Taking A Stand: No motive means no conviction
With the acquittal of Thomas Lance for the July 1, 2000 arson death of his friend Lee Neal, we learned a lot about the dynamics of the jury room and what brings about reasonable doubt.
I’ve been watching trials for almost 13 years in my time here at the Southern Standard, and Saturday marked the first time I’d ever seen a defendant acquitted on murder charges. Sure, I’ve often seen murder suspects convicted on lesser charges other than first-degree murder and seen hung juries; however, this was the first time I’d seen a clean acquittal where the suspect literally walks that day.
I sat through the entire trial and I could tell when the jury went out, it would be a close one. There really wasn’t a mountain of evidence against Mr. Lance, aside from the kerosene found at the scene and on his clothes, which was somewhat explained away by the defense’s expert. Just listening to the testimony, it appeared to me the state’s fire expert and defense fire expert canceled one another out since both presented valid theories as to what happened, thereby leaving jurors without a clear picture of what caused the fire.
There was also an unsubstantiated alibi where Mr. Lance said he passed out in a nearby car just an hour before the fatal fire.
It certainly wasn’t a strong case but, looking back on it, a jury in Cookeville sent Doug Myers to jail for consecutive life sentences for the Myers Lane triple murder on just about the same amount of evidence. Just like the Lance trial, much of the case against Myers last year was circumstantial evidence as there were no witnesses, DNA evidence or a smoking gun so to speak.
So what was the difference? It comes down to motive. In the Myers case, prosecutors had a motive, that being, their intent to silence the victim and eliminate any witnesses to their crime. Plus, they had a history of violent behavior on the part of Myers. And, in a more superficial look at the cases, Myers had the appearance of being a tough guy with a hint of dangerousness to him while Lance, standing about 5-foot-3, looked more like a harmless guy and appeared much younger than his age.
It should also be noted Lance took the stand and looked the jury in the eye while most other suspects do not. Sure, the court warns jurors they cannot hold a defendant’s refusal to testify against them, but hey, we all know it causes a question in a juror’s mind.
In the Lance trial there wasn’t even a hint of a motive. Why would this guy want to kill his best friend out of the blue? Had their been a fight earlier or some kind of conflict between the two, jurors may have seen it a different way. But, in this case, the unchallenged facts were these two guys were inseparable.
The unspoken motive prosecutors were looking at was that Mr. Lance had gotten drunk and there had been an argument in which he had been locked out of the trailer and gotten mad and started the fire while in a drunken stupor. Fine theory but nothing at all to back it up. To put away a guy for the rest of his life, juries generally demand some decent proof, something, aside from the challenged kerosene residues. That did not exist in this case.
What should be learned from this trial is people can be convicted on purely circumstantial evidence, such as was the case in the Myers trial. However, you must show a motive because jurors have to know why something was done before they will send a man up the river for life. You add challenged evidence to lack of motive and you have acquittal.
(Duane Sherrill is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].)