After four days of testimony, 21 pieces of evidence, five exhibits, lawyers angling for a favorable decision for their clients and allegations of threats toward family members, a six-member jury on Friday returned a split verdict in an attempted murder case: guilty for one man and acquittal for the other.
Three men and three women went to the back to deliberate at 10:53 a.m. Friday. After several back-and-forth trips to the courtroom to ask questions and view video evidence, the jurors made up their minds at 2:55 p.m.
The courtroom was tense. More than a dozen bailiffs were posted inside and outside the courthouse, as family and friends of the two co-defendants awaited the verdicts. At the conclusion of the trial, bailiffs took turns escorting jurors and other court personnel to their destinations.
Different emotions after the verdict
First up was 29-year-old Patrick Rodriguez Emmanuel. Wearing a shirt, tie and pants, Emmanuel, standing beside his lawyer, Laurie Hall, was told he was not guilty of principal to attempted first-degree murder and four counts of principal to aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony.
Emmanuel smiled and hugged his lawyer. Both were emotional. Hall apologized to the court and Circuit Judge Peter Brigham told her it was OK.
Next was Searron Nathaniel Brooks III, 26. Standing beside his lawyer, Jack Maro, he learned that the jury found him guilty of attempted first-degree murder and four counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was dropped by prosecutors.
Brooks’ family cried, and some left the courtroom. His sentencing hearing was set for next month.
Emmanuel shook Brooks’ hand before Emmanuel was escorted to the back for transport to the county jail. He still faces a battery charge. The judge set bail at $1,000 for that case.
Outside the courtroom, Hall told a reporter that people should always respect a jury’s verdict because “That’s what makes the system work.”
She thanked the jurors for the consideration and time they spent reaching their decision.
“This is not an easy job for me,” she said. Hall is expected to represent Emmanuel in his battery case.
As he was leaving the courtroom to go to the back, Brooks, wearing a shirt and tie, told his family and friends that he loves them. They told him that they also love him.
Brooks had been free on bond when the trial started, but the bond was revoked during the trial by the judge because of Brooks’ alleged outburst and comments during a break.
Maro said it was a “difficult case.” He said the “jury worked hard.”
The lawyer said a second trial is always difficult because the prosecution can find a remedy to fix whatever problems that may have come up in the original trial. (Brooks stood trial last year on these charges, but a jury was unable to reach a verdict and the judge declared a mistrial.)
“We respect the jury’s work,” he said. Maro said he would more than likely represent Brooks in the appeal.
Lawyers’ closing arguements
Prosecutors contend that Brooks fired more than a half dozen shots at 28-year-old Dishon Jechonias Barnes on Feb. 2, 2022. They, along with law enforcement officials, believe Emmanuel was the getaway driver.
In closing arguments, Assistant State Attorney Janine Nixon said Brooks was caught trying to establish an alibi during a video visitation chat with a woman after his arrest.
Nixon said Barnes saw the men through the front windshield. She told jurors she was confident that after they reviewed the evidence, the jurors would find the defendants guilty as charged.
Maro argued that Barnes has a problem with Brooks’ brother that has been ongoing. He said Barnes’ plan was to get rid of Brooks and then carry out his own form of street justice on Brooks’ brother.
The lawyer said Barnes’ wife never told the 911 operator who shot her husband, even though Barnes reportedly told her that Brooks was the triggerman.
He said there was no way Barnes could’ve seen who was in the vehicle because the windows were tinted.
“The lies just keep coming,” Maro said.
Hall said there was no evidence against her client: No fingerprints, no DNA. She said because of Barnes’ vendetta against Brooks, Emmanuel is “collateral damage.”
She pointed out that Emmanuel’s alibi witness, his girlfriend, said he was with her at his grandmother’s residence at the time of the shooting.
Questions and requests from the jury
It appeared the jury’s discussions were focused on a home security video that captured the shooting.
Jurors had a series of questions for the court. The first: Could they watch two clips from the video that captured the shooting? The footage showed to the jury was when the suspected car drove by. The second was of the shooting itself.
Jurors watched the clips several times. They also asked to stop and start the video at different intervals.
For instance, they wanted the video stopped when the shooter exited the car. Secondly, they wanted the video paused when the car slowed down seconds before the shooter’s arm was seen extending from the back seat, and then shots fired.
Approximately 15 minutes later, the jury had a second question and a request. They wanted to watch the video footage after the shooting. They wanted to hear what Barnes said to his wife while he was outside and she was was on the phone with a 911 operator.
The video was replayed several times.
They asked for a transcript of the video, but were told none was available.
Jurors returned to their deliberations. Then, less than 10 minutes later, there was a third question. It was similar to the second question: They wanted to again watch the portion of the video showing Barnes talking with his wife.
After watching the clip at least three times, jurors went to the back.
At 2:54 p.m., jurors signaled they had made up their minds.