Local prosecutorial screwup David Hyde, on right, with our esteemed sheriff, Andy Hires, who has no clue how to answer FOIAs properly, incidentally.
RICHLAND CO.—Prosecutor David Hyde has done as we predicted in the days following the arrest of Brandon Jenkins for the shooting death of Michael Scott Earp: managed to get true bills of indictment returned against Jenkins.
However, they’re STILL not the rectification of a situation that Hyde has put himself in…and it’s hard to tell whether this is simply because people on the grand jury are too stupid to understand the meaning of ‘intent’ versus ‘self-defense,’ or if there is genuine cause to believe that within a matter of seconds, Houston resident Jenkins was able to form ‘intent’ in the shooting of Earp.
Originally charged with First Degree Murder, Jenkins now faces four indictments: one of First Degree Murder, worded differently than the original charge, this one reading that Jenkins, knowingly and without legal justification, shot Earp in the abdomen with a handgun, knowing said act created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to Earp, thereby causing Earp’s death.
The original First Degree Murder charge states that Jenkins, without lawful justification and with intent to kill Earp, shot Earp with a gun, thereby causing Earp’s death.
The difference here is significant, legally speaking…but, prosecutorially, not enough to stave off the legal prowess of Jenkins’ attorney John O’Gara.
“Creating a strong probability of death or great bodily harm” is CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT than “with intent to kill.” Hyde knows this. We fully believe this is NOT what he was after. Of course firing a weapon in the direction of someone would “create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.” Jenkins is a MARINE who served two tours in recent years. He KNEW, yet he fired. Why?
THAT’s what Hyde can’t get around. Even with all his machinations, no doubt, in the courtroom yesterday, the grand jury couldn’t seem to justify “intent.” They may have bowed to his insistence on the label of First Degree Murder for the charge, but the lack of intent is telling. And will be even more easy for the likes of O’Gara to overcome when this goes to trial. Which Jenkins should DEMAND should be speedy. 120 days from November 20, which is when the incident occurred. More on that in the print version.
The other true bills are inconsequential in the scheme of things: Aggravated Battery, Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon….all of which will be moot if Jenkins were to be found having acted in self-defense. And none of it resembles the other indictments Hyde PROBABLY was going for against Jenkins, which would have been different levels of murder, just to be on the safe side. He didn’t get them. And that is indeed TELLING.
According to confusing published media reports, three original charges—the original First-Degree Murder charge, and two others, Aggravated Battery and Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm, remain standing against Jenkins. That’s probably some misunderstanding on the part of the reporter, as grand jury indictments usually supersede previous charges, especially if they are the same…but with Hyde, you never know. Further, the battery and weapon charges were NEVER formally filed against Jenkins, those were just preliminary charges sufficient to arrest him on the morning of November 20. So we don’t exactly know what’s going on with this, but we assure you…we will.
There are other disparities that will come out of these indictments, and other VERY telling details, to add to the article we’re working on for the next print version. Please pick up your copy of the upcoming December 2011/January 2012 issue of Disclosure, on stands beginning next Monday, Dec. 19, for more.