- The Washington Times - Saturday, September 7, 2002

PENSACOLA, Fla. — A jury convicted 13- and 14-year-old brothers yesterday of murdering their sleeping father with a baseball bat in an unusual case in which an adult friend was acquitted of the crime under a completely different prosecution theory.
The older brother, Derek King, bowed his head as the verdict was read, while Alex King wiped away tears as his attorney draped an arm around his shoulders. Their mother, Kelly Marino, wept softly in the courtroom gallery behind them.
The boys' attorneys said they would appeal, but declined further comment. Their relatives said they were distraught.
"Alex was devastated, and so was Derek," said Greg King, their uncle and the victim's brother. He said he believed the boys were innocent.
The boys, who were tried as adults, each face 22 years to life in prison on the second-degree murder charge alone. They were also convicted of arson for trying to burn down their home around the battered body of Terry King, 40.
A short time later, a separate jury announced that a family friend, Ricky Chavis, had been acquitted of first-degree murder and arson during a trial last month. The verdict was reached last week and sealed pending the outcome of the boys' trial.
The boys' taped confessions to sheriff's deputies were played for jurors during Mr. Chavis' trial.Prosecutors said the boys wanted to escape their controlling father and live with Mr. Chavis, a 40-year-old convicted child molester who allowed them to play video games, stay up late watching television and smoke marijuana when they went to his house after running away from home 10 days before the killing.
According to a transcript released yesterday after both verdicts were read, Judge Frank Bell said he was concerned about possibly having to impose mandatory life terms on all three defendants — if convicted of first-degree murder — when "in my mind, I know that one of them is not guilty." The transcript was from a closed-door meeting with the attorneys last month.
Prosecutors admitted in court that their case against Mr. Chavis was weak, and some legal experts questioned the decision to try both the boys and Mr. Chavis on first-degree murder charges for the same crime. Prosecutors argued in one trial that Mr. Chavis wielded the bat; they argued at the other trial that it was the boys who did it.
The boys confessed the day after the Nov. 26 slaying, but recanted months later and pinned the crime on Mr. Chavis. Soft-spoken Alex said the boys initially took the blame because they wanted to live with Mr. Chavis and he had told them they would be exonerated because they are juveniles.
Defense lawyers said the boys confessed to protect Mr. Chavis and were coached by him on what to say. That included such gory details as being able to see their father's brain through a hole in his head and the raspy sound of his last gasps.
"Everyone in this courtroom can repeat those details," said James Stokes, Alex's attorney. "The boys' stories line up because the boys' stories are rehearsed."
The boys' attorneys also argued that Mr. Chavis had a motive because he wanted to keep Mr. King from finding out he was having sex with Alex.Prosecutor David Rimmer said the boys were telling the truth the first time and that their confessions included details only the killer would have known.
"The jury did the right thing, and I'm proud of them," he said afterward. "If [jurors] had believed the boys were telling the truth in court, they would have found Chavis guilty."
The boys sat at different tables with their lawyers as they awaited the verdict. Derek rocked slightly in his chair and stifled yawns, while Alex chatted with his attorney.
After the verdict, both sat in silence, with Alex struggling to hold back tears.
At Mr. Chavis' trial, prosecutors put the boys on the witness stand, where they said they hid in the trunk of his car while Mr. Chavis killed their father. The house was set on fire. The boys were 12 and 13 at the time.
Mr. Rimmer, however, avoided asking the Chavis jury for a conviction, saying the only reason the case came to trial was that the boys had lied [-] either when they told authorities they killed their father or to jurors when they said Mr. Chavis did.
He said it was up to the jury to decide, adding: "I don't have a dog in this fight."
At the boys' trial, however, prosecutors said it was Derek who swung the bat while Alex urged him on.
Defense lawyers asked Judge Frank Bell to acquit the boys because of the competing theories of the crime, but the judge refused.Christopher Slobogin, a University of Florida law professor, and Mark Seidenfeld, associate dean at Florida State University's law school, said prosecutors should have decided who they thought was guilty and taken that case to trial.
"It's on the verge of being unethical that they would pursue contradictory theories when they are relatively sure that the evidence points to one as opposed to another defendant," Mr. Slobogin said.
But Mr. Slobogin also said there would have been nothing unconstitutional about having contradictory verdicts, and they could have been upheld on appeal.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide