Final Chance for Common Sense passes

Judge Arrington followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Ryan Frederick to ten years in prison. A report on the proceedings from John Wilburn follows:

* Ryan Frederick Sentencing Hearing – Friday, 8 May, 2009 *


Court convened at 9:55 – Judge Arrington had a (minor) personal concern, which caused her to be late.

Mr. Korslund represented Mr. Frederick; the commonwealth was represented by Mr. Ebert, Mr. Conway and Mr. Willett.

The first order of business was Mr. Ebert requested that a Probation Officer (for whom, is unknown) be excused, since she wasn’t needed to testify. There was no objection from Mr. Korslund, and the P.O. was excused.

Mr. Korslund entered a motion that the findings of the trial be set aside, as there was no evidence to support a finding of Voluntary Manslaughter as a verdict. Mr. Conway objected, stating that a finding of Voluntary Manslaughter can be based on fear / terror, as well as rage. He went on to say that a finding of Self-Defense would require a determination of necessity.

Mr. Korslund stated that the jury was wrongfully given instructions for a finding of Voluntary Manslaughter.

Mr. Korslunds motion was overruled.

Mr. Korslund made a motion to make minor corrections to the court transcript – so noted and corrected.

Mr. Ebert informed the court that Mrs. Nicole Shivers (Det. Shivers widow) and Jim Shivers (Det. Shivers father) were present, but they didn’t intend to testify – so noted.

Mr. Willett stated that the jury was the voice of the community. He said that since Mr. Frederick had based his decision to arm himself on a quiet knock on his door, that he should be sentenced to an additional period of supervised probation, over and above his sentence. This to ensure that the court will still retain supervisory authority over him. He went on to say that because of the impact of Det. Shivers death on the Shivers family and community, that no reduction of the sentence recommendation should be considered.

Mr. Korslund stated that the court should suspend some portion of the sentence recommendation, as the recommendation was based, at least in part, on emotion, and is excessive, in light of Mr.. Frederick’s clean record and his character, which was demonstrated by his acceptance of his responsibility. He went on to point out that the jury found him Not Guilty of the charges that he was on trial for; Capital Murder, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Murder, and Manufacturing with Intent to Distribute.

Mr. Ebert stated that Mr. Frederick was a “druggie” who chose to engage in illegal activity, and anyone who does this knows that eventually they will be apprehended. He said that “the police were there to protect us.” He went on to request that the court impose the full recommendation of the jury, and an additional period of probation.

Mr. Frederick was brought in at that point. Judge Arrington asked him if he had anything to say before his sentence was read. He stated that he was sorry beyond his ability to express for causing the death of Det. Shivers, and for the impact on Det. Shivers’ family. He said that he would do anything to bring Det. Shivers back.

Judge Arrington read the sentence; 30 days in jail, 6 months suspension of Drivers License and a fine of $500.00, for the Possession of Marijuana, and 10 years in prison, for the Voluntary Manslaughter, with 3 years (suspended) probation.

(I spoke to Mr. Korslund about this after the hearing, and he confirmed, as I thought, that this equates to 7 years actual time, with the possibility of further reductions, by the Department of Corrections.)

A hearing is scheduled for Friday, 15 May, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. to ask the court to assign Mr. Broccoletti & Mr. Korslund to represent Mr. Frederick in the appeal.


6 Responses to Final Chance for Common Sense passes

  1. KBCraig says:

    I’m wavering between profound sadness and utter outrage.

    The court improperly allowed the jury to find Frederick guilty of a crime with which he was not charged. The court allowed that verdict to stand even though the evidence presented did not support the charge.

    The prosecutor continues to make outrageous statements, without sanction or censure.

    Two men destroyed over a plant.

  2. scoobydoo says:

    In Fredericks’s first taped interview with police he stated that his home had been broken into prior to the shooting.
    The policeman responded: “We know”.
    That, my freedom loving friends, is an admission of collusion with a known criminal to break the law.
    These crooked cops are still on the streets.

  3. John Wilburn says:

    It’s interesting that Mr. Willett brought up Mr. Frederick’s testimony (from the trial) about only hearing a soft knock. Is this an admission by Mr. Willett, that the police didn’t make all the noise they claimed?

    Mr. Willett was trying to make the point that it was unreasonable for Mr. Frederick to have gotten his gun after hearing a soft knock, therefore Mr. Frederick is an unreasonable person, prone to panic, that needs to be kept under supervision by the court.

    In his testimony, Mr. Frederick went on to say that; because of the burglary, and also because none of his family or friends would stop by at 8:30 p.m. without calling first, because they knew he went to bed and got up early, that he feared that the burglars had returned. This was the reason he got his gun.

    Which is it Mr. Willett – the police announced themselves loudly and clearly -or- they knocked softly?

    You can’t have it both ways…

  4. Don Tabor says:

    Speaking of having it both ways, I find it interesting that Mr Conway would assert that Fear/Terror meets the ‘impassioned’ test for Voluntary Manslaughter (as opposed to rage) as that would be conceding the primary element for self defense. If that is conceded, the test is not ACTUAL necessity for the use of deadly force for self defense, it is that it would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in Frederick’s position.

    The appeals will be interesting, and important to Frederick, but for citizens, this is now a political matter, to be settled before the City Council and the General Assembly.

  5. Holy cow says:

    Collusion based on the statement “we know”. Your not the sharpest tool in the shed. Is it possible the informant told the Detectives the GARAGE was broken into, but he did not know who broke into it. Seriously there are enough drugs out here. You are under the influence and paranoid if you grab your gun based on knocks and bangs. The bottom line is RF may have not known it was the police, but if you have illegal drugs, wether your growing or smoking them you can expect the police or robbers are comming…..I hear noises all the time, and I can’t get this yapping dog to shut up, but I’m not sharing my weed, or growing it.

  6. scoobydoo says:

    Holy Cow,
    “Is it possible the informant told the Detectives the GARAGE was broken into, but he did not know who broke into it.”
    Did he?
    Why did the detective ask Wright 15 times did he violate the law during his task? Either he is not the sharpest tool in the shed or obviously doubted the informants veracity.
    In addition to those noises do you hear voices too?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: