http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090723/NEWS08/907239993Article published Jul 23, 2009
Jury Rules For Homeowner In Wrongful Death CaseBy REGIS L. ROBERTS
Staff Writer
A verdict in the favor of Terry Graham was handed down Thursday by the jury in the wrongful death lawsuit against him.
The case was brought by the deceased Joshua Chambers' ex-wife Amanda Whitsell on behalf of their two children, Austin and Elizabeth.
The jury was given nine questions to consider in the wrongful death civil suit of Joshua Chambers.
The jury was asked to answer if Terry Graham — the man who shot Chambers while he was burglarizing Graham's house — committed assault; if the assault was malicious; if Graham's use of force was justified; if either Graham, Chambers or both were negligent and what percentage of negligence each were responsible for; if the death of Chambers resulted from gross negligence; the amount of compensation, if any, to be rewarded to Chambers' two children, Austin and Elizabeth.
The compensation to Austin and Elizabeth was broken down to the loss of companionship in the past and future, and the mental anguish they have and will suffer in the future. Additional compensation would be awarded for Graham's actions if found to be negligent.
On each of the questions, the jury found in favor of Graham.
Graham deferred questions on the verdict to his attorney, Tracy Crawford.
“I submit to you that Terry Graham has been victimized twice,” Crawford told the jury during closing arguments.
After the verdict, he said the initial burglary and subsequent legal actions have weighed heavily on Graham.
“Mr. Graham is very regretful that he was involved in Mr. Chambers' death,” Crawford said. “He did not feel it was his fault; he doesn't feel it was under his control.”
The desired verdict, however, does not make up for the expense Graham went through in defending himself.
Sighs came from Chambers' family and friends when the jury came back with their verdict.
“We expected it to go this way,” Mrs. Whitsell said. “It's Smith County.”
“It sends the message that property is worth more than human life,” she said.
Greg Porter, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, asked for $400,000 total to be divided equally between Austin and Elizabeth.
Charles Clark, the other plaintiff attorney, likened the task of weighing the facts like squishing a water bug.
He said the jury has had to sift through conflicting and changing expert testimony both from Smith County Sheriff's Department investigators Ira Earls and Noel Martin, and the hired experts Massad Ayoob, Richard Ernest and Albert Rodriguez.
Testimony differed on whether Graham was reasonable to suspect that Chambers, exiting Graham's home, posed a threat.
Crawford made the argument that Graham was reasonable in his belief that two stolen handguns were in a bag Chambers was holding.
Furthermore, Crawford said Graham was reasonable to fear that Chambers was attempting to run him over with Chambers' white Ford Taurus.
Expert opinion differed on the question of the movement of the Taurus.
Ayoob, Martin and Rodriguez testified that any number of explanations could account for a right turn out of Graham's way, including the idea Martin, a sheriff's office criminologist and crime scene investigator, offered that tire tracks at the scene might not have been from the Taurus (tire track analysis was not conducted in the investigation, Martin said).
Earls, the lead investigator of the case for the sheriff's office, wrote in his report that the tire tracks indicated that Chambers was attempting to get out of Graham's way and simply attempting to flee.
The minutest details were considered, from Graham's position in relation to the Taurus, to the placement of a basketball goal and even the meaning of “lead investigator” of the case.
“The implication is we shouldn't trust you because you weren't a criminologist at the time,” Clark said while cross examining Earls, who did not do as much field work as Martin in the investigation.
Clark and Porter argued to the jury in closing statements that Graham had options beyond shooting Chambers, making his actions unjustified.
Porter alluded to Ayoob's earlier assessment that Chambers, having two guns with better firing capabilities than Graham's single-shot shotgun and a car that could be used as a weapon or cover from fire, had a “tactical advantage.”
“Despite these ‘tactical advantages,'” Porter said, “Josh Chambers is the only person that got shot.”
Chambers had many opportunities to pull those loaded guns out of the bag, yet he did not, making his actions non-threatening, he said.
Mrs. Whitsell did not want to comment on the prospect of appealing the decision.
