by Antoinnette Borbon
It is official now. Deputy DA Martha Holzapfel has decided to re-file on James Elron Mings, who was recently convicted of attempted murder by a jury of his peers. Mings was asked to help end the life of his friend, Kevin Seery, 42, on the eve of October 1, 2011.
Mings, describing himself as a man of “love and charity,” walked a thousand miles to be with the woman of his dreams, he explained on the stand.
Seery, whose life was a constant struggle of pain and depression, had expressed to friends he was looking for someone to help him end his life. Mings, who met Seery just two weeks prior to his death, befriended Seery. Mings claims he had been set up by the man who introduced him to Seery, Thomas McDermott. McDermott was a man Mings met while staying at a homeless shelter in Davis.
What would happen next is something Mings sincerely had no idea would put him facing life in prison. Feeling great empathy and utilizing the word, “charity,” Mings decided within moments to help a suffering friend, as we heard in testimony during trial.
But Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson pointed out in closing that Mings’ attempt was futile – thus giving the jurors the responsibility to carefully consider the evidence of attempted murder.
Another factor Hutchinson pointed out during trial was a decision between both the district attorney’s office and the DOJ not to test the extra hairs found on the sock stuffed down inside Seery’s mouth. They also did not test the hairs, dark in color, found around the mouth of Seery. A pair of socks found at the campsite of both Mings and McDermott had also been declared irrelevant to the state’s case – but not to a female officer of the Davis Police Department, who took photos of those socks.
After hearing news of the DOJ not testing evidence relevant to yet another case in Yolo County, it raises serious questions to the legitimacy of our justice system.
As Mr. Hutchinson eloquently put it in closing, “The mission of the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office is to be for the people.” If Dan’s statement is correct, shouldn’t they bear a responsibility to the People to do the “right” thing? Of course, this is a Department of Justice issue as well, since the decision to test certain evidence needs their approval.
Even Deputy DA Ryan Couzens himself can attest to how both he and a CSI analyst pled with the DOJ to run tests on evidence found in the state’s case against Wolfington and Silva. But like Hutchinson’s defense for Mings, it too was denied.
It remains unclear – the source or reason why this is happening. Lack of money, perhaps? Or lack of true justice?
It is reasonable to say that if these hairs had, in fact, been tested and/or any single DNA tested from that sock, we may have the person responsible for the death of Seery. Evidence from that sock may have proven exculpatory, as Hutchinson pointed out in his defense.
But, at best, we know now it was not Mings who was responsible for Seery’s last breath. The jurors agreed, thus finding Mings guilty of only attempted murder, as Mings did confess to choking Seery.
It was explained:
“The length of time the person spends considering whether to kill does not alone determine whether the attempted killing is deliberate and premeditated. The amount of time required for deliberation and premeditation may vary from person to person and according to the circumstances. A decision to kill made rashly, impulsively, or without careful consideration of the choice and its consequences is not deliberate and premeditated. On the other hand, a cold, calculated decision to kill can be reached quickly. The test is the extent of the reflection, not the length of time.”
This morning, Judge Fall asked both counsels for a date to proceed. It appeared neither one could give Fall an answer. Judge Fall, not sounding very pleased, asked Hutchinson and Holzapfel to go out into the hall and come up with a date.
It was agreed upon and set for trial readiness on August 15th. Any motions by counsel need to be filed beforehand.
am sorry but do not see the connection between the title and the story; can you clarify? thanks.
THE DA’s office refiled on the premeditation special circumstance because the jury hung on that issue at the trial.
again, sorry, but what does that have to do with the sock description, the lack of investigation of the hairs? And where is the discussion of why….except the indent definition of premeditation…..if the jury convicted on attempted murder why isnt the DA going after the person who did cause the death? I must be sleepy but this article is confusing to me!
According to this article “Mings was asked to help end the life of his friend, Kevin Seery” How does the reporter KNOW Mings was asked to kill his friend? Is this based on Mings’ own testimony? If not, what is the source? And what did the reporter base the statement that “Mings sincerely had no idea would put him facing life in prison” How does the reporter KNOW how “sincere” Mings was, or is? And how does “utilizing” the word “charity” have to do with killing someone? I am not as concerned with what was on the sock, or how dirty it was, or what hairs it might have picked up off the floor, as I am about the fact that it was stuffed down Kevin Seery’s throat. I find it difficult to believe that Seery asked anyone to stuff a sock down his throat. Whether Mings knew whether it is against the law to kill someone, even if they ask you to, is moot. If you care about someone who is suicidal, you get help for the person, you do not kill them. Claiming you are ‘sincere’ in believing you would not go to prison is a defense is unbelievable.
Christine: I believe the argument posed by the defense in trial was that he was asked to kill his friend. Antoinnette has also spoken to Mr. Mings. I’m not aware of the content of their conversations. I believe some of her remarks reflect her contact however. It is a commentary so I don’t think it’s inappropriate.
If I had to guess as to what transpired, Mr. Seery asked to end his life. They fed him drugs and when the drugs did not work, they improvised. The jury only convicted Mr. Mings of attempted murder and failed to decide as to whether he acted with premeditation.
In the end, the state of the law is that a murder occurred. But I do think the removal malice is in order even if the two individuals acted with a complete lack of common sense.
@Christine..in Mings own words on the stand, he told about Seery asking him to help end his life. It is all in the trial. Him being sincere about his feelings towards charity is the feeling portrayed from witnessing the trial, but, it may only be opinion, true…and if you read any of the articles on the trial, I believe it was clear Mings did not act out of a rash mind..may be just opinion also but it may shed light on Mings’ discernment, which I felt Mings may lack. Yes, you are correct, we do not have the right to take a life no matter what, do we? As fas as the sock being stuffed down his throat, once again, in an article, Mings did not know of this sock being in Seery’s throat. Evidence from the taped interrogation proves it. You are correct in stating, Seery never asked anyone to stuff a sock down his throat. It was something someone did on their own. Utilizing the word “charity,” would explain Mings own personal logic about putting someone else first, as this is the definition of charity. Even if he went against the law, which we know he did, his belief system was his only rationale. As far as him understanding he would be facing life in prison for the crime convicted of, it appeared clear to me that Mings did not way out the consequences of his actions or believe what he did was wrong? by his own testimony. Even the taped interrogation three days later to Det. McNiven, Mings had no change of heart about doing what he did…should tell you something, right? However, playing the devil’s advocate, we have no such power to know or judge the heart of another…only God does, but even He states if we break the law, we will be punished to the full extent of that law. God’s words, not mine… Mings broke the law no matter whose philosphy is believed and he will have to answer for it. I, in no way defend sin, crimes. I try only to report the evidence in these cases, if a few things are geared towards opinion, feel free to disregard them. It comes down to proving the evidence. The jurors had the obligation of deciding what crime was committed and choose their verdict by deliberating on that evidence. I am pretty sure Mings’ defense attorney was not trying to give Mings an excuse for what he did just because he may not have understood he would be facing life in prison. Instead, defense pled with jurors to consider a Voluntary Manslaughter charge or an attempt of it. The jurors convicted of attempted murder but hung on the premeditation part of that charge. In a couple months, a new trial will begin on the special findings, to prove them true or false.
@ Soda…you may be correct. The title may have read something more to the liking of the disregard of evidence tested by DOJ. What I try to do is refresh the reader of the case. I may lose track of my point..forgive me. Some of my titles may be changed in editing but the better…:-)
thanks for reading..all comments are appreciated!
Note: Yes, I have spoken to the horses mouth, however, our conversations are of a more Biblical/friendship nature. I am not at liberty to speak about the case with Mings nor is it my intent to do so. Our conversations are light but ours…anything told in regards to them would seem like a betrayal of friendship.
“What would happen next is something Mings sincerely had no idea would put him facing life in prison.”
The best joke of the day….seriously.
I fail to see much “commentary” or opinion here. Just some reporting wrapped in the defense attorney’s viewpoint of what the defense would have liked the jury to have accepted.
Maybe Ms.Borbon could have focused on the single “commentary” issue she she’s offered, the impact of not having additional DNA testing.
“It remains unclear – the source or reason why this is happening. Lack of money, perhaps? Or lack of true justice? It is reasonable to say that if these hairs had, in fact, been tested and/or any single DNA tested from that sock, we may have the person responsible for the death of Seery. Evidence from that sock may have proven exculpatory, as Hutchinson pointed out in his defense.”
It’s just as reasonable to say that additional testing might have resulted in a murder conviction rather than an attempted murder conviction.
“What would happen next is something Mings sincerely had no idea would put him facing life in prison.”
The best joke of the day…seriously..
———————————————————————
@Just saying….Easy to say, if you do not know the person or their mindset/heart or the intentions thereof…but I guess you must have xray vision? Crystal ball?
Commentary: A report of the facts, notes, or opinions of an event, editorial.
I will be the first to admit, I gear more towards the facts, rather than opinions but there are opinions, just look closer. Especially in the part you pointed out in your comment.
As for the defense attorney and his “viewpoint,” I suggest you go back and read what evidence was presented to the jurors by Mr. Hutchinson in my earlier articles of this case. The jurors had the burden of deliberating on that evidence, on all the evidence by both sides. Remember, the burden of proof lies within the states case, not the defense.
Yes, it is reasonable to say if the additional testing had been done, a murder conviction would be the result..but the question remains, of whom?
Sounds to me like Defense Attorney Hutchinson got the jury to accept something even better than what he wanted. I am pretty sure when the jurors deliberated they did not take his “views,” into consideration but rather all the evidence; thus coming out with attempted murder. But even on the attempted murder conviction, the jury could not reach an agreement of the special findings of premeditation.
The next trial will be to prove or disprove those findings.
Correct me if I am wrong; You are innocent until proven guilty.
[quote]“What would happen next is something Mings sincerely had no idea would put him facing life in prison.”
The best joke of the day…seriously..
—————————————————————
@Just saying….Easy to say, if you do not know the person or their mindset/heart or the intentions thereof…but I guess you must have xray vision? Crystal ball? [/quote]Accurately reporting Mings’ mindset/heart is impossible; reporting that he “[u]sincerely[/u] had no idea” is an equally hopeless task. You accurately state the reasons why (X-ray vision? crystal ball?).
Pretty much every person who has killed someone and who ends up being tried for murder has a defense scenario aimed at convincing jurors that they shouldn’t be punished for the act.
In this case, justifying the act as a “mercy killing” was an interesting approach–yet ultimately hopeless since it doesn’t justify murdering someone.
It hardly matters whether Mings was “feeling great empathy and utilizing the word, ‘charity,’ (and) decided within moments to help a suffering friend…” or whether this one sentence contains several lies he manufactured to cover up some violent outburst during which he killed a weak, defenseless person for any of a variety of other reasons.
This is an even more interesting case because of the “I meant to kill him; I thought I killed him; But, I had to go back and try again” aspect. It’s understandable that the jury went with reasonable doubt about whether Mings ultimately squeezed out Mr. Seery’s last breath or just his next-to-last one.
Still, the premeditation issue seems easier. Since Mings intended to kill Mr. Seery (filled as he was with “love and charity”), deliberated on why (however misguided) and how to kill him, then willfully did it or tried his best to do it–that would be good enough for me.
mj opined:
[quote]I believe it was clear Mings did not act out of a rash mind..may be just opinion [/quote]
Malice aforethought:
“The mental state constituting malice aforethought does not presuppose or require any ill will or hatred of the particular victim. When a defendant ‘with wanton disregard for human life, does an act that involves a high degree of probability that it will result in death,’ he acts with malice aforethought.”
Under California murder law, Penal Code 187 (a), malice may be express or implied.
Express malice means that you specifically intend to kill the victim.
Malice is implied when: (a) The killing resulted from an intentional act; (b) The natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life; and (c) The act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.4 Both first- and second-degree murder require malice.
http://www.shouselaw.com/murder.html#1.7
From DE (5/9/13): Mings, 38, said on the witness stand this week in Yolo Superior Court. “He said the cleanest way to do it would be to choke him.”
“I put my arm around the front of his neck … and I choked him,” Mings testified, shaking and weeping at the memory. He said he continued squeezing his friend’s neck until both men fell to the bedroom floor, then stuffed several pieces of gauze into his mouth as Seery had instructed.
“At that point did you believe you killed Kevin Seery?” Mings’ attorney, Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson asked.
“Yes, I did,” Mings replied.
DG posted: [quote] premeditation special circumstance [/quote]
With what was Mings in fact charged?
There are 22 “Special Circumstances” enumerated on CPC section 190.2
David, what are you talking about? Or is this you, just being incorrect about yet another legal matter?
[quote]“in Mings own words on the stand, he told about Seery asking him to help end his life. It is all in the trial. Him being sincere about his feelings towards charity is the feeling portrayed from witnessing the trial….”[/quote]Let’s keep open the possibility that this [s]killer[/s]…oh, would-be killer…very well could have been purposely lying to save his skin. Just because it’s all in the trial doesn’t mean that it’s anywhere close to the truth. Sincere? Hah!
Although I appreciate your comments…please refrain from negative remarks about David Greenwald or Dan Hutchinson….I thank you kindly.
Though He scoffs at the scoffers and scorns the scorners, yet He gives His undeserved favor to the low [in rank], the humble, and the afflicted. Proverbs 3: 34