Commentary: A juror reflects on a murder trial and the verdict

Editor's Note: Within hours after the jury returned a verdict in the trial of Aaron Schaffer in Greene Circuit Court a couple of weeks ago, one juror expressed feeling unsettled by it all and said he thought the law was satisfied by the jury's decision, but he was not sure justice was done. The jury had faced a difficult decision, and they were divided. Now, the juror explains some of the factors in the case, as he understood it, the instructions given to the jury, and how the jury came to a unanimous decision. The juror's opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else who served on the jury.

I was a juror on this case.

THE EVIDENCE, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT

What was known beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Schaffer shot Bowers five times and killed him;

2. Schaffer claimed he acted in self-defense;

3. No weapon was found near Bowers;

4. The area where the shooting took place was lit by a security light. According to the Indiana State Police crime scene investigator, not brightly lit, not dimly lit, but in between;

5. The firearms expert testified that Schaffer's pistol, which held five rounds, could be emptied in two or three seconds, if the trigger were continuously pulled and released;

6. It was not possible for the forensic experts, or the crime scene investigators, to identify the order in which the shots were fired/wounds were inflicted;

7. One shot, which entered through Bowers left tricep, exited his bicep, and then grazed his left temple, caused "stippling," that is, gunpowder residue, which means it was inflicted at close (less than 48 inches) range;

8. Another shot, whose entry was at the back of the head, and which would have had a fatal effect, also caused stippling, and therefore was also inflicted at close range;

9. The other three shots/wounds caused no stippling, and therefore were described as being inflicted from a distance of greater than four feet;

10. Two shots produced injuries which the medical expert said would have been fatal. Both were inflicted from behind;

11. Bowers wounds were described by the medical expert as being defensive in nature;

12. Ten or more years ago, Bowers had shot and killed a man, was convicted, and served time;

13. Shan Bowers relationship with Stacy Bowers, his wife, involved some rough treatment of Stacy by Shan;

14. Stacy and Shan drank more than moderately;

15. No evidence was presented, and as the jury found out after the verdict, no evidence was allowed to be presented, by the State, relating to Schaffer's (Aaron's) past. His past was not entirely unblemished;

16. Aaron turned himself in to the police less than an hour after the shooting, waived his Miranda rights, and was interviewed by police;

17. Shan, on an occasion some months prior to the April of the shooting, when Aaron and his wife had come to Shan and Stacy's to give a small gift to Stacy, had told Aaron to leave his property, which he and his family did;

18. Shan left an Easter outing earlier the day of the shooting, leaving Stacy there, and appeared to some people there to have been angry when he left;

19. On the night of the shooting, Aaron was taking Stacy home at her request. Approximately a mile and a half from the Bowers home Aaron stopped at the Country Porch to get cigarettes. Stacy got out to purchase them. Aaron drove away from the Country Porch while Stacy was in the store, without speaking to Stacy, and proceeded to the Bowers home alone.

Schaffer's Interview by Police:

1. The jury viewed two videos of the interviews of Aaron by the Greene County Sheriff's Detectives, taken at approximately 10:00 p.m. and 3:30 a.m.

2. Aaron had waived his Miranda rights, and appeared calm and matter-of-fact in the interviews;

3. Aaron stated that he had gone out to the Bowers home, without Stacy, to attempt to calm things (as Shan had left the outing without Stacy, and may have been angry) and be able to bring Stacy to her home without risking an aggressive reaction by Shan toward Stacy;

4. Aaron said that: a. He knocked at Shan's door and spoke calmly with him, assuring Shan that nothing occurred at the Easter outing that should anger him; b. Shan told Aaron to leave his property; c. Aaron turned around and started walking toward his truck. He heard the door to the house close. Seconds later he heard the door open again; d. Shan told Aaron again to get off his property, and, in one of the interviews, Aaron said Shan threatened to shoot him if he turned around; e. Aaron said he could hear Shan approaching him from behind, so he turned, knelt and shot, emptying the pistol of its five rounds; f. Aaron approached Shan when Shan was down, but did not verify, other than visually, whether Shan was dead or not; g. Schaffer did not call 911, but left to return to the Country Porch, after the shooting.

THE LAW

Protections for Any Defendant:

Indiana and US law both presume that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Indiana and US laws are deliberately constructed to protect the innocent, rather than to make it easier to convict the guilty.

A defendant has the right to not testify, and the fact that a defendant does not testify cannot be used to infer anything about his guilt or innocence.

If more than one interpretation of the facts presented in a trial is possible, the interpretation more favorable to the defendant should be given greater weight by the jury.

The decision of the jury must be unanimous.

From the instructions to the jury:

Instruction no. 16: In determining whether the guilt or innocence of the accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should require that the proof be so conclusive and sure as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.

Instruction no. 17: You should fit the evidence to the presumption that the Defendant is innocent if you can do so. If the evidence in this case is susceptible of two constructions or interpretations, each of which appears to you to be reasonable, and one of which points to the guilt of the Defendant, and the other to his innocence, it is your duty, under the law, to adopt that interpretation which is consistent with the Defendant's innocence, and reject that which points to his guilt.

Instruction no. 18: If you find that there is a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of the crime, you must give the Defendant the benefit of that doubt and find the Defendant not guilty of the crime under consideration.

Murder: From the written instructions provided to the jury before deliberation, the crime of murder is defined by law as: a person who knowingly kills another human being commits murder.

Self-defense: A valid claim of self-defense is legal justification for an otherwise criminal act.

Instruction no. 8: A person may use reasonable force against another person to protect himself from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force, and does not have a duty to retreat, only if he reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to himself ... However, a person may not use force if: He is not in a place where he had a right to be.

JURY DELIBERATIONS

The critical issue for the jury was whether Aaron had acted in self-defense.

If Aaron's interviews are accepted as true descriptions of what happened at the Bowers that night, Aaron could have believed he was in imminent danger of being shot by Shan.

If Aaron believed he was in imminent danger of being shot, then his use of his own pistol could be considered the use of proportionate force.

The wounds which Shan suffered were described as being "defensive." The wound to the left arm entered from the front, and was inflicted from a distance of four feet or less. If Aaron's interview description of what happened is accepted as true, Shan had approached Aaron to within four feet. The other wounds were inflicted from the side (while either Shan or Schaffer were turning) or from behind, while Shan was retreating. In either case, the imminent threat to Aaron might be considered to have ended, when Shan turned aside, or retreated, and the defense of self-defense would not have been applicable when the threat Aaron may have believed to be imminent ceased.

The jury was not clear whether Stacy's request to be taken home constituted an invitation from her that would negate the demand from Shan months prior that Aaron leave his property, so that Aaron would be at a place he had a right to be, if he had accompanied Stacy to her home that night.

However, since Aaron left Stacy at the Country Porch and proceeded alone to the Bowers, was Aaron, when he was at the Bowers property that night "in a place where he had a right to be?"

The jury specifically asked the trial judge whether Stacy's request to be taken home functioned as an invitation with equal, but opposite, effect to Shan's prior demand that Aaron leave his property. The judge's response referred us back to the instructions to the jury, which did not deal specifically with this issue. We did not specifically question whether Aaron, having left Stacy at the Country Porch and proceeded to Bowers home alone was, when he arrived, "in a place where he had a right to be."

No weapon was found on or near Shan. If Aaron could perceive that when he shot, it is reasonable to conclude that he used disproportionate force, and the claim of self-defense was invalid.

The jury was deadlocked after four hours of discussion. The majority had concluded that the claim of self-defense was justified. After additional discussion, the jury concluded that either the claim of self-defense was justified, or that there was a reasonable doubt that it was not justified, which should be resolved in favor of the Defendant.

Ultimately, there can be a difference between the law, which protects the innocent, and justice, which should, ideally, presume that it knows the truth.

To Stacy Bowers:

Nothing I, nor anyone else, can say or do will change the past, or erase the pain and sorrow you have had to bear this past year.

But most of your life is ahead of you. It will not be easy, but with the strength you have, which I believe I saw in you when you testified, and the grace of a higher power, you can free yourself of some of the burdens you have carried. There are people who will help you in this, if you will only seek them out, and ask for their help.

Whatever you choose to do, may the Lord bless and keep you, make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

To Aaron Schaffer:

The next forty-five years of your life was balanced on a knife edge in the jury room. You should be on your knees every morning and every evening thanking God for each day you have with your family. Whatever is the absolute truth of what happened that evening only you now know.

Whatever the absolute truth of that evening, your actions then deprived Shan of everything.

The law no longer has a hold on you. But a higher power does.

By your life now, and in the future, you need to become worthy of the reprieve you have been given.

As For Me:

I will live with the doubt that I did the right thing in this jury's decision for the rest of my life.