Shooting trial ends in deadlocked jury

Shooting trial ends in deadlocked jury

Mar. 24, 2001

By Aspen C. Emmett
Journal Staff Writer

After more than seven hours of deliberation, a jury failed to reach a unanimous decision in the case of a man who admittedly opened fire on three brothers he believed were a threat to him.

"I find this jury is hopelessly deadlocked," said District Court Judge Sharon Hansen on Friday morning. The trial began Monday, and jury deliberation began shortly after noon on Thursday.

Harry B. Williams, 33, faced charges of felony menacing, prohibited use of a weapon, illegal discharge of a firearm and reckless endangerment, as a result of an altercation in which the truck the men were riding was struck by three bullets. No one was injured, and Williams’ attorney argued that the defendant had been defending himself and his property from men who were overly aggressive in collecting on a $4,800 debt.

Brothers Jim, Daryl and David Whatcott of La Plata Stucco testified that they had gone to Williams’ house by invitation, on the afternoon of June 11, to pick up a check for work they had done on Williams’ home more than six months prior.

An argument ensued, and the Whatcotts said they were leaving when Williams began shooting at them and continued until they were out of range.

Williams, however, claimed that the brothers had not been invited and had threatened him, motivating him to shoot at their truck until they had left his property and the area. Williams said the men had entered his garage and had been aggressive towards him.

District Attorney Joe Olt said his office will definitely retry the case, charging Williams with the same offenses.

"Somebody who shoots at people retreating from his property — we’re not going to allow it," Olt told the Journal.

Williams’ defense attorney, Tim Tuthill, said he believed there were a number of dilemmas the jury struggled with, leading to their divided verdicts.

"He was trying to defend himself and his home," Tuthill said. "I think that’s one of the chief problems the jury had in this case. Obviously the jury had a problem with whether his actions were fully reasonable at that point."

Tuthill said he thought the Whatcott brothers should have been charged with trespass in the incident.

"The thing is, they should have been charged," he said. "They were not innocent actors in this and I know that is the problem that the jury had."

Olt said that he reviewed the police reports and did not feel there was sufficient ground to charge the Whatcotts.

"The police didn’t write them (a ticket for trespass) at all," Olt said. "It was their province to do that at the scene."

Olt said even if there had been a trespass, it was brief and did not justify the action Williams took.

‘I grant you, he may have been defending his place, but there was no need for physical contact," Olt said. "It was not necessary to take that gun out."

Tuthill said a retrial was an expensive proposition and that it would not necessarily turn out differently.

"I think that if we went back in and did it again, the jury is going to be just as divided," Tuthill said. "They’re not going to like what my client did and they’re not going to like what the other guys did and I think we’re going to have a divided jury again no matter what."

Olt said, if convicted on all four counts, Williams could face up to seventeen years in jail and $201,750 in fines.

Olt said he was firm in his decision to retry the case.

"I don’t think the people in the county and the district are safe if people think they can actually shoot at people over things like this."