A new client is accused of a road rage murder. This Kindle Short Read (with PHOTOS) is the true story, written from the attorney's perspective, of his first meeting with a client claiming self-defense for shooting an unarmed man in the face with an AR-15.
Criminal Charge: Murder with a Firearm, and thus began the next stage of Gerald "The Finishing Machine" Strebendt's life. He had served the Marine Corps proudly as a Marine sniper. He had done two tours of duty in Afghanistan as a Blackwater (Academi) mercenary. He had fought mixed martial arts professionally and had a successful MMA-training gym. However, the next stage of his life was a fight for justice and a fight for his life. Was it going to be a murder conviction and a life in prison? Many in the community wanted that, claiming that a trained killer like Gerald Strebendt couldn’t possibly need to shoot an unarmed 55-year-old man with an AR-15 military-style assault rifle. But the truth was much more nuanced.
EXCERPT FROM BOOK:
The Day I Met Gerald Strebendt
Gerald Strebendt, a gun enthusiast trained as a sniper by the Marines, first came into my office a few days after he shot and killed David Paul Crofut. My name is Mike Arnold, and I am a criminal defense attorney based in Eugene, Oregon. I’d heard on the news what Gerald had been alleged to have done—shot and killed an unarmed man after an alleged road-rage-fueled car crash, claiming self-defense. He was in my office this day for advice.
Should I ask him what happened? I thought. Normally, I don't allow my clients to tell me what happened at the first meeting when they are accused of a crime. It can cause big problems later.
Despite my usual practice, in this case I couldn't advise Gerald if I didn't know what he was going to say happened. I had to know. So I did what I almost never do. I opened the can of worms. I explained my rationale to him, and then asked him to tell me what happened.
He did. And it was chilling.
Typically, I ask new clients to tell me what they told the police and what evidence they believe the police have. I ask them to wait to talk to me about what they remember until after they have had a chance to review the police reports and refresh their recollection. And, most importantly, I want to build rapport and trust before I ask for the truth. My experience is that clients will often tell me what they think should have happened or what I want to hear even though the truth is usually the best defense.
Additionally, what the defendant thinks happened is often not all that important. Memories are flawed and especially unreliable during a traumatic event when the “lizard brain” is in control. Evolutionarily speaking, remembering what happened in a life-or-death situation is not all that important. Research shows that we typically only remember the end of the situation because that’s what was most important for natural selection: the solution to the problem that allowed you to survive.
So, in relation to Gerald, I already knew that he pulled the trigger and solved the problem, so the details were not necessary for the basic legal advice he would need in an initial consult. However, to give him more than just the basics, I would need to know more. I would need to know what the police thought he had done.
In my mind, if this were truly a case of self-defense, whoever he retained needed to act quickly. Witness memories would fade. Evidence on the road would fade. This shooting, this case, was actually several types of cases--a motor vehicle accident, a personal injury case, an assault case, a gun case, a drunk driving case, and a self-defense case. All of these cases-within-the-case needed to be worked up right now.
Gerald related in a nervous but calm, straightforward tone the initial details, and explained the steps of what led to the confrontation. He told me what he said, and what he did. He told me what Crofut said and did. He told me he called 911...
Criminal Charge: Murder with a Firearm, and thus began the next stage of Gerald "The Finishing Machine" Strebendt's life. He had served the Marine Corps proudly as a Marine sniper. He had done two tours of duty in Afghanistan as a Blackwater (Academi) mercenary. He had fought mixed martial arts professionally and had a successful MMA-training gym. However, the next stage of his life was a fight for justice and a fight for his life. Was it going to be a murder conviction and a life in prison? Many in the community wanted that, claiming that a trained killer like Gerald Strebendt couldn’t possibly need to shoot an unarmed 55-year-old man with an AR-15 military-style assault rifle. But the truth was much more nuanced.
EXCERPT FROM BOOK:
The Day I Met Gerald Strebendt
Gerald Strebendt, a gun enthusiast trained as a sniper by the Marines, first came into my office a few days after he shot and killed David Paul Crofut. My name is Mike Arnold, and I am a criminal defense attorney based in Eugene, Oregon. I’d heard on the news what Gerald had been alleged to have done—shot and killed an unarmed man after an alleged road-rage-fueled car crash, claiming self-defense. He was in my office this day for advice.
Should I ask him what happened? I thought. Normally, I don't allow my clients to tell me what happened at the first meeting when they are accused of a crime. It can cause big problems later.
Despite my usual practice, in this case I couldn't advise Gerald if I didn't know what he was going to say happened. I had to know. So I did what I almost never do. I opened the can of worms. I explained my rationale to him, and then asked him to tell me what happened.
He did. And it was chilling.
Typically, I ask new clients to tell me what they told the police and what evidence they believe the police have. I ask them to wait to talk to me about what they remember until after they have had a chance to review the police reports and refresh their recollection. And, most importantly, I want to build rapport and trust before I ask for the truth. My experience is that clients will often tell me what they think should have happened or what I want to hear even though the truth is usually the best defense.
Additionally, what the defendant thinks happened is often not all that important. Memories are flawed and especially unreliable during a traumatic event when the “lizard brain” is in control. Evolutionarily speaking, remembering what happened in a life-or-death situation is not all that important. Research shows that we typically only remember the end of the situation because that’s what was most important for natural selection: the solution to the problem that allowed you to survive.
So, in relation to Gerald, I already knew that he pulled the trigger and solved the problem, so the details were not necessary for the basic legal advice he would need in an initial consult. However, to give him more than just the basics, I would need to know more. I would need to know what the police thought he had done.
In my mind, if this were truly a case of self-defense, whoever he retained needed to act quickly. Witness memories would fade. Evidence on the road would fade. This shooting, this case, was actually several types of cases--a motor vehicle accident, a personal injury case, an assault case, a gun case, a drunk driving case, and a self-defense case. All of these cases-within-the-case needed to be worked up right now.
Gerald related in a nervous but calm, straightforward tone the initial details, and explained the steps of what led to the confrontation. He told me what he said, and what he did. He told me what Crofut said and did. He told me he called 911...
