Former SSCC President Dr. Larry Dukes provides a juror's viewpoint on recent capital murder case
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
Dr. Larry Dukes
provides a juror’s viewpoint on recent
capital murder case
For four days, jurors in the Wesley Coonrod murder trial wrestled with a matter of life or death, not knowing if the outcome of their decisions could send an innocent man to lethal injection, or let a murderer go free.
On Oct. 11, the jury – each wearing weary looks on their faces – returned two guilty verdicts on charges of child endangering. Ultimately, they were unable to decide if 42-year-old Coonrod intentionally set the fire that killed his 3- and 4-year-old sons, Thomas and Stephen. They were a hung jury on charges of aggravated murder with death penalty specifications, arson, and two charges of murder with lesser possible charges of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide.
The jurors were held in sequestration away from most contact with the outside world, including their families. But when they were dismissed from duty after returning the verdicts, they were allowed to break their silence.
Dr. Lawrence Dukes, a Hillsboro resident and former president of Southern State Community College, spoke to The Highland County Press about his experience deliberating a man’s life.
Dukes said that he was surprised that he was even seated. During the jury selection and the voir dire questioning process, the potential jurors were asked extensively about their knowledge of law enforcement personnel.
Dukes said that he knew some law enforcement members, including Highland County Sheriff Ron Ward and Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss through their work in the Hillsboro Rotary Club.
Once the 12 jurors and six alternates were seated, they were not permitted to talk about the elements of the case with each other or with people outside the courtroom.
Dukes said that he has a great deal of respect for the other jurors he served with.
“I guess as we went through the process, and I got to know the other jurors a little bit – with one exception. They were people who really worked hard and cared about what they were doing.”
“There was a lot of respect of the opinions of others, particularly when we got to deliberations. We weren’t supposed to talk about it among ourselves until we got to deliberations, so you were wondering if you were seeing things they way they did, or they the way you did, and there was no opportunity to find out until the deliberation process.”
When mulling over the great burden of guilty or not guilty, Dukes said that being sequestered away from family was difficult.
“Being sequestered was a little different experience,” he said. “We were completely cut off. No newspapers, no television, no Internet, no phone calls. The first night, we just had to go to our rooms. After that, they were able to prepare and secure a room where we could watch television, but we had a deputy who was with us at all times. We were able to watch a few ballgames, but they didn’t want us talking about the trial at all.
“It was interesting, because I think there was a lot of energy that needed to be let out afterwards,” Dukes said. “I thought one of the funniest things, the young deputy who was watching us told us afterward that he was sitting out in the hall in his chair, in full uniform and armed, and some people got off the elevator and wanted to know what he was doing there. He said, ‘I’m guarding some very important people.’ They said, ‘Is it a movie star?’ and he said no. ‘Is it a rock band?’ So we joked about forming a rock band.’”
Dukes said that while it would have been nice to go home, “The court personnel bent over backwards to see that we were as comfortable as we could
be. They were just fantastic. I think the people who had a tough time were the alternates. They just had to sit all day.”
Judge Coss told the jurors that to his knowledge they were the first jury to deliberate a capital case in Highland County since the early 1950s, and possibly the first jury in county history to be sequestered.
After a few days of deliberations, the notes the jurors submitted to the court portrayed an obvious tension. One note asked the court what they were to do when 11 jurors were in agreement on a verdict and one juror refused to vote. Another note said that a juror would not consider a guilty verdict on any charge and showed “biased sympathy and prejudice” toward Coonrod.
“I think there was a feeling on the part of most of the jurors that one person had decided they did not want to convict Mr. Coonrod of anything and
that was pretty disturbing. But (with the child endangering conviction) we at least got something done,” Dukes said.
Dukes declined to be specific about the deliberation process, but said that they each were keenly aware of the weight of the matter they were deciding, and the very permanent consequences that could result from their actions.
“It’s easy sometimes to talk about if somebody deserves a death sentence,” Dukes said. “But when you get in there, it becomes a very serious matter when you’re talking about somebody’s life.
“There has been a lot of publicity of people who have been accused and convicted of something, and years later they are found not guilty and released on new evidence. It’s a very serious thing, and I certainly felt that, and would be reluctant to condemn someone to death unless there was a lot of proof and a very heinous crime. Obviously, we were looking at a lot of circumstances and not direct evidence.”
The trial, from the start, had the capacity to be very emotional, from the family members involved, to the witnesses, law enforcement and emergency personnel who testified about hearing the two babies screaming in the moments before they died in a fire in their home at 150 Lafayette Street in Greenfield on March 7.
Several witnesses broke down in tears, including the defendant. Coonrod wiped his eyes through much of the testimony, and openly sobbed when he heard his siblings testifying about seeing the lifeless bodies of the boys for the first time. He broke down again when he took the stand in his own defense.
Dukes said he was able to avoid being emotional by being attentive to note-taking and really listening to the elements of the testimony.
“I don’t know if I found it difficult to hear, but one thing was that they allowed us to take notes, so you were really concentrating on what people said, and hoping that you got the essence of the things they said down,” Dukes said. “That was kind of how we started deliberations, by taking every witness – and there were 33 or 34 witnesses – and going through everyone’s notes, what did they say and how believable they were and those kinds of things, and really feeling like we got all the facts and intricacies. We put that down on big sheets of paper on the wall and then got into more of the possible theories as to what may have happened and how it happened.”
The state alleged that Coonrod poured a liquid accelerant in the hallway in front of his children’s room, lit it on fire with a cigarette lighter, and walked out the front door, locking it behind him. The defense alleged that one of the children might have set the fire.
“It’s one of those things, that when it’s over, you think ‘This was an experience,’” Dukes said. “You did get to see how the legal system worked in this kind of case. I am relieved, as I am sure the other jurors were, that we won’t be asked to serve on another jury. I’m glad it’s a one-time experience.”
As Coss dismissed jurors for their service, he thanked them for their tremendous efforts, and said that if ever any of them were called to jury duty again, he would see they were dismissed upon request.
“I did meet some great people, and I really enjoyed the other jurors,” Dukes said.
“We had some difficulties, but I think that was already kind of alluded to (in the jury’s notes to the court). I would say that the way it was all handled was very professional. The court personnel had never been through anything like this, and they tried very hard to make it as good as it could have been under the circumstances, and we all were very appreciative of that.”
For four days, jurors in the Wesley Coonrod murder trial wrestled with a matter of life or death, not knowing if the outcome of their decisions could send an innocent man to lethal injection, or let a murderer go free.
On Oct. 11, the jury – each wearing weary looks on their faces – returned two guilty verdicts on charges of child endangering. Ultimately, they were unable to decide if 42-year-old Coonrod intentionally set the fire that killed his 3- and 4-year-old sons, Thomas and Stephen. They were a hung jury on charges of aggravated murder with death penalty specifications, arson, and two charges of murder with lesser possible charges of involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide.
The jurors were held in sequestration away from most contact with the outside world, including their families. But when they were dismissed from duty after returning the verdicts, they were allowed to break their silence.
Dr. Lawrence Dukes, a Hillsboro resident and former president of Southern State Community College, spoke to The Highland County Press about his experience deliberating a man’s life.
Dukes said that he was surprised that he was even seated. During the jury selection and the voir dire questioning process, the potential jurors were asked extensively about their knowledge of law enforcement personnel.
Dukes said that he knew some law enforcement members, including Highland County Sheriff Ron Ward and Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss through their work in the Hillsboro Rotary Club.
Once the 12 jurors and six alternates were seated, they were not permitted to talk about the elements of the case with each other or with people outside the courtroom.
Dukes said that he has a great deal of respect for the other jurors he served with.
“I guess as we went through the process, and I got to know the other jurors a little bit – with one exception. They were people who really worked hard and cared about what they were doing.”
“There was a lot of respect of the opinions of others, particularly when we got to deliberations. We weren’t supposed to talk about it among ourselves until we got to deliberations, so you were wondering if you were seeing things they way they did, or they the way you did, and there was no opportunity to find out until the deliberation process.”
When mulling over the great burden of guilty or not guilty, Dukes said that being sequestered away from family was difficult.
“Being sequestered was a little different experience,” he said. “We were completely cut off. No newspapers, no television, no Internet, no phone calls. The first night, we just had to go to our rooms. After that, they were able to prepare and secure a room where we could watch television, but we had a deputy who was with us at all times. We were able to watch a few ballgames, but they didn’t want us talking about the trial at all.
“It was interesting, because I think there was a lot of energy that needed to be let out afterwards,” Dukes said. “I thought one of the funniest things, the young deputy who was watching us told us afterward that he was sitting out in the hall in his chair, in full uniform and armed, and some people got off the elevator and wanted to know what he was doing there. He said, ‘I’m guarding some very important people.’ They said, ‘Is it a movie star?’ and he said no. ‘Is it a rock band?’ So we joked about forming a rock band.’”
Dukes said that while it would have been nice to go home, “The court personnel bent over backwards to see that we were as comfortable as we could
be. They were just fantastic. I think the people who had a tough time were the alternates. They just had to sit all day.”
Judge Coss told the jurors that to his knowledge they were the first jury to deliberate a capital case in Highland County since the early 1950s, and possibly the first jury in county history to be sequestered.
After a few days of deliberations, the notes the jurors submitted to the court portrayed an obvious tension. One note asked the court what they were to do when 11 jurors were in agreement on a verdict and one juror refused to vote. Another note said that a juror would not consider a guilty verdict on any charge and showed “biased sympathy and prejudice” toward Coonrod.
“I think there was a feeling on the part of most of the jurors that one person had decided they did not want to convict Mr. Coonrod of anything and
that was pretty disturbing. But (with the child endangering conviction) we at least got something done,” Dukes said.
Dukes declined to be specific about the deliberation process, but said that they each were keenly aware of the weight of the matter they were deciding, and the very permanent consequences that could result from their actions.
“It’s easy sometimes to talk about if somebody deserves a death sentence,” Dukes said. “But when you get in there, it becomes a very serious matter when you’re talking about somebody’s life.
“There has been a lot of publicity of people who have been accused and convicted of something, and years later they are found not guilty and released on new evidence. It’s a very serious thing, and I certainly felt that, and would be reluctant to condemn someone to death unless there was a lot of proof and a very heinous crime. Obviously, we were looking at a lot of circumstances and not direct evidence.”
The trial, from the start, had the capacity to be very emotional, from the family members involved, to the witnesses, law enforcement and emergency personnel who testified about hearing the two babies screaming in the moments before they died in a fire in their home at 150 Lafayette Street in Greenfield on March 7.
Several witnesses broke down in tears, including the defendant. Coonrod wiped his eyes through much of the testimony, and openly sobbed when he heard his siblings testifying about seeing the lifeless bodies of the boys for the first time. He broke down again when he took the stand in his own defense.
Dukes said he was able to avoid being emotional by being attentive to note-taking and really listening to the elements of the testimony.
“I don’t know if I found it difficult to hear, but one thing was that they allowed us to take notes, so you were really concentrating on what people said, and hoping that you got the essence of the things they said down,” Dukes said. “That was kind of how we started deliberations, by taking every witness – and there were 33 or 34 witnesses – and going through everyone’s notes, what did they say and how believable they were and those kinds of things, and really feeling like we got all the facts and intricacies. We put that down on big sheets of paper on the wall and then got into more of the possible theories as to what may have happened and how it happened.”
The state alleged that Coonrod poured a liquid accelerant in the hallway in front of his children’s room, lit it on fire with a cigarette lighter, and walked out the front door, locking it behind him. The defense alleged that one of the children might have set the fire.
“It’s one of those things, that when it’s over, you think ‘This was an experience,’” Dukes said. “You did get to see how the legal system worked in this kind of case. I am relieved, as I am sure the other jurors were, that we won’t be asked to serve on another jury. I’m glad it’s a one-time experience.”
As Coss dismissed jurors for their service, he thanked them for their tremendous efforts, and said that if ever any of them were called to jury duty again, he would see they were dismissed upon request.
“I did meet some great people, and I really enjoyed the other jurors,” Dukes said.
“We had some difficulties, but I think that was already kind of alluded to (in the jury’s notes to the court). I would say that the way it was all handled was very professional. The court personnel had never been through anything like this, and they tried very hard to make it as good as it could have been under the circumstances, and we all were very appreciative of that.”
[[In-content Ad]]