Auburn stabbings case

[quietfan 233]

Not exactly football, but Ironbowl related:

http://www.al.com/sportsflash/auburn/index...torylist=auburn

Mobile man charged in Auburn stabbings goes to trial

6/27/2006, 8:13 a.m. CT

The Associated Press   

AUBURN, Ala. (AP) — A Mobile man accused of stabbing five Auburn University students during last year's Iron Bowl weekend goes on trial today in Lee County circuit court.

22-year-old Joey Michael Barrett was charged with five counts of second-degree assault and two counts of third-degree assault.

According to Auburn police, Barrett allegedly yelled "Roll Tide" near the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity house in the early morning hours of November 19th, 2005 and a melee broke out.

Seven Auburn students were injured in the fight -- three were seriously injured and required hospitalization. All have since recovered and are expected to testify in the trial.

Jury selection is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. before Circuit Judge Jacob Walker.

[WinCrimson 61]

And people say that Army/Navy is the bigger rivalry.

[Draven 0]

And people say that Army/Navy is the bigger rivalry.

243658[/snapback]

On a national scale I would agree but on intensity hands down IB.

[WinCrimson 61]

I disagree.

I've never watched that weak sauce game. I don't care to watch two 1-10 teams play. That game is no different than UL-Monroe vs Arkansas State to me.

However I do realize that the members of the Army and Navy may feel different. Just not me.....

[AUesquire 1]

Just foolish all the way around. I know we had extensive debate about this and all sorts of accounts of what happened out there. But, the bottom line is that a bunch of young people were seriously injured and another is on trial and facing some bad stuff because....someone yelled "Roll Tide".

Yea, yea, yea, I know there's probably more to it than that but, had someone been killed, and they very well could have been, is there anything that happened that night that could justify a loss of life?

[GalensGhost 0]

Just foolish all the way around.  I know we had extensive debate about this and all sorts of accounts of what happened out there.  But, the bottom line is that a bunch of young people were seriously injured and another is on trial and facing some bad stuff because....someone yelled "Roll Tide".

Yea, yea, yea, I know there's probably more to it than that but, had someone been killed, and they very well could have been, is there anything that happened that night that could justify a loss of life?

243683[/snapback]

You're really not taking "this thing of ours" seriously enough, it seems.

Note: "This thing of ours" is allegedly how the members of certain familial (and some allege criminal) organizations refer to their kinship. Being a Sopranos fan and Auburn fanatic, I kind of like that concept. When you're in, you're in and there's no getting out. It comes ahead of everything. Sacrifice for the good of others in your "family" is not only expected, but embraced. This thing of ours. It may never catch on beyond me saying it, but expect to see it from now on from me.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

Just foolish all the way around.  I know we had extensive debate about this and all sorts of accounts of what happened out there.  But, the bottom line is that a bunch of young people were seriously injured and another is on trial and facing some bad stuff because....someone yelled "Roll Tide".

Yea, yea, yea, I know there's probably more to it than that but, had someone been killed, and they very well could have been, is there anything that happened that night that could justify a loss of life?

243683[/snapback]

Wasn't it more than just yelling 'roh tahd' in the normal delusional obsessed uat fan behavior? Seems apparent that the resulting injuries were due to the fool pulling/wielding a knife in an unsafe manner, after provoking the fight in the "wee hours" across from the fraternity house. Call me suspicious but I think his motive was beyond anything related to the IB rivalry.

[freebody 0]

I disagree.

I've never watched that weak sauce game. I don't care to watch two 1-10 teams play. That game is no different than UL-Monroe vs Arkansas State to me.

However I do realize that the members of the Army and Navy may feel different. Just not me.....

243681[/snapback]

A bit ironic there. So what you're saying is "tradition" doesn't matter today, but "tradishun" should?

[AUesquire 1]

The night of the IB, 4 of us, including my wife, were walking down Glenn enjoying another victory over the Tide. In front of us was a group of 4-5 students (They looked to be that age). Coming towards us was another group of about 5 students and they apparently brushed too close to one another as they passed by.

Words were passed and in about 5 seconds time, a haymaker was thrown, landing squarely on the jaw of one guy, knocking him to the ground. One girl in the group was knocked down as well (Thank God she didn't lose grip on her cell phone or she might have gotten cut off...she continued her conversation while sprawled on the ground)

Anyway, I was sure the guy who got decked was gonna' get up with a mad on. One problem, he was blind. These guys and girls were all Auburn fans, probably students and definitely drunk. And all it took was brushing too close to each other as they passed by.

No tellin' what a "Roh Tahd" will get you on frat row in the wee hours of the morning.

[AUesquire 1]

Let me clarify where I'm coming from before some folks jump in with both feet. I'm NOT defending the absolute IDIOT that apparently provoked this whole incident. I am saying that regardless of how anyone tries to rationalize the actions of any of those involved, I think you'll find that this entire situation was needless and came close to getting somebody killed. I've also "Been there, done that". And thankfully, I made it through and am hopefully wiser for it.

Year before last, we took my buddy's RV to the AU/UGA game and parked right at the beginning of fraternity row. We sat out in a couple of lounge chairs by the road until about 2:00 a.m.....watching the carnival. We watched in amazement while hundreds of very blitzed young folks walked past our spot. We saw, drunk face plants on the pavement, 2 fights, one real mean break-up, two guys walking over the TOPS of the cars parked along the road, a group dragging a passed out compadre to the car....

Another typical football Friday night on a college campus. I can safely say, without ANY reservations, that if someone had yelled ROH TAHD anywhere from midnight on, somebody would have been hurt. Maybe killed.

[freebody 0]

The night of the IB, 4 of us, including my wife, were walking down Glenn enjoying another victory over the Tide.  In front of us was a group of 4-5 students (They looked to be that age).  Coming towards us was another group of about 5 students and they apparently brushed too close to one another as they passed by.

Words were passed and in about 5 seconds time, a haymaker was thrown, landing squarely on the jaw of one guy, knocking him to the ground.  One girl in the group was knocked down as well (Thank God she didn't lose grip on her cell phone or she might have gotten cut off...she continued her conversation while sprawled on the ground)

Anyway, I was sure the guy who got decked was gonna' get up with a mad on.  One problem, he was blind.  These guys and girls were all Auburn fans, probably students and definitely drunk.  And all it took was brushing too close to each other as they passed by. 

No tellin' what a "Roh Tahd" will get you on frat row in the wee hours of the morning.

243744[/snapback]

Wow, a real sucker punch - he never saw it comin'! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[CCTAU 3,335]

Let me clarify where I'm coming from before some folks jump in with both feet.  I'm NOT defending the absolute IDIOT that apparently provoked this whole incident.  I am saying that regardless of how anyone tries to rationalize the actions of any of those involved, I think you'll find that this entire situation was needless and came close to getting somebody killed.  I've also "Been there, done that".  And thankfully, I made it through and am hopefully wiser for it.

Year before last, we took my buddy's RV to the AU/UGA game and parked right at the beginning of fraternity row.  We sat out in a couple of lounge chairs by the road until about 2:00 a.m.....watching the carnival.  We watched in amazement while hundreds of very blitzed young folks walked past our spot.  We saw, drunk face plants on the pavement, 2 fights, one real mean break-up, two guys walking over the TOPS of the cars parked along the road, a group dragging a passed out compadre to the car....

Another typical football Friday night on a college campus.  I can safely say, without ANY reservations, that if someone had yelled ROH TAHD anywhere from midnight on, somebody would have been hurt.  Maybe killed.

243746[/snapback]

You should have taped that. Would have been a nice documentary on how some folks can't hold their liquor. And maybe the one dude that walked on the cars could have been sued for damage.

[WinCrimson 61]

I disagree.

I've never watched that weak sauce game. I don't care to watch two 1-10 teams play. That game is no different than UL-Monroe vs Arkansas State to me.

However I do realize that the members of the Army and Navy may feel different. Just not me.....

243681[/snapback]

A bit ironic there. So what you're saying is "tradition" doesn't matter today, but "tradishun" should?

243740[/snapback]

The tradition aspect of the game is pretty cool. From the President coming to the singing of the other teams fight song to all of the servicemen in uniform... It's just that those are generally going to be 2 of the weaker teams in the nation. That game never has any national implications, to sum it all up...

A question about the "tradishun" line- How do you pronounce the word?

I'll hang up and listen.

[quietfan 233]

An update:

http://www.al.com/sportsflash/auburn/index...torylist=auburn

OPELIKA, Ala. (AP) — An attorney for a Mobile man accused of stabbing three Auburn University fraternity members on the eve of last year's football game with Alabama said another man will admit to the stabbings on the witness stand.

Attorney Joey Williams said in his opening statement Tuesday that Joey Michael Barrett Jr. did not stab the members of Phi Kappa Tau fraternity.

"Joey Barrett Jr. didn't stab anyone," Williams said. "In fact, we will bring another person to the stand that will tell you that after a long struggle, after trying to flee, that he was the one who did the stabbing. If that's not reasonable doubt, I don't know what is. That makes Joe Barrett Jr. an innocent man."

Williams said fraternity members under the influence of alcohol started the fight that left seven students injured, three requiring hospitalization.

Lee County Assistant District Attorney David Glanzer called six men involved in the altercation to the witness stand to provide their accounts of what happened.

The six prosecution witnesses, including David Atlee, said that Barrett and two others were at the fraternity house and became loud, yelling "Roll Tide" and other things. They testified that the fight began when Atlee asked the men to leave.

Another witness, Travis Sewell, was the most seriously injured, with two stab wounds that collapsed both lungs. He spent five days in the hospital after the attack.

Almost sounds like a TV drama or soap opera...a surprize witness from out of nowhere? Seven victims identified the wrong man? Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Mistrial Declared

Mistrial declared in stabbing case

Mitch Sneed and Jessica R. Elmore  / Staff Writers

June 29, 2006

A mistrial was declared Wednesday in the Auburn University fraternity stabbing case after a witness the defense promised would take the stand and confess decided not to testify.

After two days of testimony outlining how a pre-Iron Bowl melee broke out near the fraternity house at 841 W. Magnolia Ave., jurors were dismissed after Judge Jacob Walker said they had been "irreparably prejudiced."

In his opening statement on Tuesday, defense attorney John Williams told jurors that his client, Joey Barrett Jr., didn’t stab anyone.

"In fact, we will bring another person to the stand that will tell you that after a long struggle, after trying to flee, that he was the one who did the stabbing," Williams said.

Wednesday morning, Williams identified that man as 38-year-old Louie Lotz of Mobile. Defense witnesses Chris Mitchell and Curt Cockrell both said that Lotz had been with the group, and said that he was the person responsible for the stabbings.

Walker interviewed Lotz without the jury present to inform him of his rights. In that interview, he discovered Lotz is classified as Educable Mentally Retarded, has been in special ed classes throughout school, can hardly read or write, and has been declared disabled. Lotz also had not consulted an attorney.

Walker assigned two attorneys to represent Lotz, including Margaret Brown of Auburn. When it was time for Lotz to testify, Walker sent the jury out and Lotz, through his attorney, exercised his right not to testify.

Assistant Lee County District Attorney David Glanzer then asked for a mistrial.

"The jury has been prejudiced by that statement in opening arguments and that could be cause for a mistrial," Walker said. "... I’m sure that was said in good faith, but you can’t unring that bell."

After giving the prosecution and defense time to research the matter, Walker returned and rendered his decision.

"The state has asked for a mistrial in this case," Walker said. "The defense stated in opening arguments that a witness would come in and take responsibility for these actions. When that person was called he asserted his Fifth Amendment right. ... Based on that, I will grant the state’s motion."

Glanzer said evidence showed that Barrett did the stabbings and that one witness said he never saw anyone that looked like Lotz at the scene. Lotz would have made four men in the group, but none of the seven witnesses called by the prosecution said there were any more than three in the group involved in the fracas with members of the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity.

"I don’t know if he was here or not, but I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to question him with his taking the Fifth," Glanzer said. "Now we will have the opportunity to go back and investigate this further. We didn’t know who else was with Mr. Barrett then. Now we know. We may seek additional charges based on what we heard here."

The defense team said they were disappointed in Walker’s decision.

"I feel like the jury was going to acquit this man," defense attorney Dennis Knizley said. "The judge did what he thought was right, but I’m confident that he would have been acquitted with that witness’s testimony or not. The witnesses against Mr. Barrett had too many inconsistencies in their statements and I’m sure the jury saw that."

"We’re disappointed that now this young man has to go through all this again, but nothing is going to change the fact that he didn’t stab anyone."

Jurors indicated that they agreed with Knizley.

"I’m kind of disappointed," said juror Brett Howell, 23. "I would have voted not guilty."

When asked, a number of the jurors indicated that they would have voted not guilty, citing inconsistencies in prosecution witness statements. However, a show of hands was not unanimous.

No date was set for Barrett to be brought back to trial, but it could come as soon as October.

Dang attorneys, no offense Legal or Esquire!! I can't help but feel this was nothing but a smoke screen the whole time for the defense, knowing this other guy was not suitable for trial or whatever!! Easy way to get a mistrial, cry wolf in opening statement to set up the big finale. I live here so it's my taxpaying money be used over again as this will go to trial again.

Esquire and Legal, I would love to hear your thoughts on this???

[quietfan 233]

Mistrial Declared

Mistrial declared in stabbing case

Mitch Sneed and Jessica R. Elmore  / Staff Writers

June 29, 2006

A mistrial was declared Wednesday in the Auburn University fraternity stabbing case after a witness the defense promised would take the stand and confess decided not to testify.

After two days of testimony outlining how a pre-Iron Bowl melee broke out near the fraternity house at 841 W. Magnolia Ave., jurors were dismissed after Judge Jacob Walker said they had been "irreparably prejudiced."

In his opening statement on Tuesday, defense attorney John Williams told jurors that his client, Joey Barrett Jr., didn’t stab anyone.

"In fact, we will bring another person to the stand that will tell you that after a long struggle, after trying to flee, that he was the one who did the stabbing," Williams said.

Wednesday morning, Williams identified that man as 38-year-old Louie Lotz of Mobile. Defense witnesses Chris Mitchell and Curt Cockrell both said that Lotz had been with the group, and said that he was the person responsible for the stabbings.

Walker interviewed Lotz without the jury present to inform him of his rights. In that interview, he discovered Lotz is classified as Educable Mentally Retarded, has been in special ed classes throughout school, can hardly read or write, and has been declared disabled. Lotz also had not consulted an attorney.

Walker assigned two attorneys to represent Lotz, including Margaret Brown of Auburn. When it was time for Lotz to testify, Walker sent the jury out and Lotz, through his attorney, exercised his right not to testify.

Assistant Lee County District Attorney David Glanzer then asked for a mistrial.

"The jury has been prejudiced by that statement in opening arguments and that could be cause for a mistrial," Walker said. "... I’m sure that was said in good faith, but you can’t unring that bell."

After giving the prosecution and defense time to research the matter, Walker returned and rendered his decision.

"The state has asked for a mistrial in this case," Walker said. "The defense stated in opening arguments that a witness would come in and take responsibility for these actions. When that person was called he asserted his Fifth Amendment right. ... Based on that, I will grant the state’s motion."

Glanzer said evidence showed that Barrett did the stabbings and that one witness said he never saw anyone that looked like Lotz at the scene. Lotz would have made four men in the group, but none of the seven witnesses called by the prosecution said there were any more than three in the group involved in the fracas with members of the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity.

"I don’t know if he was here or not, but I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to question him with his taking the Fifth," Glanzer said. "Now we will have the opportunity to go back and investigate this further. We didn’t know who else was with Mr. Barrett then. Now we know. We may seek additional charges based on what we heard here."

The defense team said they were disappointed in Walker’s decision.

"I feel like the jury was going to acquit this man," defense attorney Dennis Knizley said. "The judge did what he thought was right, but I’m confident that he would have been acquitted with that witness’s testimony or not. The witnesses against Mr. Barrett had too many inconsistencies in their statements and I’m sure the jury saw that."

"We’re disappointed that now this young man has to go through all this again, but nothing is going to change the fact that he didn’t stab anyone."

Jurors indicated that they agreed with Knizley.

"I’m kind of disappointed," said juror Brett Howell, 23. "I would have voted not guilty."

When asked, a number of the jurors indicated that they would have voted not guilty, citing inconsistencies in prosecution witness statements. However, a show of hands was not unanimous.

No date was set for Barrett to be brought back to trial, but it could come as soon as October.

Dang attorneys, no offense Legal or Esquire!! I can't help but feel this was nothing but a smoke screen the whole time for the defense, knowing this other guy was not suitable for trial or whatever!! Easy way to get a mistrial, cry wolf in opening statement to set up the big finale. I live here so it's my taxpaying money be used over again as this will go to trial again.

Esquire and Legal, I would love to hear your thoughts on this???

244149[/snapback]

Just curious: John Williams wouldn't be part of the T. Gallion law firm, would he? ...seems to have the same magical touch for trying the case everywhere but in front of the jury.

[AUesquire 1]

If it was just a tactic by the defense to cause a mistrial, then it's reprehensible. If he truly believed this guy would come and testify, he's doing a great job for his client. Regardless, the key statement in that last article concerns the fact that "A number of jurors" would have voted not guilty anyway because of inconsistencies in the prosecutions' witnesses testimony. When they tee it up again, and IF they don't have this other guy cuffed with a confession, the next jury won't hear about the knife wielding man on the grassy knoll.

They may still let the guy off anyway if the prosecution can't get all these witnesses' stories straight.

[tgr4lfe 220]

If it was just a tactic by the defense to cause a mistrial, then it's reprehensible.  If he truly believed this guy would come and testify, he's doing a great job for his client.  Regardless, the key statement in that last article concerns the fact that "A number of jurors" would have voted not guilty anyway because of inconsistencies in the prosecutions' witnesses testimony.  When they tee it up again, and IF they don't have this other guy cuffed with a confession, the next jury won't hear about the knife wielding man on the grassy knoll.

They may still let the guy off anyway if the prosecution can't get all these witnesses' stories straight.

244157[/snapback]

That just begs the question though of how much of their "not guilty" vote is really hinged on the "they guy that really did it is going to talk" and not so much the facts. These folks are clueless. They are more than likely just rehashing what the defense spun doctored into thier head.

[quietfan 233]

I'm not really happy that I don't have a lot of respect for the quality of the typical American jury these days, but unfortunately there haven't been many that have impressed me in recent years.

[AUesquire 1]

That typical American jury is you and me brother. Unfortunately, most of the general public's opinion is based solely on what the media feeds us. And those cases are usually high profile cases or cases that actually had a crazy outcome, that being the only reason for reporting on it in the first place. It has a tendency to sway our perception of our system as a whole.

We also only hear the tiny little bits of information we are fed by the media and many times base our judgment on that alone. The bottom line is that we weren't in the courtroom, we didn't hear the actual testimony, we didn't hear the spin or have access to what evidence came in and what was left out. We also didn't hear the Judge's instructions to the jury as to what they could and could not consider when deciding the case. What actually goes on in most courtrooms is a far cry from the spin and slants we hear from the media and the Law & Order mentality most of the public has.

Philosophical ramblings off.

[quietfan 233]

That typical American jury is you and me brother.  Unfortunately, most of the general public's opinion is based solely on what the media feeds us.  And those cases are usually high profile cases or cases that actually had a crazy outcome, that being the only reason for reporting on it in the first place.  It has a tendency to sway our perception of our system as a whole.

We also only hear the tiny little bits of information we are fed by the media and many times base our judgment on that alone.  The bottom line is that we weren't in the courtroom, we didn't hear the actual testimony, we didn't hear the spin or have access to what evidence came in and what was left out.  We also didn't hear the Judge's instructions to the jury as to what they could and could not consider when deciding the case.  What actually goes on in most courtrooms is a far cry from the spin and slants we hear from the media and the Law & Order mentality most of the public has.

Philosophical ramblings off.

244225[/snapback]

You're absolutely right about what we hear from most courtrooms being well filtered through the media apparatus before it reaches us.

I would be a little concerned about jurors making these sort of statements, however:

Jurors indicated that they agreed with Knizley.

"I’m kind of disappointed," said juror Brett Howell, 23. "I would have voted not guilty."

When asked, a number of the jurors indicated that they would have voted not guilty, citing inconsistencies in prosecution witness statements.

Seems like this implies that these jurors had already made their decision before both sides had presented their full cases, rebuttals, and summations. Something of a rush to judgement, IMO. I'd prefer jurors that kept their minds open until after summations and judge's instructions.

It's just my impression, of course, but I worry that jurors too often lean toward voting their emotions rather than what logic or the evidence says. Of course, the last time I answered a jury summons--just a few months ago--the lawyers seemed pretty quick & eager to strike me after I answered a few of their questions to that effect, so maybe it's just me.

[WinCrimson 61]

That typical American jury is you and me brother.  Unfortunately, most of the general public's opinion is based solely on what the media feeds us.  And those cases are usually high profile cases or cases that actually had a crazy outcome, that being the only reason for reporting on it in the first place.  It has a tendency to sway our perception of our system as a whole.

We also only hear the tiny little bits of information we are fed by the media and many times base our judgment on that alone.  The bottom line is that we weren't in the courtroom, we didn't hear the actual testimony, we didn't hear the spin or have access to what evidence came in and what was left out.  We also didn't hear the Judge's instructions to the jury as to what they could and could not consider when deciding the case.  What actually goes on in most courtrooms is a far cry from the spin and slants we hear from the media and the Law & Order mentality most of the public has.

Philosophical ramblings off.

244225[/snapback]

Nice post! I might even eek out a War Da... War Damn... War Damn Eag... well, you understand it's just to hard for me to do.

Where'd you go to law school, man?