 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
September 26th, 2009
this case, please see the post from Sept. 9, 2009.
IF THE LIES DIDN’T FIT, WHY’D THEY ACQUIT?
On October 5, 1996, a jury in Hartington, Nebraska
acquitted Eric Stukel of manslaughter in the 3rd
degree, citing a lack of evidence in the case; however,
some jurors now say they regret that decision.
Understanding why the jury made the decision they
did isn’t that difficult. There was a general feeling in
the Cedar County area that this case should have been
a matter for South Dakotans.
All the kids involved in this case had come from South
Dakota, thus it should have been South Dakotans
footing the bill for the trial, South Dakotans losing
pay to sit on a jury, and so forth.
During jury selection one member of the panel
admitted she was friends with Eric Stukel’s mother.
Somehow she arrived on the jury anyway.
When the jury took a straw poll to determine where
jurors stood on conviction at the beginning of
deliberations, eleven of the twelve jurors voted for
guilt.
Stukel’s mother’s friend told the rest of the jury, at
that point, nothing they could say “would change her
mind.”
The weekend was fast approaching. The jury wanted
to get back to their families. Nobody wanted this trial
in the first place. Four years had passed. Convicting
Stukel wasn’t going to bring back some girl none of
them had even known. Besides, had the prosecution
really proven their case without any element of doubt?
In the Cedar County News, an anonymous juror said,
“There was no way we could find him guilty without
any element of doubt.” *
This is gross misunderstanding of the law on the part
of this particular juror. Any element of doubt and
reasonable doubt are two very different things. The
first suggests an absoluteness which is intellectually
dishonest under nearly every circumstance.
This juror, seeming to speak for the group, had little
or no understanding of the law, and her duties as a
juror.
Secondly, according to poorly written Nebraska law,
the prosecution had to prove Tammy died within the
confines of Cedar County.
Forensic pathologists and law enforcement proved
that Tammy didn’t die in that ravine, but as to where
Tammy died, the prosecution never made much of a
case. The fishermen never took the stand. The people
who had heard the altercation at the party never took
the stand. The prosecution presented plenty of
evidence suggesting Stukel was guilty of
manslaughter, but as to where he murdered Tammy,
the jury could only guess.
When Eric Stukel was first arraigned in September,
1995, his attorney Mike Stevens pointed out that to
prove manslaughter in Nebraska the prosecution must
have proof to indicate in which county the crime
happened. According to Stevens, the prosecution did
not have this proof. **
Could Tammy have died in Knox County and not Cedar
County? Both the Stephenson farm and the ravine in
which Tammy’s body were found sat within a short
distance of the county line.
Could Tammy have died within Knox County?
However unlikely, this possibility does exist.
According to a witness in the jury room, based upon
this technicality (at least in part) one by one, eleven
jurors were talked out of their initial verdict and
Eric Stukel walked out of the courtroom a free man.
What was Eric Stukel’s reaction to all this?
He claimed to have loved Tammy. According to a jury,
he was not guilty of killing her. Shouldn’t he want to
know why he was framed? Shouldn’t he want to know
who was really responsible for Tammy’s murder?
Shouldn’t he want to know who was really
responsible for nearly sending him to prison?
Those of us who loved Tammy are desperate for
answers, but Eric Stukel has never acted concerned
for anything but saving his own skin.
In a tenth year reunion album put together by the
Yankton High School Class of 1993, Eric Stukel wrote:
“I fought the law!”
That’s how he sees himself in all this—as a hero
fighting the law. No remorse, no sorrow for Tammy’s
death—just bragging rights. “I fought the law!” ***
The question continues to arise in quiet conversation:
if several people were involved in covering up Eric
Stukel’s crime, why weren’t they charged in the
matter? In a federal court, conspiracy is punishable
with a sentence of up to twenty years. This would
have equaled the maximum time Stukel could have
served for manslaughter.
Once Stukel was acquitted, any chance of prosecuting
his friends for conspiracy or his sister for perjury
became a near impossibility, and had the prosecution
tried to bring up elements of conspiracy during the
trial—Brian Sedlacek and Katie Larson’s appearance at
the dam, Dusty List’s strange statements to law
enforcement—they would have risked muddying and
confusing their case.
In other words, the defense could have simply asked:
“How can we possibly pin the sole blame for Tammy’s
death on Eric Stukel, when several others seem to be
involved? Any one of them could have killed Tammy!”
During pretrial hearings, motions get made and agreed
upon by the prosecution and defense teams. Testimony
like Jason Adamson’s gets thrown out, and suddenly
Eric Stukel is cleaning his car alone and going to the
ravine alone—not what happened at all. Testimony by
the fishermen gets discarded, because the fishermen
insist the girl being assaulted had blond hair.
What about the altercation that was heard at the
party? One person says they heard the altercation; one
person recanted his previous statement about hearing
the altercation; the rest claim to have heard nothing.
Thus, through these sorts of pretrial negotiations,
several pieces to the puzzle suddenly vanish.
The judge gets to make rulings too: Tammy’s picture is
never seen in trial because her beauty might sway the
jury, while Eric Stukel is allowed to clean himself up
to make himself look like a fine, upstanding citizen—
the old adage about putting perfume on a pig seems to
apply here.
Court room tactics also come into play: the defense
subpoenas dozens of Tammy’s friends to keep them
out of the courtroom, with no intention of ever
putting any of them on the stand, while Eric Stukel’s
family and friends fill the seats behind him—a cheap
tactic by the defense meant to sway the jury on a
subconscious level.
Piece by piece and motion by motion, the reality of the
situation gets stripped away until nothing human and
real is left in the process.
This is why a court of law is always the last place to
go looking for truth.
* Cedar County News Staff. “Jurors: Evidence was lacking in
Stukel case.” Cedar County News. Oct 12th, 1996.
** Rothanzl, Lorna. “Suspect Surrenders.” Yankton Press and
Dakotan. Sept. 16, 1995.
*** Eric Stukel wrote this in a 10th year class reunion album put
together by the Yankton High School class of 1993.
this case, please see the post from Sept. 9, 2009.
IF THE LIES DIDN’T FIT, WHY’D THEY ACQUIT?
On October 5, 1996, a jury in Hartington, Nebraska
acquitted Eric Stukel of manslaughter in the 3rd
degree, citing a lack of evidence in the case; however,
some jurors now say they regret that decision.
Understanding why the jury made the decision they
did isn’t that difficult. There was a general feeling in
the Cedar County area that this case should have been
a matter for South Dakotans.
All the kids involved in this case had come from South
Dakota, thus it should have been South Dakotans
footing the bill for the trial, South Dakotans losing
pay to sit on a jury, and so forth.
During jury selection one member of the panel
admitted she was friends with Eric Stukel’s mother.
Somehow she arrived on the jury anyway.
When the jury took a straw poll to determine where
jurors stood on conviction at the beginning of
deliberations, eleven of the twelve jurors voted for
guilt.
Stukel’s mother’s friend told the rest of the jury, at
that point, nothing they could say “would change her
mind.”
The weekend was fast approaching. The jury wanted
to get back to their families. Nobody wanted this trial
in the first place. Four years had passed. Convicting
Stukel wasn’t going to bring back some girl none of
them had even known. Besides, had the prosecution
really proven their case without any element of doubt?
In the Cedar County News, an anonymous juror said,
“There was no way we could find him guilty without
any element of doubt.” *
This is gross misunderstanding of the law on the part
of this particular juror. Any element of doubt and
reasonable doubt are two very different things. The
first suggests an absoluteness which is intellectually
dishonest under nearly every circumstance.
This juror, seeming to speak for the group, had little
or no understanding of the law, and her duties as a
juror.
Secondly, according to poorly written Nebraska law,
the prosecution had to prove Tammy died within the
confines of Cedar County.
Forensic pathologists and law enforcement proved
that Tammy didn’t die in that ravine, but as to where
Tammy died, the prosecution never made much of a
case. The fishermen never took the stand. The people
who had heard the altercation at the party never took
the stand. The prosecution presented plenty of
evidence suggesting Stukel was guilty of
manslaughter, but as to where he murdered Tammy,
the jury could only guess.
When Eric Stukel was first arraigned in September,
1995, his attorney Mike Stevens pointed out that to
prove manslaughter in Nebraska the prosecution must
have proof to indicate in which county the crime
happened. According to Stevens, the prosecution did
not have this proof. **
Could Tammy have died in Knox County and not Cedar
County? Both the Stephenson farm and the ravine in
which Tammy’s body were found sat within a short
distance of the county line.
Could Tammy have died within Knox County?
However unlikely, this possibility does exist.
According to a witness in the jury room, based upon
this technicality (at least in part) one by one, eleven
jurors were talked out of their initial verdict and
Eric Stukel walked out of the courtroom a free man.
What was Eric Stukel’s reaction to all this?
He claimed to have loved Tammy. According to a jury,
he was not guilty of killing her. Shouldn’t he want to
know why he was framed? Shouldn’t he want to know
who was really responsible for Tammy’s murder?
Shouldn’t he want to know who was really
responsible for nearly sending him to prison?
Those of us who loved Tammy are desperate for
answers, but Eric Stukel has never acted concerned
for anything but saving his own skin.
In a tenth year reunion album put together by the
Yankton High School Class of 1993, Eric Stukel wrote:
“I fought the law!”
That’s how he sees himself in all this—as a hero
fighting the law. No remorse, no sorrow for Tammy’s
death—just bragging rights. “I fought the law!” ***
The question continues to arise in quiet conversation:
if several people were involved in covering up Eric
Stukel’s crime, why weren’t they charged in the
matter? In a federal court, conspiracy is punishable
with a sentence of up to twenty years. This would
have equaled the maximum time Stukel could have
served for manslaughter.
Once Stukel was acquitted, any chance of prosecuting
his friends for conspiracy or his sister for perjury
became a near impossibility, and had the prosecution
tried to bring up elements of conspiracy during the
trial—Brian Sedlacek and Katie Larson’s appearance at
the dam, Dusty List’s strange statements to law
enforcement—they would have risked muddying and
confusing their case.
In other words, the defense could have simply asked:
“How can we possibly pin the sole blame for Tammy’s
death on Eric Stukel, when several others seem to be
involved? Any one of them could have killed Tammy!”
During pretrial hearings, motions get made and agreed
upon by the prosecution and defense teams. Testimony
like Jason Adamson’s gets thrown out, and suddenly
Eric Stukel is cleaning his car alone and going to the
ravine alone—not what happened at all. Testimony by
the fishermen gets discarded, because the fishermen
insist the girl being assaulted had blond hair.
What about the altercation that was heard at the
party? One person says they heard the altercation; one
person recanted his previous statement about hearing
the altercation; the rest claim to have heard nothing.
Thus, through these sorts of pretrial negotiations,
several pieces to the puzzle suddenly vanish.
The judge gets to make rulings too: Tammy’s picture is
never seen in trial because her beauty might sway the
jury, while Eric Stukel is allowed to clean himself up
to make himself look like a fine, upstanding citizen—
the old adage about putting perfume on a pig seems to
apply here.
Court room tactics also come into play: the defense
subpoenas dozens of Tammy’s friends to keep them
out of the courtroom, with no intention of ever
putting any of them on the stand, while Eric Stukel’s
family and friends fill the seats behind him—a cheap
tactic by the defense meant to sway the jury on a
subconscious level.
Piece by piece and motion by motion, the reality of the
situation gets stripped away until nothing human and
real is left in the process.
This is why a court of law is always the last place to
go looking for truth.
* Cedar County News Staff. “Jurors: Evidence was lacking in
Stukel case.” Cedar County News. Oct 12th, 1996.
** Rothanzl, Lorna. “Suspect Surrenders.” Yankton Press and
Dakotan. Sept. 16, 1995.
*** Eric Stukel wrote this in a 10th year class reunion album put
together by the Yankton High School class of 1993.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |  |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |