NEWS
Verdict Reached in West Fulton Shooting Case
WEST FULTON -
SCHOHARIE — As the trial of People v. Goodrich continued last week, several procedural elements of a criminal case remain. The stakes are high as the defendant’s very future is on the line. It is for the jury to determine whether he is found guilty, not guilty, or not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Any direction they choose will have very different consequences for the defendant and his neighbors.
If found guilty Goodrich, according to his attorney, could be looking at many years in prison. If found not guilty, then he is of course, free to go home. But if he is deemed not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect than it will be up to the judge to determine what his fate will be and how he will be handled by the system. Likely some period of mandated medical treatment would be enforced.
The ever-professional uniformed Court Security Officers stand on in-witness, ensuring order is guaranteed in the courtroom like pillars of the justice system they represent. Ever professional and ever ready these men and women stand tall as sentinels of order against the chaos that could ensue.
The People, as represented by District Attorney Susan Mallery, called twelve witnesses for their case. Their testimonies were subject to rigorous scrutiny as required by the law. Each one told a coherent and consistent story. But perhaps the most compelling testimony came from the defense’s sole witness: the defendant Brian Goodrich himself.
Listening to him on the stand, and observers could get a different take on the matter. The details mentioned, like the train full of gold, the illegal surveillance, and his alleged persecution. It all sounds quite different when heard from the man himself. You’re granted a window into what he felt and why he may have committed these actions. You see a man who appeared to be in pain and remorse, a man driven “nocturnal” by perceived persecutors, a man who needs help.
It is clear that there was some matter of tension between him and his neighbors that precipitated these events. It is also worth mentioning that the shootings took place against the backdrop of COVID. The entire nation was in a veritable pressure cooker. These were tense times for everyone.
Under that tension, the defendant seems to have gotten lost. The entire case from a legal standpoint is a reflection of the fluid and intricately complex nature of the situation. A very delicate balancing act occurs between the rights of the accused and the rights of the people to be safe in their homes. It’s a legal quagmire.
The defense is facing an uphill battle. Statistically speaking there is a remote chance that the defendant will be found not responsible by mental disease or defect. The affirmative defense is rarely used and usually only successful in a small percentage of cases, just over two dozen per year, in the entire United States. It’s a singular case.
The summations are handled with the same amount of professionalism as the rest of the proceedings. Ryan Finn for the defense delivers a distilled argument to the jurors. He makes his case with a blend of conviction and steadfast reason. The prosecution asserts in their summation that the defendant knew what he was doing and refreshes the jury’s memory with exhibits of evidence from the trial.
The jury of 7 men and 5 women began deliberation at around 9:30 in the morning and took the whole day. At one point a request is made to again review the body cam footage of NYS Trooper Molle. By the day's end, a verdict is reached.
The jury finds the defendant Not Responsible by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect on all charges. Ryan Finn and his client have defied the odds.
After the trial is concluded, the defendant is taken into custody for safekeeping where he will receive medical treatment. His future is, as of this writing, very uncertain. Only in a country with a justice system like the United States could this occur. The rights of the accused are weighed against the rights of the general public.
And though a verdict was reached, it is ultimately up to the general public, including the reader, to decide whether the judicial process led to justice.
Defense attorney Ryan Finn speaks to the court.
SCHOHARIE — As the trial of People v. Goodrich continued last week, several procedural elements of a criminal case remain. The stakes are high as the defendant’s very future is on the line. It is for the jury to determine whether he is found guilty, not guilty, or not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Any direction they choose will have very different consequences for the defendant and his neighbors.
If found guilty Goodrich, according to his attorney, could be looking at many years in prison. If found not guilty, then he is of course, free to go home. But if he is deemed not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect than it will be up to the judge to determine what his fate will be and how he will be handled by the system. Likely some period of mandated medical treatment would be enforced.
The ever-professional uniformed Court Security Officers stand on in-witness, ensuring order is guaranteed in the courtroom like pillars of the justice system they represent. Ever professional and ever ready these men and women stand tall as sentinels of order against the chaos that could ensue.
The People, as represented by District Attorney Susan Mallery, called twelve witnesses for their case. Their testimonies were subject to rigorous scrutiny as required by the law. Each one told a coherent and consistent story. But perhaps the most compelling testimony came from the defense’s sole witness: the defendant Brian Goodrich himself.
Listening to him on the stand, and observers could get a different take on the matter. The details mentioned, like the train full of gold, the illegal surveillance, and his alleged persecution. It all sounds quite different when heard from the man himself. You’re granted a window into what he felt and why he may have committed these actions. You see a man who appeared to be in pain and remorse, a man driven “nocturnal” by perceived persecutors, a man who needs help.
It is clear that there was some matter of tension between him and his neighbors that precipitated these events. It is also worth mentioning that the shootings took place against the backdrop of COVID. The entire nation was in a veritable pressure cooker. These were tense times for everyone.
Under that tension, the defendant seems to have gotten lost. The entire case from a legal standpoint is a reflection of the fluid and intricately complex nature of the situation. A very delicate balancing act occurs between the rights of the accused and the rights of the people to be safe in their homes. It’s a legal quagmire.
The defense is facing an uphill battle. Statistically speaking there is a remote chance that the defendant will be found not responsible by mental disease or defect. The affirmative defense is rarely used and usually only successful in a small percentage of cases, just over two dozen per year, in the entire United States. It’s a singular case.
The summations are handled with the same amount of professionalism as the rest of the proceedings. Ryan Finn for the defense delivers a distilled argument to the jurors. He makes his case with a blend of conviction and steadfast reason. The prosecution asserts in their summation that the defendant knew what he was doing and refreshes the jury’s memory with exhibits of evidence from the trial.
The jury of 7 men and 5 women began deliberation at around 9:30 in the morning and took the whole day. At one point a request is made to again review the body cam footage of NYS Trooper Molle. By the day's end, a verdict is reached.
The jury finds the defendant Not Responsible by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect on all charges. Ryan Finn and his client have defied the odds.
After the trial is concluded, the defendant is taken into custody for safekeeping where he will receive medical treatment. His future is, as of this writing, very uncertain. Only in a country with a justice system like the United States could this occur. The rights of the accused are weighed against the rights of the general public.
And though a verdict was reached, it is ultimately up to the general public, including the reader, to decide whether the judicial process led to justice.