Jerome Jay Ersland, whom we've discussed recently, claims that he gave all his guns to his attorney in lieu of payment.
“I gave every weapon of mine to my attorney. I swear to the Lord,” Jerome Jay Ersland said.
Oklahoma County District Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure last week allowed Ersland, 57, of Chickasha to be released on $100,000 bail but she banned him from any access to weapons. The hearing today was to see if he had complied with her order.
Ersland told the judge he no longer owns the weapons. Defense attorney Irven Box said he took the weapons and other personal property from Ersland as payment of part of the attorney fees in the case.
Box told the judge he has accepted other unusual payments in the past, including comic books.
That final remark by Attorney Box is a real beauty. I wonder if the defendant who paid with comic books had been accused of killing someone with a comic book. I don't imagine the "unusual" payment in that case had anything to do with the charges. In the case of pharmacist Ersland the guns have everything to do with the charges. The extent and specifications of his personal arsenal have everything to do with determining what kind of character he is. Of course, in most states determining that wouldn't be all that difficult. He's accused of shooting a non threatening wounded teenager five times in the torso.
I wondered if he had been able to make bail, which was set at $100,000, why was he unable to pay his lawyer except by transferring his guns. The advantages are obvious. He now cannot be forced to answer how many and what types they were. He wouldn't be able to surrender them to the court, should that be ordered.
If I had to guess, this is a murderer, aided by his lawyer and the general attitudes in Oklahoma, trying to beat the system.
What's your opinion? Is it normal for a 1st degree murder suspect to be released on just $100,000 bail? Do you think the fact that the dead kid had tried to rob the pharmacy should make a difference?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Ersland's bail was paid for by an anonymous donor. And in Oklahoma, with most bondsmen, you only have to post 10% of your bond to be released. So in reality, his donor only had to put down $10,000.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is Ersland paid his lawyer with the guns so in the case that he is found innocent, he can "buy" his weapons back. If the police had seized the guns, there is a good chance he'd never see them again.
For some reason, when police seize guns, even if you're found innocent, they just so happen to "lose" them. And it takes months, if not years to get them back, if you get them back at all.
"The extent and specifications of his personal arsenal have everything to do with determining what kind of character he is."
Nonsense. John Hinckley Jr owned a cheap $50 revolver and was a verifiable psychopath. Then there are guys who own a small arsenal of machine guns and haven't had so much as a speeding ticket. Guns (quality no quantity) have nothing to do with determining character.
"He now cannot be forced to answer how many and what types they were. He wouldn't be able to surrender them to the court, should that be ordered."
Nonsense as well. There were only two weapons involved in the shooting. If those weapons were needed for evidence, the police could easily get them. It would only be a matter of getting a warrant. Any other weapons he owns would be irrelevant to the case.
"Do you think the fact that the dead kid had tried to rob the pharmacy should make a difference?"
I think it should make a difference. The robber wouldn't have been dead if it weren't for the fact he decided to participate in a robbery. He's as much responsible for his own death as Ersland. It's not like Ersland intentionally carried a gun that day with the intent of killing that particular person.
What's your opinion? Is it normal for a 1st degree murder suspect to be released on just $100,000 bail? Do you think the fact that the dead kid had tried to rob the pharmacy should make a difference?
ReplyDeleteMost of the time, bail is determined by the flight risk of the accused. In this case, a business owner firmly rooted in the state with tremendous community support is probably been judged as not that high of a flight risk as compared with some other 1st degree murder suspects.
1st degree murder will never stick in this case anyway. If he is found guilty, it will be on a lessor charge than premeditated murder. Obviously killing a robbery suspect within minutes of the crime being committed was not planned. Justifiable or not, it is not premeditated.
Yes, the fact that the deceased was a criminal robbing the business is definitely a factor. The kid created the situation and escalated it to the point of deadly force being justified. The man was not charged for the first shot, only the later ones.
"The extent and specifications of his personal arsenal have everything to do with determining what kind of character he is."
ReplyDeleteREALLY MIKE?! So you can tell what kind of person I am by how many guns and how much ammo I own?
Must be some kind of crazy jedi mind trick you've got....or you're just full of it.
FWM - I think Mike realizes that this could not possibly be 1st degree murder, he's just not thinking rationally.
ReplyDeleteEither that or he has no clue what 1st degree murder actually is.
This scenario could easily be found to be 1st degree murder in my jurisdiction. I don't know for sure how Oklahoma defines it, but in Kansas premeditation can occur very, very quickly. It would be entirely consistent with Kansas case law for this guy to be charged with premeditated murder if the 5 shots to the body were the fatal shots. In Kansas, premeditation can be formed even after the first shot is fired.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't make all that much sense and, believe me, we defense attorneys have been arguing that premeditation should require more planning than that, but we've lost very consistently.
The extent and specifications of his personal arsenal have everything to do with determining what kind of character he is.
ReplyDeleteYep--my dozen guns, most of them semi-automatic, most of them handguns, with a tendency toward large calibers, match up very well with my record of complete non-violence, and the fact that I have been the cause of fewer innocent deaths than has Ted Kennedy.
Wouldn't you agree, Mikeb?
As S pointed out, he very well could be guilty of murder in the 1st, but whether that will pass muster with an Oklahoma jury is very unlikely, I admit.
ReplyDeleteAbout judging a person by their arsenal, I hear what your saying. Yet,I think it might help the jury to determine the shooter's frame of mind, his general attitude.
How in the hell is the number of guns he owned relevant to his frame of mind during the shooting?
ReplyDeleteSorry Mike, but sometimes I can't help but think you're incapable of forming coherent thoughts.
Mike W. said, "Sorry Mike, but sometimes I can't help but think you're incapable of forming coherent thoughts."
ReplyDeleteThanks for that gratuitous comment on my mental capacity.
How about this? Let's say he owned only two hunting rifles and two pistols for self defense? His attorney could easily use that to depict him as a serious and responsible gun owner. On the other hand, let's say he had one of those David Koresh kinds of arsenals. That could paint him as a nut just itching for a fight.
I realize there are many exceptions to these two stereotypes, but if I were on the jury, I'd want to know.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteOr it could be that he is a serious collector of firearms. Some people collect stamps, some collect yarn, some collect coins...yet people like you tend to describe anyone with a collection of firearms in the most negative way possible.
I realize there are many exceptions to these two stereotypes, but if I were on the jury, I'd want to know.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to know, but it still wouldn't be any of your damned business.
See how easy that is?
Is the "vehicular arsenal" of someone accused of vehicular homicide relevant to his/her current charges?
ReplyDeleteOf course not, since he allegedly used ONE car to commit murder it matters not whether he owned 1, 2, or 20 cars.
If you're charged with a violent crime the number of guns you own is not relevant to the charges at hand. It's just that simple mike.
Why is the "car" comparison so attractive to you guys? Why can't you just talk about what we're talking about, which is guns?
ReplyDeleteWhat Bob said is right, he could be a collector. The court should know what kinds of guns he owned. If they were valuable revolutionary war museum pieces that would define him differently than if they were 50-caliber armor-piercing weapons.
What Bob said is right, he could be a collector. The court should know what kinds of guns he owned.
ReplyDeleteNone of the court's damned business.
Why Mike? Did he use a .50 cal in the alleged crime?
ReplyDeleteIf he allegedly committed vehicular homicide with a ford pinto would the fact that he had a high powered "assault" Ferrari 360 Modena or a Hummer H2 in his garage have any bearing on the case?
No, it would not. And it is a valid comparision with what we're discussing here Mike. If you'd like I can use an object other than a car.