PDA

View Full Version : Texas CHL Holder-Saustrup Aquitted


Gopher .45
May 27, 2000, 06:19 AM
Saustrup acquitted in 1998 killing

By Leah Quin
American-Statesman Staff
Saturday, May 27, 2000 http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/today/news_4.html

Jurors late Friday acquitted Paul Anders Saustrup of murder, finding that he acted in self-defense when he shot to death Eric Demart Smith after following the car burglar for two blocks in downtown Austin in 1998.

The verdict, coming at 10:45 p.m. on the fifth anniversary of the law allowing Texans to carry concealed weapons, was cheered by Saustrup's family and friends.

On the other side of the courtroom, Smith's sister, Charlotte Sledge, covered her face with her hands and wept. She left the courtroom without comment.

Saustrup said he had endured a "terrible, terrible ordeal" and was looking forward to resuming a normal life.

His supporters were jubilant, hugging each other and the defendant. "I'll say we're all kind of happy right now," said Jolice Wiedenhof, a friend of Saustrup. "We didn't expect the deadlock to break."

Jurors reached their verdict three hours after they had attempted to declare themselves deadlocked. State District Judge Bob Perkins had ordered them to continue deliberating.

If convicted of murder, Saustrup would have faced up to life in prison.

Saustrup is licensed to carry a handgun. Although both sides said the case was not about the right to carry concealed weapons, it was monitored from the beginning by gun safety instructors and gun-control advocates.

In closing statements to a packed courtroom earlier Friday, attorneys presented radically different interpretations of the facts.

Saustrup, 35, never denied shooting 20-year-old Smith after discovering the man sitting in his girlfriend's parked car on July 8, 1998. He told police he did so because Smith had lowered his hands to his waist and began to turn around, as though to attack.

Two bullets struck Smith in the back, one behind each shoulder blade.

Earlier this week, Saustrup's girlfriend, Sasha Sessums, provided jurors with a first-hand account of the minutes just before 2 a.m., when she and Saustrup found the passenger window of her Chevrolet Suburban broken and saw a man jump into the driver's seat.

While Saustrup drew his .380-caliber pistol -- shouting, "Freeze! . . . Anyone else comes jumping out of there, you'll be the first to die!" -- he told Sessums to call police on his cell phone.

When she turned around, she saw Smith standing outside the car, his shirt off. Other witnesses testified that Smith's torso was decorated with gang tattoos and that he was drunk.

Smith then began to briskly walk away, at times running, pursued by Saustrup and, farther behind, Sessums. Saustrup's gun was pointed at Smith. The three made their way east on San Jacinto Boulevard, through an alley, then turned south on Trinity Street.

There, Michael Hamilton, a transient who lived in a nearby alley, saw them "zig-zagging" down the street as Smith frequently looked over his shoulder "like he wanted to run."

Sessums lost sight of the two men as they rounded the corner of another alley. Shortly after she caught up with them, Smith made a sidestep, turning his body to the left and his head to the right, as he put his hands to the waist of his baggy tan shorts. Saustrup fired twice, and Smith fell.

Smith was "going for something in his pants," Sessums told the 911 operator in a recording played in court. Seconds later, she said, "He jumped on him. He shot him."

Prosecutors Buddy Meyer and Doug O'Connell did not contend Friday that Smith was turning at the time he was shot but argued that he was only glancing around, as he had been doing for two blocks, to see if Saustrup was still behind him.

O'Connell said Saustrup was tired of following Smith -- as well as angry about the break-in -- and chose that moment, just after they had entered a dark alley, to fire.

"This case is certainly not about self-defense," O'Connell said. "The defendant shot a drunk kid in the back two times."

O'Connell told jurors that he thought the alley was too dark for Sessums to have seen the shooting. He suggested that she parroted to the 911 operator what Saustrup told her had happened.

At that point, a juror leaned forward, putting her hands over her mouth.

Defense attorney Joe Turner then reminded jurors that Medical Examiner Roberto Bayardo agreed the bullet angles looked as though Smith was spinning before and during the shooting.

He referred to Saustrup's gun instructor, who testified that Saustrup followed the rules of self-defense, firing when he reasonably believed he was in danger, without waiting to see a gun.

"He followed the instructions he was taught in a class approved by the state of Texas," Turner said. "And now the state of Texas wants to prosecute him for murder."

He told jurors it's easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

"Here's the good guy," he said, pointing to Saustrup. "And here," he said, picking up a life-sized photo of Smith's tattoos, "is the bad guy. He's dead because he's the bad guy."


You may contact Leah Quin at [email protected] or 445-3621.



[This message has been edited by Gopher .45 (edited May 27, 2000).]

JHS
May 27, 2000, 06:50 AM
A BIG thumbs up!

HankB
May 27, 2000, 08:11 AM
Notice how the prosecuter described a 20 year old covered with gang tattoos as a "kid" in the story? Another case where HCI will talk about "children" killed by guns.

I thought it was interesting was that the defense didn't call any witnesses of their own - they claimed the prosecutor's own witnesses proved Saustrop's innocence. From the verdict, I guess so!

The case for murder was weak. I heard from my CHL instructor that the DA had repeatedly asked for - and received - delays in the trial. Probably hoping for some mass shootings somewhere so he could try this case when public outrage against guns - at least in the press - was high.

Anyway, what Saustrop did was tactically unsound, for reasons that have been covered at length in other threads. And I guess the chances of MY car being stolen or burgled (sp?) are just a little bit less thanks to his actions.

A big "thumbs up."

bookkie
May 27, 2000, 08:17 AM
I'm glad the verdict came out the way it did... but, Saustrup is a very lucky man.... he should not have pursued the suspect.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!

westex
May 27, 2000, 11:25 AM
Once again I have been proven wrong. I recently said to a friend that I thought everyone in Austin was a left wing idiot (excluding the gov of course).

Looks like there are at least 12 folks there that are not idiots. But I do agree with most everyone that the gentleman should not have pursued "the child".

RKBA!

HankB
May 28, 2000, 02:41 PM
The Austin, TX NBC affiliate aired an interview last night with a "Nina Butts" who's a local gun control advocate. She was expressing OUTRAGE at the Saustrop verdict, saying things like "we knew this was going to happen" as she denounced the Texas CHL law.

She came off not just as a gun control advocate, but as a CRIMINAL SAFETY advocate.
She made an absolutely disgusting spectacle, and confirmed something I've thought for a long time: gun control advocates aren't against crime at all; they're just against guns.

jimpeel
May 28, 2000, 04:43 PM
A good jury is hard to find. He's lucky he ended up before one of the rare ones.

The story is now in the archive under http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/saturday/news_4.html . It appears that their free archive is one week so you had better copy this one if you wish to have it for future use.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited May 28, 2000).]

Glenn E. Meyer
May 28, 2000, 08:22 PM
Texas has some decent juries and crappy DAs.

In San Antonio, a cop who staked out his own house against vandals and nuked them - got off.

In Dallas, a dude saw a guy shoot his ex to death in the mall parking lot and nuked him.
The DA did the cowboy moan but he got off.

Now Saustrop.

In each case, the action was questionable but the jury errs on the side of the defendant rather than the crappy DAs.

p l i n k e r
May 28, 2000, 10:04 PM
It's good to hear that killing thieves at night is still legal in Texas (if you're lucky).

jimmy
May 31, 2000, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>O'Connell [ADA] told jurors that he thought the alley was too dark for Sessums to have seen the shooting. He suggested that she parroted to the 911 operator what Saustrup told her had happened.

At that point, a juror leaned forward, putting her hands over her mouth.[/quote]

Now, what was this juror doing? My guess is that she was keeping herself from breaking out in laughter at the ridiculous theory the ADA was concocting. The DA betrayed his arrogance and contempt for the jury and the public at large if he thought they'd be willing to believe anything just because he said it.

In fact, from the beginning of the Saustrup case, the Travis County DA's office was more interested in spinning its little anti-self defense theories than in what really happened. To me, an ambitious, strutting, politically-motivated DA is more dangerous to justice and to public safety than Saustrup ever was.

My $0.02.

BAB
May 31, 2000, 11:16 AM
I have a question. This shooting occurred in 1998. The aquittal came just this past week. So, where has Saustrup been this whole time? Jail? Out on bail? Does anyone know? I'm just curious because I don't know much about how this type of thing works. If he was in jail this whole time, the whole 'right to a speedy trial' bit comes to mind...

Glenn E. Meyer
May 31, 2000, 01:58 PM
He wasn't in jail. The trial was delayed several times. That sequence is ambiguous.

His lawyer never raised the issue of a speedy trial in a real manner.

deanf
May 31, 2000, 05:19 PM
I am reminded of my favorite passage from A Nation of Cowards (http://www.mindspring.com/~brco/cowards.htm).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.[/quote]

------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz