Juror Comments about the King Verdict and Trial

On Sept. 6, 2002, after approximately 5 hours of deliberation, the 6 King jurors handed down a conviction of a lesser included charge, murder in the second degree without a weapon and of arson for both Derek and Alex King.

DA David Rimmer, in a press conference after the verdict was read, stated he felt the jury gave the boys what he termed a "jury pardon" by convicting of the lesser included charge. Had the jury found the boys guilty of first degree murder in the death of their father, the judge would have been required under Florida statute to sentence the boys to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He felt that the jury was reluctant to send to boys to prison forever, and with a conviction on the lesser charge it opened the door for the judge to sentence them. In fact, with the conviction on the lesser included charge, Judge Bell has the opportunity to sentence the boys as juveniles.

Later that evening, the jury forewoman Lynne Schwarz told reporters that "we were all as one that Chavis, and not the boys, killed Terry King." She states that she and the other King jurors were aghast when they heard Chavis was acquitted.

"I was so shocked I just couldn't believe it," said Schwarz, 52. "It's disturbing that 12 people could see it one way and six people another. But I don't blame that jury. They saw a different presentation and a different interpretation. It's too bad they couldn't have all been tried together. That might have been a fairer trial."

To the King jurors, the boys' taped confessions were forced, rehearsed and unbelievable, using terms such as 'flammable material' and 'wooden structure' which they believed to be uncommon in 12- and 13-year-olds' vocabularies.

"When they asked (Alex) about something he wasn't coached in, his voice changed, his demeanor changed," said juror Glenda Berg, 51. "It was almost like two different people."

"Just as common men, we were sitting there and listening to the confessions. There were so many discrepancies between one boy and another. And then there were some places where they were exactly the same, the same verbiage," Schwarz said. "The investigators should have immediately said, 'There's a problem here, and we've got to look into this more, go back to the scene and try to corroborate some of this.' But they didn't. It's like they just stopped with the confessions."

The jury questioned some injuries sustained by King, but weren't explained by the boys original taped confessions, which consisted of multiple bruises on his chest.

"We thought Terry might have woken up when Chavis came in and gone to him," Schwarz said. "We thought Chavis might have hit him twice in the chest, knocking him back in the chair, before beating him on the head."

The jury requested autopsy photos of the bruising, but were denied as they were not submitted into evidence during the trial.

Schwarz said the jury was not certain that either the boys or Chavis planned to kill King.

The boys "knew he was going to come in, but I don't think they really knew what he was going to do or even if Chavis knew what he was going to do," Schwarz said.

"There are so many things that are left unanswered that I would like to find out, but I don't think anybody will," juror Mary Lupton, 29, said. "Only they know truthfully what events really took place. Only them and God, and that will be their final judgment." According to Lupton, critical missing evidence, such as DNA samples of the boys clothes, were missing from the prosecutors case.

The jury's theory shocked DA David Rimmer.

"I didn't think that at all," Rimmer said. "I thought perhaps he encouraged them to do it, but I never felt Chavis was there." (Editor note: then why didn't he drop the case against Chavis? Instead of dropping charges against Chavis when Judge Bell ruled that there was insufficient evidence to charge Chavis as a principle in the case, which in effect would have meant acquittal as jeopardy was attached the minute the jury was sworn in, he chose to submit testimony to the jury that he didn't believe.)

Rimmer said appeals cannot be based on how a jury reaches its decision, however, which is something the defense attorney for Alex, James Stokes, is using in his call for the judge to grant a new trial, or set aside the jury verdict.

"You cannot appeal based on why the jury did what they did," he said, "only if there was something improper, like improper evidence was taken back or something procedural."

Judge Bell will hear motions to set aside the jury's verdict and enter a verdict of Not Guilty, and a motion for a new trial on October 17, 2002. Should he rule against both motions, the boys will be sentenced Dec. 4 - 5, 2002. Both boys face 22 years to life on the murder charge, and 30 years on the arson, however as mentioned the judge does have the opportunity to sentence both as juveniles.

Had the Grand Jury indicted on second degree murder charges originally, the prosecution could NOT have tried the boys as adults - the minimum age for juveniles to be tried as adults in Florida for any crime other than first degree murder is 14.