Final day of Stafford trial held many memorable moments

Last Friday’s action in 12th Judicial District Court began at 9:10 a.m. with Derrick Stafford wiping away tears as he looked at coroner’s photographs of 6-year-old Jeremy Mardis. It ended at 8:45 a.m. when the jury foreman pronounced “guilty of manslaughter.”

By now, almost everyone is aware of the outcome of Avoyelles’ most publicized trial in many years, and aware that Stafford will be sentenced at 11 a.m. Friday for the manslaughter of Jeremy Mardis and attempted manslaughter of the child’s father, Christopher Few.

As a weekly newspaper, we have attempted to keep our readers informed of the major testimony and events as they unfolded during the week-long trial. This article focuses on the highlights of last Friday’s testimonies and closing statements.

STAFFORD TESTIFIES

Stafford was the first witness for the defense.

Assistant Attorney General John Sinquefield closed his cross-examination of Stafford by presenting him a photo the child after he was shot to death at a traffic stop on Nov. 3, 2015.

"Do these photos show you what a .40 cal. Glock will do to a 6-year-old boy?" he asked without waiting for an answer.

Defense attorney Jonathan Goins then asked Stafford, “How did looking at those photographs make you feel?”

Stafford asked 12th Judicial District Judge Billy Bennett for permission to speak bluntly and then said, “It makes me feel like sxxx.”

He said it made him think of his children -- one an older 6-year-old, one who just recently turned 6 and one who is 5.

During his testimony, Stafford maintained that he fired his .40 cal. Glock pistol only to “stop a threat” and to protect the lives of himself and other officers.

Like a shark sensing blood in the water, Sinquefield kept hitting Stafford over the crucial fact of whether Few posed a threat and whether officers’ actions that night were appropriate or reasonable.

Sinquefield’s “questions” resulted in several objections from Goins and three motions for a mistrial.

Bennett upheld most of the objections, admonishing Sinquefield to ask questions, not give testimony himself, and instructing the jurors to disregard the attorney’s comments. The judge denied the motions for mistrial.

Sinquefield pressed on whether Few was completely blocked in when he turned into the dead-end in front of the Marksville State Historic Site prehistoric Indian mounds park.

Stafford said he could not say whether Few was boxed in.

Sinquefield recounted testimony of MPD officer Kenneth Parnell that there was an escape route left because officers are trained to leave a way out for a suspect to avoid potentially deadly confrontations.

Stafford said Few backed up and struck deputy marshal Norris Greenhouse Jr.’s vehicle while Greenhouse was standing at the front of the car. Few pulled forward, looked back and was backing up again.

Sinquefield emphasized that Stafford, Greenhouse and deputy marshal Jason Brouillette were all on the grassy area facing the driver’s side of Few’s vehicle when the shooting began.

“When he started to back up, you started shooting your weapon,” Sinquefield said. He then pointed out that Few was backing away from the officers and the parked patrol cars, in an obvious attempt to leave the scene through the escape route Parnell had left.

“He did not come in the direction of you, Greenhouse, Brouillette, Parnell or anybody,” Sinquefield continued.

FEW POSED A THREAT

Stafford maintained that Few was backing toward Greenhouse, posing a threat to the officer’s safety. Sinquefield said Greenhouse was not close to Few’s vehicle.

Stafford said if Sinquefield had ever been in that kind of situation he would have done the same thing.

“You don’t know what kind of situations I have been in,” Sinquefield retorted.

Sinquefield noted that Stafford said he shouted loudly for Few to put up his hands.

“Then, when he puts up his hands, you shoot him,” he said, in the form of a question.

“I did not see his hands go up,” Stafford said.

Sinquefield asked why he would ask a suspect to put up his hands and then not be watching to see if those hands were raised.

Sinquefield called Stafford’s .40 cal. pistol “a man-killer.”

“What did you intend to do,” the attorney asked. “Did you intend to kill him?”

Stafford would not say he intended to kill Few, only that he was trying “to stop a threat.”

“Did anyone ever tell you that if you point a .40 cal. pistol at someone and pull the trigger that you may kill someone,” Sinquefield asked.

“That’s a possibility,” Stafford answered.

“No, that’s a certainty,” Sinquefield replied.

DID NOT KNOW

In his direct testimony to his attorney’s questions, Stafford testified that he did not know there was a child in the car. He said that had he known, “I never in a million years would have fired my weapon. I would have broken off the pursuit myself.”

Sinquefield revisited those comments on cross-examination.

“Was there a 6-year-old autistic boy in that car? Sinquefield asked. Stafford said there was but he did not know the child was in the car.

“Did you kill him,” Sinquefield asked.

“Not intentionally,” Stafford answered. “At no point did any officer know a child was in the vehicle.”

Not satisfied that his question was answered, Sinquefield said, “Did you kill Jeremy Mardis?”

Goins’ objection that the question had already been answered was sustained.

Sinquefield asked why the officers continued to pursue Few when they had a description of his vehicle and, presumably, his license plate number.

Goins objected that there is no evidence that the officers had obtained the license plate number during the pursuit.

Sinquefield said Few had committed “several misdemeanors” during the pursuit. Stafford said fleeing a police officer is a felony and noted that Few had run a stop sign and red light.

“So he deserved a death sentence for running a red light and a stop sign,” Sinquefield huffed.

USE OF FORCE EXPERT
Defense expert David Bolgiano testified concerning how a police officer’s body reacts in high-stress situations. He said officers are trained to watch for aggression indicators to determine threats, including the possible use of “improvised weapons, such as a vehicle.”

Bolgiano is a retired Army lieutenant colonel with four combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, worked as a police officer and obtained his law degree. He said he was not paid to testify as an expert for the defense.

He said police are trained to stop and apprehend suspects, so it is unfair in hindsight to say the officers should have allowed Few to drive away from the dead-end.

“Police are not paid to watch people drive away,” Bolgiano said.

“Action beats reaction,” he continued, noting that at least one police agency he is familiar with teachers their officers “to be nice to everyone, but be prepared to kill them.” Bolgiano said the suspect has already decided what he will do while the officer will take a second or two to react to the suspect’s action.

Bolgiano said an officer in a shooting situation may develop “tunnel vision” and not be aware of other people and actions that are not directly in front of him. He said the body camera “picks up things the officers couldn’t see that night.

“The perception of threat may be different than that of a lapel camera or someone watching that video a few weeks later,” he said.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS
Assistant Attorney General Matthew Derbes called Stafford “a ticking time bomb; an officer with a history of violence and a pattern of excessive force.”

He told jurors that Stafford was over 20 feet away from Few’s vehicle, which was apparently backing away from the officers at about 8 mph, when the shooting began. Few raised his hands and the shooting continued.

“Why would someone do that,” Derbes asked.

The attorney said the pointing of a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is evidence of an intent to kill.

“This is not a question of who did it,” Derbes said. “He (pointing to Stafford) killed that kid.”

Derbes said the only question is “was it justified under the law.”

Derbes criticized the defense for “blaming the victim,” referring to repeated comments by defense attorneys that Few’s actions that night were responsible for Jeremy’s death.

“Chris is not the kind of person who would intentionally crash his vehicle with his child in the car,” Derbes said. “He didn’t kill his child. Derrick Stafford did.”

Derbes said there was no threat of death or great bodily harm to any of the officers at the scene that night. The shooting occurred because “Stafford was angry because the guy didn’t pull over and didn’t stop.”

Derbes said body camera video at the scene after the shooting shows Stafford exhibiting “aggressive body language,” using profanity and with his fists balled. Derbes said Stafford “got out of the car angry” and fired 14 times into the driver’s side of Few’s vehicle when “there was no danger.”

He showed the jury photos of Greenhouse, which showed no dirt or mud on his pants.

“He (Greenhouse) was never on the ground,” Derbes said, noting the defense claim that Few was backing up to run over Greenhouse was a made-up tale.

DEFENSE ARGUMENTS

Defense attorney Christopher LaCour said Few was angry that night, had a fight with his girlfriend Megan Dixon, picked up Jeremy at Dixon’s aunt’s house “and then went looking for Megan Dixon.”

He said Greenhouse came upon the situation when Few got out of his car and tried to open the driver’s side door of the van Dixon was driving.

“Then we have a pursuit,” he said.

LaCour said Few has said he did not stop because he was afraid he would get a DWI. He said the state was “going to blame my client for Few’s tragic mistake.”

“It is hard for me to understand why he would pick up his chile when he had been drinking,” he said.

LaCour told jurors that Stafford “didn’t know a child was in the car” and fired his weapon “trying to stop a threat to him and his fellow officers.”

LaCour said jurors could only find Stafford “guilty of a crime against the child if they find him guilty of a crime against the father,” explaining that if they believe Stafford was justified in shooting at Few, he cannot be found guilty of a crime in the death of Jeremy.

Concerning the lack of dirt on Greenhouse’s uniform, LaCour said the photo was of the front of the officer but Greenhouse fell backwards.

SINQUEFIELD REBUTTAL
l
Assistant Attorney General John Sinquefield, the senior counsel for the prosecution team, responded to the defense arguments. He said it had been a long two weeks, one week of jury selection and one of testimony.

“In the case of Jeremy Mardis, I will be the last person to speak on his behalf,” he told jurors.

Sinquefield said Few may or may not have run a stop sign after he picked up his son from Dixon’s aunt’s house. He said the city marshal’s begin chasing him.

“It wasn’t even a chase,” Sinquefield said. “It was more like a parade.”

Testimony put the average speed of the vehicles at 30 mph. At least once during the pursuit, video shows Few stopping at a stop sign before proceeding through the intersection. In his comments, Derbes called it “the safest ‘high-speed’ chase in history.”

Sinquefield said Few was trying to get back to the aunt's house, but Parnell’s unit forced him to turn down Martin Luther King. He turned left to try to go back in the direction of the aunt’s house, but ran into the dead-end instead.

Sinquefield said there is disagreement as to whether Few backed up into Greenhouse’s vehicle.

“If he did, you can get a dent like that (on Greenhouse’s vehicle) in the Walmart parking lot,” he added.

Sinquefield said officers should have allowed Few to leave the dead-end and follow him to his final destination. Instead, he said, Stafford was angry, yelling at Few to stop the vehicle. Few apparently starts to back up to try to get Jeremy to the aunt’s house “and Stafford starts shooting.”

He said there were no police officers near Few’s car, and Few was backing away from the officers.

“There were 14 shots aimed at the driver, and he (Stafford) said he did not intend to kill him,” Sinquefield said, adding that Stafford decided to deliver “a death sentence for running a stop sign, eluding a police officer and backing up to take his son home.”

The only possible danger at that dead-end “was that an old Crown Vic, or maybe a newer patrol car, would get another dent,” Sinquefield said. “That’s not justification. That’s murder.”

Sinquefield said that police officers are often called upon to do heroic acts in the line of duty.

“No police officer was a hero that night,” he noted,“but there was a hero -- a flawed hero.”

He said jurors would recall the video that showed Few’s hands went up when the shooting started.

“What you will not see in that video is his hands going down,” Sinquefield said. “He faced those bullets and did the only thing he could do to protect Jeremy, using his body to shield his son.”