Interesting case on two points

CAJUNLAWYER

CAJUNLAWYER

Silver Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
19,434
Reaction score
65,458
City & State/Province
On da Bayou Teche
Walker man convicted after disarming home invader, shooting at getaway car | Livingston/Tangipahoa | theadvocate.com

First he was convicted of attempted manslaughter by a 10-2 vote. Louisiana together with Oregon are the only two states that allow for a non unanimous jury to convict. The legislature is getting ready to put it on the ballot to amend our constitution ot mprovide for a unanimous jury like the other 48 states and feds do. The DA's understandably are fighting it.

Secondly-what do y'all think of the verdict?
Attempted murder carries 0-50; attempted manslaughter 0-20 and agg battery 0-10. No gun enhansement from what the story says so thee is no 20 year minimum.
BTW, with apologies to the Baton Rouge area members here, Walker is pretty much considered the meth capital of Louisiana from what various EMS and LEO personnel have told me.......

What do I think??? I think this case is a classic example of a two'fer. Everyone goes to jail :D
 
Weell, without knowing the WHOLE case and facts, just on the "news" Guilty due to stupidity.:D

Livingston Parish Assistant District Attorney Zach Daniels said they pulled the gun from Jarreau, and that Neams forced the home invader to his knees and pistol-whipped him in the head, before demanding he leave the house.
According to Daniels, Jarreau left and got in his car. Neames followed him outside and shot into the car six times, striking Jarreau in the elbow and arm.
 
I wasn't in the court room, or the jury room. But, 10 thought there was something to it!

I was a juror on two sisters being molested. First counting 10-2. I didn't think he did the older sister and a lady didn't think he did the younger. The foreman had us explain why we thought he did the one we agreed with the rest of the jury on. Second counting 12-0 and up the river! The problem I had with the whole trial was, Defendants attorney and the Judge didn't really stand up for the defendants right for a fair trial! (probably because of something excluded would have nailed his coffin shut anyway!)

People can be swayed by the smallest of facts or ideas. Louisiana and Oregon need to get on the 12-0 band wagon or buy roap in bigger spools!

Ivan
 
I had a defense of others case a few years ago where my guy shot his brother as brother was beating hell out of their mother. From the evidence, at least one shot was fired as brother was fleeing. The evidence was that the whole thing went down in mere seconds.

We had just adopted castle doctrine etc, and I filed a claim of immunity and motion to dismiss before the preliminary examination. My judge granted it and dismissed and of course the prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court conducting de novo review, which is generally not done on non legal questions by our appellate courts. During oral argument, one of the judges made it very clear they didn't like immunity and that it was a jury question. I petitioned for review to the KS Supreme Court and they summarily reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals, directing them to defer to the trial court's findings of fact. The Court of Appeals then affirmed the grant of immunity. Took about 3 years total. Meanwhile my client, out on bond, went off his rocker and blew his girlfriend away and is awaiting sentencing on 1st degree murder.

Funny how in law school the profs would always say "this rule applies in 49 states, just not in Louisiana".
 
CAJUNLAWYER said:
Walker man convicted after disarming home invader, shooting at getaway car | Livingston/Tangipahoa | theadvocate.com

First he was convicted of attempted manslaughter by a 10-2 vote. Louisiana together with Oregon are the only two states that allow for a non unanimous jury to convict. The legislature is getting ready to put it on the ballot to amend our constitution ot mprovide for a unanimous jury like the other 48 states and feds do. The DA's understandably are fighting it.

Secondly-what do y'all think of the verdict?
Attempted murder carries 0-50; attempted manslaughter 0-20 and agg battery 0-10. No gun enhansement from what the story says so thee is no 20 year minimum.
BTW, with apologies to the Baton Rouge area members here, Walker is pretty much considered the meth capital of Louisiana from what various EMS and LEO personnel have told me.......

What do I think??? I think this case is a classic example of a two'fer. Everyone goes to jail :D
Click to expand...

I never understood what 'attempted manslaughter' meant. I thought manslaughter was when you killed someone through a criminal act but the death was not intentional or premeditated. How do you attempt to unintentionally kill someone?

He shouldn't have done that, but I have no sympathy for the home invader. Maybe make them roommies?
 
johngalt said:
I never understood what 'attempted manslaughter' meant. I thought manslaughter was when you killed someone through a criminal act but the death was not intentional or premeditated. How do you attempt to unintentionally kill someone?

He shouldn't have done that, but I have no sympathy for the home invader. Maybe make them roommies?
Click to expand...
Attempted murder "I'm gonna kill that **********" but you miss or wound. Attempted manslaughter you shoot the guy you just found naked in bed with your wife but miss or wound (but you intended to kill the ***). Agg Battery same facts as attempted manslaughter but you just wanted to scare him-not lkill him. That's about as good as I can get on a forum.

A lot depends on how you dress the pig.........:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can’t comment on Louisiana law, but in most places once the threat no longer exists, neither does the justification for use of force. The “he could have been thinking about backing into me” defense seems a little skinny to me. I suspect the prosecutor wanted to set an example and the drug dealing shooter was low hanging fruit.
 
The homeowner kicked the idiot out and ended any threat to the homeowner and his guests. There no longer being a threat, the homeowner was not permitted to shoot the idiot. Hence, the criminal charge and conviction. Even if the idiot had said he was coming back, the homeowner was not in immediate danger.
 
He should have been charged with...

...illegally discharging a firearm or maybe assault with a deadly weapon at the most.

It was very stupid to shoot at a fleeing suspect, but given the circumstances that he HAD JUST been attacked and battered by this person, he was understandably acting irrationally at the time. And the people in the car with him were accomplices. AND he only hit the guy that attacked him.

I think the DA screwed up in bringing the charges and the jury should have considered the circumstances more. He didn't just decide to run out and shoot into a car.
At the very worst even if he loses all down the appeal line he should have a suspended sentence or something similar.

Maybe if I were on the jury and got all the details something would convince me otherwise, but I'd try to go easy on the guy.

Of course, I'm a sympathetic gun owner and I ain't no lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a reasonable outcome to me. I don’t think he was overcharged at attempt 2nd, but this seems like a fair compromise. I like twofers. Last murder case I did, meth defendant got caught burglarizing meth dealer/victim’s car. Vic went after him with an axe, defendant armed himself with a big knife he found on the front seat of the car (thus making it an aggravated burglary) and stabbed meth dealer/vic while exiting the car. Since the killing took place during commission of an underlying felony (agg burglary) the charge was felony murder, which carries the same penalty as 1st degree. Ironically, the whole thing was captured on vic’s security cameras that defendant had helped him install. I refused an attempt to use a self defense argument as the killing took place during commission of the underlying crime. In effect, defendant was the instigator and, thus, not entitled to self defense. Supreme Court eventually agreed. A twofer - dealer deceased and defendant doing life.
 
CAJUNLAWYER said:
Attempted murder "I'm gonna kill that **********" but you miss or wound. Attempted manslaughter you shoot the guy you just found naked in bed with your wife but miss or wound (but you intended to kill the ***). Agg Battery same facts as attempted manslaughter but you just wanted to scare him-not lkill him. That's about as good as I can get on a forum.

A lot depends on how you dress the pig.........:D
Click to expand...

If the only difference between attempted manslaughter and aggravated battery is motive, I'm not sure I agree with attempted manslaughter. It he had intended to kill the invader he would have done it while he was still in the house.
 
Rule3 said:
Weell, without knowing the WHOLE case and facts, just on the "news" Guilty due to stupidity.:D

Livingston Parish Assistant District Attorney Zach Daniels said they pulled the gun from Jarreau, and that Neams forced the home invader to his knees and pistol-whipped him in the head, before demanding he leave the house.
According to Daniels, Jarreau left and got in his car. Neames followed him outside and shot into the car six times, striking Jarreau in the elbow and arm.
Click to expand...

If true, then I see why he was charged. Threat was neutralized and retreating even.
 
Drug dealer angry at customer for trying to rip him off and decided to make an example of him so others don’t try it in the future.

Not a bad outcome.

Incidentally in NZ we also have a majority verdict but it must be 11-1. It came about when a double killer was granted two mistrials. First because one juror didn’t like something the prosecutor had said in the first trial and in the second one older juror didn’t want convicting someone of murder on his conscience. My boss at the time was the brother of the court registrar ( clerk) so got all of the inside details which he shared with me.

Killer still denies he did it even though this happened back in the mid 90’s.
 
This is an interesting case for sure. But being from Baton Rouge, and knowing the reputation of that area combined with the details of the case, it reeks of drug involvement.

Typically down here the law is very sympathetic to people shooting in self-defense. Very rarely do I hear about a resident shooting a home invader being charged with a crime. Differences in Louisiana law aside however, once the threat has ended, so does one's right to utilize deadly force. Plus the fact that the resident demanded the invader leave the house is very suspect of foul play. Most reasonable people would hold the invader at gunpoint until the law arrives. A twofer for sure!
 
THEY DESERVE EACH OTHER.

Put them in the same cell & let them work it out. 2 Men enter, 1 man leaves. They disobeyed the druggie etiquitte of NOT robbing your drug dealer, and NOT shooting the customer you sell drugs to. ;)
 
It’s a little hard to garner any sympathy for either “actor.” I’ve gotta go along with the O.P. on this one.

What do I think??? I think this case is a classic example of a two'fer. Everyone goes to jail
Click to expand...
 
CCantu357 said:
This is an interesting case for sure. But being from Baton Rouge, and knowing the reputation of that area combined with the details of the case, it reeks of drug involvement.

Typically down here the law is very sympathetic to people shooting in self-defense. Very rarely do I hear about a resident shooting a home invader being charged with a crime. Differences in Louisiana law aside however, once the threat has ended, so does one's right to utilize deadly force. Plus the fact that the resident demanded the invader leave the house is very suspect of foul play. Most reasonable people would hold the invader at gunpoint until the law arrives. A twofer for sure!
Click to expand...
Well, actually it SCREAMS of drug involvement-Meth fer sure!!!!
 
See? This is a good example why I shouldn't be King of the World. :D In my King TTSH world, anyone who holds one's family hostage at gunpoint and shoots into their furniture and then shoots at the head of the household coming home and walking through the door... all while robbing their house of anything he can find for drug money... deserves whatever punishment the family members deem appropriate. :cool:

Yeah, the drug seller allegation claim confuses the issue, and maybe the homeowner needs a good slap on the wrist for being so angry, but up to 20 years in prison under these circumstances? :confused: No way. :o
 
If it was a drug thing, then the homeowner had probably done plenty already to deserve jail. Funny the way justice works out sometimes.
 
Maybe the jury had a vested interest in making sure that drug debts are paid, Neames was interfering with local commerce.
 
The pot owning homeowner sure was stupid to tell the meth boy to leave the house and then try to pop him. Both definitely deserve a good long stay in the crossbar hotel.
 
Sounds to me like the young man and his lawyer did not have
the "Actual story" down on paper, correctly....................

That lawyer is not to good in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top