Reel to Real (32 page)

January 7, 1998

The jury sent a note requesting the transcript of Esther Beckley’s testimony.

The note read:

“In some minds, the case hinged on some of the details of her testimony. Notes are old and sketchy throughout. The case was not clear, so it wasn’t known what details are important at this time.”

Judge Allen sent a note back saying that no transcripts would be provided; that the jury needed to rely on their own memories.

Later that afternoon Judge Allen received another note.

“Our foreperson is trying to tell us that we should convict the defendant when we think otherwise. He does not want to listen to what we have to say. When we do get to talk, he has to argue with us. He also does not want us to take our breaks.”

The judge replied with a note informing the jury that they were free to elect a new foreperson.

Before any new elections were held, the original foreman sent a note to the judge with provisional vote results. The jury rendered guilty verdicts on counts 26-28 relating to felon in possession of a firearm and tampering. However, they deadlocked, nine to three on the other fifty-seven counts.

Defense Attorney Gary Mitchell moved to accept the verdict on those three counts and then asked for a mistrial regarding the others. The judge denied Mitchell’s motion and asked the jury to continue its deliberations.

The foreman, upon hearing of the complaints against him, resigned. The jury then voted on a new foreman, and the same man was elected again. Unanimously.

January 8, 1998

The jury sent many more notes, most of them involving requests for transcripts of various witnesses. They again asked for Esther Beckley’s testimony.

Even though Esther Beckley had testified over a month earlier and her three days of testimony was arguably the most important testimony, the court wrote back, “Transcripts are not available! Rely on your memories.”

January 9, 1998

The bailiff informed the judge that one of the female jurors had an ear ache and wished to go home. Upon learning of the woman’s illness, Judge Allen dismissed the jury for the weekend.

Jan. 12, 1998

Juror problems continued. Despite the best efforts of the other jurors to convince them otherwise, three jurors contended that the defendant was not guilty on a large portion of charges.

Judge Allen took the rare step of visiting the jury room to find out if all twelve members were firm on their stances. Shortly after his visit he received a note saying that verdicts had been reached on some of the charges and they were deadlocked on the rest.

After 32 hours of deliberations, the verdicts were read. Jurors convicted Shane Glen Harrison of felony first degree murder for the fatal shooting and kidnapping of Pauline and George McDougall. They deadlocked on the other three killings inside the video store.

The jury also convicted Harrison of commercial burglary, armed robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon, kidnapping, and numerous other conspiracy and tampering charges.

January 14, 1998

Following a day of various motions by the attorneys, the sentencing phase began. Defense Attorney Gary Mitchell again asked for a mistrial. He also argued that first degree felony murder was not a strong enough verdict to invoke the death penalty. Prosecutor Michael Cox urged that the verdicts be salvaged and the death penalty remain on the table.

Both the state and the defense made their arguments to the jury as to why the death penalty was or wasn’t appropriate. The jurors took only forty-five minutes to make up their minds on this issue. The jury failed to agree that any aggravating factors were involved in the murders of George and Pauline McDougall. Shane Harrison would not be sentenced to death.

January 15, 1998

Five family members from the McDougall/Blacklock family spoke of their great losses during the victim impact segment of the sentencing process. They urged the judge to give Harrison the maximum available penalty.

Judge Allen sentenced Shane Harrison to a total of 258 years for the McDougall's murders and related crimes. Even with credit for good time, Harrison would not be eligible for parole until the age of 187.

January 16, 1998

One of the jurors took the unusual step of writing to the Albuquerque Journal newspaper to apologize to both the victims’ families, and to the city of Albuquerque for the jury's verdicts. He said he was sorry Shane Harrison was not convicted on the five first degree murder charges. Nine of the jurors voted for all twenty-seven counts against Harrison, he said. He blamed two particular jurors for the jury’s inability to obtain convictions, stating that they said, “We don’t believe that Shane could do such a bad thing.” He also commended the prosecution for doing a good job presenting the evidence.

March 18, 1998

Then-Bernalillo County District Attorney Jeff Romero announced his intent to retry Shane Harrison for the killings inside the store and to seek the death penalty for the crimes. Harrison’s appeals of his earlier convictions delayed the retrial.

Dec. 22, 1998

The Hollywood Video store, closed since the killings, reopened at the same location. The company installed a memorial garden in front of the smaller, remodeled store and dedicated it to the victims. Hollywood Video also pledged to donate a percentage of the profits from the store to local victims advocacy groups.

March 1, 1999

After sharpened paintbrushes were found in his cell, Shane Harrison was convicted of having a deadly weapon in prison. Five more years were added onto his sentence.

October 1, 1999

Judge Frank Allen issued an order denying Esther Beckley’s request to reduce her sentence.

July 18, 2000

In the case of STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shane Glen HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Feb. 18, 2001

Recently elected District Attorney Kari Brandenburg announced she would not retry Shane Harrison, saying that he would die in prison. Even though it had only been five years since the murders, Brandenburg said that the chances of convicting him had lessened with the passage of time.

Some members of the victims’ families were extremely upset by the decision. They felt it unconscionable that no one would be held accountable for the three murders inside the video store.

August 2013

Esther Beckley had been in prison for seventeen years by the time I met her at the New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility in Grants, New Mexico. I asked her if she had many visitors. She told me that her dad had visited her a couple of years back, and that the parents of another inmate were currently on her visitor list. That was it.

During her stay at the correctional facility, she had made sporadic attempts to lessen her sentence. They were all of the habeas corpus type and none of her attempts had even a modicum of success.

In the small but clean visitor’s room at the prison, I told her I was there to get to know her because I was writing a book about the crime. I told her I had decided before meeting her that I believed her court testimony — that I believed her version of the events. I told her unless she told me otherwise, that was the premise I was going by.

Short, gray-haired and 58 years old, Esther Beckley was not an imposing figure. She was happy, however, to have some company and was a good conversationalist. She kept up on current events and read a lot. Her current job was inside the prison kitchen. She told me she was able to stay out of trouble for the most part, and got by the best she could.

I asked her a few questions about the crime, but not many. What surprised me, having just read the entire 3,000-page court transcript, was how much of what she said was verbatim from the trial. I wondered if I would have such a good memory about events that had happened seventeen years earlier, especially if I had lied. I asked her if she had access to any court files or transcripts. She said no, which made sense, since she did not have a trial.

While I was there, I asked her if she was sorry for what happened on March 3, 1996, and despite her various attempts to get her sentence mitigated she said the following:

“I am very sorry for what happened. I’m sorry for the crimes that were committed. I’m sorry for the lives that were lost for no reason. I wish I would have done more to stop the murders, and I believe I belong in prison for what I have done.”

The END

other books by Joyce Nance

“
Escaping the Arroyo
”

Joyce Nance

Joyce Nance, award winning author, documentarian, video editor, Albuquerque Sports News publisher, paralegal at the Public Defenders Office, has written her second book about crime. Currently, she is pursuing a degree in Criminal Justice and working on her next book.

Originally from Southern California, she now lives in the Southwest.