Self-defense:

23 knife wounds – 15 in back

By Monte E. Hester; March 2001

     Our client, a 26-year old Seattle resident, was in Ocean Shores on July 4, 2000, with his identical twin brother and another young man, all of whom were of Chinese descent.  These men went to a Texaco station around 1:30 a.m. to buy some food to take with them to their hotel room to share with some friends.

      As they drove up to the Texaco station/store there were 30 to 50 people milling around, some of whom had a “skinhead” appearance.  These individuals were dressed in tank tops, had shaved or very short hair, and were all white.  One man was draped in a confederate flag.

     The three Asian men were taunted racially as they went into the store, as well as while they were inside.  The most abusive person was the one wearing and holding the confederate flag.

     While the Asian men were in the store, the “flag man” signaled them to come out and made slashing gestures across his throat.  Our client was frightened and was doubtful that the clerk from the store would be a source of help.  Our client put two paring knives in his pocket, which he took from the store without paying.  He testified he did so because he was afraid that he,     his brother and friend might be attacked and knifed when they left the store. 

     Taunts, spitting and other gestures occurred as they left the store and got into their cars. 

     As they started to pull away, the flag man stood in front of their car and blocked the path of travel.  My client tried to call 911 but no phone service was available.  His brother, the driver, jumped out to run away but was immediately hit in the face and grabbed by the flag man.  Our client, who was afraid for his brother’s life, went to his aid trying to push the assailant away.  He was struck and grabbed at which time he used a knife on the man until he was able to get away.  The third Asian man was also assaulted by a confederate of the flag man as he was trying to run away.  They jumped in their car and sped away. 

     The flag man, who was 200+ lbs. and 6’ tall, died shortly after the incident from 23 stab wounds, 15 of which were in the back.  Our client, who was 123 lbs. and 5’6” tall, testified and described his fear.  He stated that as a minority he was aware of occurrences of torture, assaults, and murder in the past of minorities by hate groups, white supremacists, and groups known as skinheads.

     Both the pathologist called by the state and our retained pathologist stated that the multiple wounds and the lack of an identifiable wound pattern were consistent with stabbing and slashing being administered by a person who is defending against an attack.  Our expert also testified that in his vast experience he did not believe that the number of wounds inflicted in this case was unusual.  He testified that when in a situation where one is being attacked it is expected that a person will defensively stab as fast and as often as they can until they are able to get away.  The witness opined that such a response is driven by the instinctive desperation to survive.

     We had another expert standing by whom we did not call.  His purpose would have been to educate the jury on the fright or flight hyper-vigilance response of humans when they are involved in a physical altercation or other event they perceive as life threatening.  We believed that the pathologist testimony was sufficient to allow us to discuss this human response so we did not call this potential expert.

     Voir Dire might have been the most important part of this case.  Because of the extensive publicity we were able to voir dire the panel individually.  During this individual questioning we were able to learn of opinions that were held that our client “was guilty” or “overreacted” or “should have called police.”  We were able to get these individuals to agree that they could not presume the defendant to be innocent and they were subsequently excused for cause.

     During general voir dire we were able to get the jury to discuss amongst themselves that they understood that a minority would be afraid when they were confronted with situations outside of their own neighborhoods.  The jurors, who were all white, shared that when they were in areas of  minority neighborhoods that they were afraid because of stories they had heard.

     The jury was instructed on manslaughter 1 and, as a lesser- included, manslaughter 2.  The defense was one of self-defense/defense of others.  The jury deliberated for about eight hours notifying the court they were deadlocked.  The Judge declared a mistrial.  The vote was eleven to one for acquittal.  The prosecutor reasonably decided to dismiss the case.