OAKLAND, CA – In addition to Johannes Mehserle’s involuntary manslaughter conviction is the firearm enhancement.
We’re not talking about a modified weapon.
This is extra time tacked onto the end of a sentence. It’s an extra punishment for brandishing, hitting with, or firing a gun. But according to California law – and Mehserle’s jury instructions- it’s about something larger.
The law states plainly that for the jury to add this enhancement, it must find that the act was committed intentionally. Mehserle’s jury was told it had two options. It must find either that the allegation that the former BART officer meant to fire his gun was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or that the allegation was not proven at all.
The involuntary manslaughter verdict says that the prosecution did not prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mehserle meant to kill Oscar Grant. But the jury did find true the allegation that he meant to use his gun.
So, what did the jurors believe – that Mehserle intended to shoot Grant, or that he didn’t?
The judge is going to have to address this contradiction when it’s time for sentencing. That date has been moved from August to November. Mehserle’s attorney will argue that the extra time has to be striken because it goes against the jury’s original verdict: guilty of criminal negligence, and nothing heavier. Some legal observers question whether this is the right thing to do. Maybe the jurors agreed on the firearm enhancement because they thought Mehserle deserved a stiffer sentence. In some ways, this verdict sends a message loud and clear, but still in others, we’re left trying to make sense of it all.
Be the first to comment