The jurors deliberating the case against cop killer Maurice Clemmons’ alleged getaway driver struggled through a fourth day of deliberations Wednesday without arriving at a verdict.
So what’s the hang-up?
It’s impossible to know for sure because lawyers and reporters aren’t allowed to interview jurors while they’re deliberating.
But judging from notes sent to Superior Court Judge Frederick Fleming on Tuesday, they appear to be haggling over whether Dorcus Allen “knowingly” helped Clemmons and whether the aggravating factors charged against him should apply.
Allen, 40, is charged with four counts of aggravated premeditated first-degree murder, the state’s highest crime.
The jury also is being asked to find that he or Clemmons was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crimes. Such a finding would add time to his sentence – five years per count – if convicted.
Prosecutors say Allen drove Clemmons to and from the vicinity of a Parkland coffee shop where Clemmons shot and killed Lakewood police Sgt. Mark Renninger and officers Tina Griswold, Ronald Owens and Gregory Richards on Nov. 29, 2009.
Allen admits he drove Clemmons to a car wash near the coffee shop but insists he didn’t know what Clemmons intended to do.
Jurors were given a multi-page packet of jury instructions before they went into deliberations May 12. The instructions spell out legal definitions, explain the law and include forms to be filled out when a verdict is reached.
The documents have not been made part of the court file yet, but Fleming read them aloud to the jury last week.
To convict Allen as charged, the jury must first find that:
• Clemmons intended to kill the officers (first-degree murder).
• He thought about it beforehand (premeditation).
• The murders were worse than normal (aggravated).
The aggravating circumstances alleged in this case are that Clemmons knew the victims were law enforcement officers engaged in the course of their duties and/or that there were multiple victims.
Those facts are virtually undisputed.
The jury must decide whether Allen acted as an accomplice.
In Washington, a person who knowingly aids another person in the commission of a crime – through words, acts, encouragement or support – is guilty of that crime. Lawyers call it accomplice liability.
“Really, the question of the case is did he know or should he have known?” deputy prosecutor Stephen Penner said during his closing argument last week.
So what is knowing?
Penner explained it to the jury: “The law goes on and says if a person has information that would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that a fact exists, then the jury’s permitted but not required to find that person acted with knowledge.”
Penner and his colleague Phil Sorensen presented evidence they believe made the case that Allen did know. Defense attorneys Mary K. High and Peter Mazzone countered with evidence they believe shows their client did not.
Jurors sent out a question Tuesday afternoon that indicates they are struggling with that issue. Is “should have known” enough to make someone an accomplice? they asked.
Penner argued yes during his closing argument. High argued no. Fleming told jurors to consult their jury instructions.
Jurors also asked if both Clemmons and Allen had to have intended for the officers to be killed for Allen to be considered an accomplice. Again, Fleming referred them to their jury instructions, which define in detail what constitutes an accomplice.
If jurors find Allen was an accomplice and therefore guilty of premeditated first-degree murder, they then must decide whether he was “a major participant” in the crime. If they find he was, they then must decide whether the aggravating factors apply to him.
Jurors weren’t told this, but if they decide the aggravators did apply to him, Allen would have to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole – the only sentence aside from the death penalty prescribed for a conviction of aggravated first-degree murder.
Each vote on each verdict form – murder, major participant, aggravators, firearm enhancements – must be unanimous for them to be held against Allen.
It’s possible the jury could convict him of premeditated first-degree murder and not apply the aggravating factors or the firearm enhancements.
That likely would result in a minimum sentence of 40 years for Allen, although prosecutors most likely would ask for more.
It’s also possible the jury could acquit him or fail to reach a unanimous verdict on the murder charge, which would render everything else moot. It’s highly likely prosecutors would re-try Allen should the jury fail to reach a unanimous verdict.
Adam Lynn: 253-597-8644
adam.lynn@thenewstribune.com
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.