Conn to dismiss second-degree murder charges against Golden Valley resident Richard Erick Venola.

[mg357]

Thank goodness that's over with for Mr. Venola's sake i hope that he is able to rebuild his life and i shall pray for him.

[Erich]

Wow! Hey, that's something - thanks for the report.

[eb07]

If anything else comes up, like a civil suit or something, I will keep you posted

[jkc]

Originally Posted by eb07

If anything else comes up, like a civil suit or something, I will keep you posted

After an ajudication of no crime committed, no civil suit permitted under AZ law...

[VAPA]

For the lawyers:
Just curious, what do you think his legal defense expenses would be for this?

[yaktamer]

Originally Posted by VAPA

For the lawyers:
Just curious, what do you think his legal defense expenses would be for this?

To him, probably little or nothing. The article says he was represented by the legal defender's office, which ordinarily handles conflict or overflow cases from the public defender's office.

[Erich]

Private counsel could easily go above $100k. Depends.

[yaktamer]

Originally Posted by jkc

After an ajudication of no crime committed, no civil suit permitted under AZ law...

Not so sure in this case. The statute simply says that there is no civil libaility for conduct that is justified under the justification statutes (including self-defense). In this case, there has not been an adjudication that no crime was committed. It was a mistrial due to the inability of the jury to reach a verdict, which is not the same thing as an acquittal.

[yaktamer]

Originally Posted by Erich

Private counsel could easily go above $100k. Depends.

Agreed, especially for trying the case twice. Lots of variation from lawyer to lawyer, though. And no, you don't always get what you pay for.

[jkc]

Originally Posted by yaktamer

Not so sure in this case. The statute simply says that there is no civil libaility for conduct that is justified under the justification statutes (including self-defense). In this case, there has not been an adjudication that no crime was committed. It was a mistrial due to the inability of the jury to reach a verdict, which is not the same thing as an acquittal.

A good and interesting point! I heard that the prosecutor was conceding that there was insufficient evidence to convict, or that de facto, conceding that the homicide was justifiable, since that hadn't been proven otherwise to two juries in two trials. I think the effect is the same, in terms of prohibiting a civil action. But you're right that it's not exactly an ajudication of innocence or justification. It's too late this session, but this maybe needs to be cleared up in the next session...???

[jkc]

Originally Posted by yaktamer

Not so sure in this case. The statute simply says that there is no civil libaility for conduct that is justified under the justification statutes (including self-defense). In this case, there has not been an adjudication that no crime was committed. It was a mistrial due to the inability of the jury to reach a verdict, which is not the same thing as an acquittal.

A good and interesting point! I heard that the prosecutor was conceding that there was insufficient evidence to convict, or that de facto, conceding that the homicide was justifiable, since that hadn't been proven otherwise to two juries in two trials. I think the effect is the same, in terms of prohibiting a civil action. But you're right that it's not exactly an ajudication of innocence or justification. It's too late this session, but this maybe needs to be cleared up in the next session...???