Jayson Williams - Not Guilty

[MarkDido]

Williams Acquitted on Manslaughter Charge


Email this Story

Apr 30, 4:16 PM (ET)

By JEFFREY GOLD

(AP) Jayson Williams, left and his attorney Joseph Hayden Jr. stand as the jury enters the courtroom...
Full Image



SOMERVILLE, N.J. (AP) - Former NBA star Jayson Williams was acquitted Friday of the most serious charge against him, aggravated manslaughter. The jury said it could not agree on the charge of reckless manslaughter.

Williams, 36, was convicted on four of the six lesser charges, related to tampering with evidence and attempting to cover up the shooting death of limousine driver Costas "Gus" Christofi, 55. Collectively, the charges carry a maximum penalty of 13 years in prison.

The defense argued that the shooting was accidental, saying a malfunction in the gun's firing mechanism caused the weapon to go off. Prosecutors contended Williams was handling the shotgun so recklessly that it amounted to a crime.

The shooting happened Feb. 14, 2002, while Williams gave friends and members of the Harlem Globetrotters a tour of his mansion in Alexandria Township.

According to testimony, Williams, who had a skeet-shooting range on his 65-acre estate, took a loaded shotgun from a cabinet in the master bedroom. He turned, uttered an expletive at Christofi, possibly in jest, and then snapped the weapon shut, and it went off, according to testimony.

Christofi was struck in the chest and died within minutes. Williams dropped to his knees and wailed, "Oh my God! Oh my God!" and "My life is over," according to witnesses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see, Williams "accidentally" shoots his limousine driver, and he starts whining that HIS life is over?

What a waste of skin

It would seem that American juries are getting stupider and stupider. Used to be that jurors were selected from the pool of registered voters. Several states have the "motor/voter" law, which broadens the pool to people who shouldn't be allowed to breed, much less be jurors.

I fully expect the jury in the Michael Jackson case not only to find him "not guilty", but nominate him for the Nobel Prize!

Mark

 

[Wildalaska]

Ya werent there, ya didnt hear the proof, you probably (with the utmost respect) are not familiar with the legal requirements of aggravated manslaughter or reckless manslaughter since you apparently dont live there, yet you critisize the jury system and insult the jurrors and the Defendant based on a newspaper report??

Sorry, thats not the High Road.

WildcantankerousAlaska

 

[sumpnz]

Here's my take. I wasn't in the courtroom, didn't hear all the evidence, and only know what's been in the press. Aggravated Manslaughter seems too much for this. Reckless manslaughter, sure, I'd buy that. He was drinking, not following known firearms safety procedures, and guy died as a result. Sounds reckless to me, sounds like manslaughter to me. They can re-try him on that charge as the jury failed to come to unanimous verdict for that charge.

He was also convicted in evidence tampering related charges, so it's not like he's getting off Scot-free. He will do jail time. I find this to be appropriate. He'll probably spend at least a few years behind bars just for that, and possibly more depending on whether or not he is re-tried and convicted as mentioned above. Personally, I hope they do re-try him on that charge as I think he should also have to pay for his idiocy that resulted in an innocent man's death.

 

[c_yeager]

My feeling is this, He pointed a loaded weapon at a living person, who he had threatened to kill. That person wound up dead. He then sought to cover up his crime. My fealing is that there really is no such thing as an accidental shooting like this WITHOUT reckless behavior. Perhaps the LEGAL definition recklessness needs to be reconsidered.

 

[WT]

I think the judge will dismiss the evidence tampering. The jury said no crime was committed. Therefore, how could evidence be tampered with if there was no crime?

 

[sumpnz]

... how could evidence be tampered with if there was no crime?

Martha Stewart was convicted of lying about a crime the govt never even bothered charged her with.

Besides, no-one said he was totally innocent. They deadlocked on the reckless manslaughter charge, and decided what he did was not up to the level of aggravated manslaughter.

Even if it was a total accident, trying to cover it up and make it look like a suicide is a crime. If you hit someone with your car, and then flee the scene, or hide the body or whatever, even if you didn't violate any laws with the collision itself, even if it was demonstrably the dead person's fault, those actions afterwards are still criminal.

 

[WT]

"He didn't have the look of a cold-blooded killer. I didn't see it in his face."

Juror Angela Pravata
34 Gates Ave
Warren Twp., NJ

as quoted in The New York Post, May 1, 2004, page 3. Address is public record as is phone number (which I did not list here).

New Jersey does not send people to jail for mere evidence tampering. Although he has many arrests on his record, Williams has no previous felony convictions. In all probability Williams will receive probation and parole and spend absolutely no time in jail for killing a person.

There will be no civil suit. Williams, in a very smart move, paid off the driver's family soon after the killing. He threw them some bones and they accepted. They were immigrants. What do they know?

I daresay the witnesses to the killing will receive more punishment than the shooter. Ironic.