Carriker Jury: “The law is wrong”

A Sedgwick County jury acquitted Kyler Carriker on the charge of felony murder, yesterday, after prosecutors Trinity Muth and Jennifer Amyx presented their case.

At the crux of Muth and Amyx’ argument was that the jury was required, by law, to deliver a guilty verdict for felony murder, if the state proved that Carriker arranged the drug deal that ultimately ended in Ronald Betts’ death.

However, the jury determined that Carriker could be guilty of arranging that deal, and still be innocent of felony murder. Defense attorney Sarah Swain argued that the drug deal did not cause Betts’ death, but that instead, a robbery, committed by Dennis Haynes, John Carter, and Lorenzo Spires, was the inherently dangerous felony that killed Betts.

In what is being lauded as a brilliant move, Swain did not present a case in Carriker’s defense. Swain used her cross-examination of the state’s witnesses, and her closing argument to convince the jury that, despite what the prosecution, and even what the judge had told them, that they, the jurors, were the finders of fact in this case, and that they had the right to decide whether the drug deal, or the robbery caused Betts’ death.

After delivering their verdict, members of the jury informed Carriker and his family that they felt that the “law is wrong”.

That same jury did convict Carriker on the much lesser charge of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance for arranging the drug deal, but refused to accept the prosecution’s stance, and the judge’s direct order, which required them to also find Carriker guilty of felony murder.

The felony murder rule states that if a defendant is found to be in the commission of an inherently dangerous felony that results in the death of an individual, that the defendant is just as responsible for murder as the person who pulls the trigger, but Swain, and the defendant’s mother, Jennifer Winn, along with the jury in this case, disagreed.

Swain told reporters that she felt that justice had been served, and that her client was being held to account for his actions, and only his actions.

Jennifer Winn, who ran against Kansas Governor Sam Brownback in the 2014 gubernatorial election, says that no one should be punished for the actions of another person.

As the verdict was read, over a dozen uniformed sheriff deputies and one uniformed Wichita police officer stood at the ready in the courtroom, strategically placed all around the inside perimeter of the room. The day before the jury reached its verdict, a man known to police for walking about town in a mask, carrying an assault rifle, posted a threat on Facebook.

That man, Sam McCrory, made comments about storming the courthouse with guns, and killing police officers, in the event that Carriker was found guilty. McCrory was not affiliated with Carriker’s family, nor was he affiliated with the protests that took place throughout the duration of the trial.

McCrory showed up to one of those demonstrations this past Monday, openly carrying a firearm on his hip, and was told by multiple protesters and members of Kyler’s family that he would not be welcome if he insisted on wearing the firearm. Eventually, McCrory was convinced to conceal the firearm, but his presence still made many protesters uncomfortable.

McCrory has a history of showing up, uninvited, to protests, carrying weapons, which does not align with the peaceful nature of those protests. Carriker’s family and his supporters applauded McCrory’s arrest, which took place prior to the verdict being read.

In a press conference, Sheriff Jeff Easter mistakenly told reporters that Carriker’s jury had not been exposed to the massive influx of security at the courthouse. Earlier that day, while the jury was in the courtroom after requesting to have witness testimony read back to them, four uniformed sheriff deputies stood guard in the courtroom. Two of those deputies fell asleep multiple times during that one hour period.

Carriker now awaits sentencing on the charge of possession with intent to sell a controlled substance, but the sentencing guidelines for that crime are significantly lower than the 20 year mandatory minimum sentence he faced on the charge of felony murder.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury decides that despite a defendant being guilty of a crime, in accordance with the law, that the law itself is unjust. Nullification was one of the driving forces behind the end of alcohol prohibition, but jurors are no longer instructed that they have the right to nullify the law.

The judge in Carriker’s case did not permit defense attorney Swain to inform the jury of these rights, but protesters carried signs and wrote messages about jury nullification on their own vehicles, which were parked in front of the courthouse during the trial.

Read more about Kyler Carriker’s case

Kyler Carriker embraces his mother, immediately following his acquittal on the charge of felony murder
Kyler Carriker embraces his mother, immediately following his acquittal on the charge of felony murder

7 thoughts on “Carriker Jury: “The law is wrong”

  1. Congratulations to Kyler and his family. Nice work to those who stood outside teaching about Jury nullification. Nice work Sarah Swain. This is wonderful news!

    How evil is it of a judge to not allow a jury to know about JURY NULLIFICATION?

    How difficult is it for all of the people to learn to stand up for one another?

    How about WE THE PEOPLE start taking care of one another and stop sending one another to cement cages? As if people didn’t have children to raise, parents to take care of and friends to fish with? As if WE THE PEOPLE are meaningless beast of burden waiting only to be slaughtered. How about we all start treating one another like we are created in the image of God?

    1. “showing up, uninvited, to protests, carrying weapons, which does not align with the peaceful nature of those protests.”

      Anyone else notice this comment. Basically they are saying lawfully carrying a gun = violence!?

  2. We are taking back our freedom. Bringing justice back into the courtrooms! Letting the jurors know their right to judge the laws. This can save the lives of so many. When we mass incarcerate, we cause a cancer in the community, emotional loss of parental/ child relationship, financial burdens and obligation must be taken on, often by the overburdened communities while corporations, groups and businesses profit in the pain and misery of others. Mass incarceration, like the drug war is a failure.The three P’s of incarceration in America,: punishment, politics and profit have left us social corrupt. finacial broken and morally bankrupt.
    Now we must rise from the ashes of this War on Drugs and work to rebuild those who have been hurt the most. There must be sweeping changes because of the insidious way this discrimination has permeated the societal culture, When we stand together, fill every courtroom, Prohibition will end,

  3. The problem with being a jury nullification advocate is surviving the Voir Dire process to get onto a jury.

    I like FIJA’s (the Fully Informed Jury Association) take on how to accomplish this. Attorneys will not ask you if you are for or against jury nullification during the Voir Dire process, instead, they ask you questions like, “Would you be capable of using only the law to come to your verdict even if you disagree with the particular law in question?” Initially, you might want to answer this question with a “No.”

    But, let’s explore the question a little more in depth. As an example, what if I asked you, “Are you capable of putting your hand down the garbage disposal and turning it on?” Again, you would probably want to answer with a “No”, however, what you were asked was “IF YOU ARE CAPABLE…”, you were not asked IF you would do it. Of course, you are CAPABLE of doing this. You never would, of course, put your hand down the garbage disposal and turn it on but you are certainly capable of doing so.

    Turning our attention back to the attorney’s question, “Would you be capable of using only the law to come to your verdict even if you disagree with the particular law in question?”, of course you are capable of doing this (but of course since you believe in jury nullification (don’t say this out loud), you would never follow this awful law. You can HONESTLY answer “Yes” to this question now. You have not lied, you still support jury nullification and you’re now on the jury and can vote “Not Guilty” on any charge you feel was not justly charged.

  4. “showing up, uninvited, to protests, carrying weapons, which does not align with the peaceful nature of those protests.”

    So they are saying that lawfully carrying a weapon= violence?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s