Truth and the Jury: Joshua Tree Murder Trial
Posted: Sunday, February 20, 2011
by Jack H. Schick
Serving on a jury is one of the most important “jobs” of a U.S. citizen. It is also one of the most difficult. The goal of our court system is to expose the truth, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a panel of the accused person’s peers. Within the bounds of the known facts, the prosecutors and the defenders both try to color and emphasize information, to put two or more conflicting views of “the truth” before the jury. One might believe that truth is truth, but it is often difficult to recognize it. The problem a jury might have “getting to the bottom of things” is clearly exposed in a trial that is occurring in Joshua Tree, California.
On January 8, 2008, Deputy Moreno was again dispatched to investigate a reported shooting at the same location. She got there at 4:12pm and saw no one around. When other officers arrived a few minutes later and announced their presence, Dawn Croom (25), staggered out of the Weir law office. She had been shot in the leg. Inside, the officers found two more shooting victims, Weir and Rocky Daryl Favorite (50). They were quickly removed for medical attention. Favorite died of his wounds five days later.
Detective Rick Millard, who arrived on the scene at 4:25pm, assumed command of the investigation. He found fourteen bullet holes in the door to the law office. He followed fresh foot prints and discovered a nine shot, .22 caliber revolver buried in the sand near by. While he was interviewing Douglas Veirs, a construction worker who was working on the property that day, a red Kia slowly drove past the crime scene. Veirs recognized it as one that had been parked on property earlier. The driver was identified as Steppe who Veirs knew to live on the premises. Croom had named him as the shooter. Steppe was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder a short time later. The charges were escalated to murder when Favorite died.
The trial began last week, presided over by Judge Dan Detienne in Joshua Tree. Deputy District Attorney Karen Khim is the prosecutor assigned to the case. Bernard Steppe has foregone counseling and has chosen to represent himself. He is trying to build a self-defense case. There is much contention and argument over the facts and events of the day of the shooting. The jury has been offered several versions of the “story” that are often difficult to follow or understand.
In his opening statement Steppe accused police officers of lying and planting evidence. He told the jury that Bill Weir was usually as “high as a kite,” and had shot at him eight times about a week before the law office shootings. He claimed Weir was intent on stealing money from him. Steppe said that at the law office on the day of the shooting, he first encountered Favorite, who was naked except for a green condom he was wearing. When Favorite threatened to kill him, Steppe said he preemptively “jumped him” and hit him, “causing blood to splatter.” “I shot Rocky Favorite right there,” he admitted. “Bill Weir pulls up. I turned and immediately shot him right in his belly.” Steppe also claims there were several other people present who wanted to kill him, including the new owners of the property. Steppe denies shooting Dawn Croom, claiming she shot herself in the leg.
Deputy D.A. Khim called several witnesses to rebut the story. On the stand, Croom seemed to be confused by the proceedings and claimed she could not remember much of what happened during the shooting or what she’d told the investigators at the time. Through careful questioning Khim was able to get Croom’s version of events into the records: The three victims were moving things from the property because it had been sold. Croom was dropped off by Weir who had business at the courthouse. Favorite arrived a little later and was working outside the building. Weir soon joined them. She saw Steppe at the open back door of the office with a gun in his hand. He told them he was going to shoot them. “I believe Rocky shut the door, and Bernard’s arm was still in the door and he was still shooting,” she testified. All three victims then "hit the floor," she said.
During cross examinations, Steppe seemed to struggle to articulate appropriate questions. He was interrupted numerous times by objections from Khim, which were invariable sustained by Judge Detienne. According to the D.A. Steppe’s questions were “argumentative, hearsay, irrelevant and speculative.” Often the witnesses had difficulty understanding exactly what the question was. Though patient and respectful, and often guiding Steppe through the process, late in the day Detienne cautioned the defendant with a weary sigh, “Mr. Steppe, please don’t argue with the witness.”
The trial will continue next week. It will be up to a jury of his peers to some how extract truth from the testimonies, to determine what really happened that tragic day. Is there reasonable doubt? Was it self defense? Was Bernard Steppe merely defending himself from an intoxicated attorney, a naked man wearing a green condom, and an inept woman who shot herself? Was everyone really out to kill him, including the new owners who claim they were not present? The whole truth is often difficult to uncover. We simply must put our trust in the long proven judicial process and in the rationality of the honored citizens who serve on our juries.
(Up-date: They found Bernard Steppe guilty with minimal deliberation)
(Up-date II: They gave him 65 years in prison}
This Article has been viewed 820 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)The twists and turns - and the lies - Most interesting. Good account of case. Thanks.Thanks for reading and commenting.
Hello, i'm Bill Weir's niece who has been with him sense the shooting and my Uncle Bill has been trying to put that horrible day behind him and I just want to know is why is it that all the focus has been on Bernard instead of looking into everyone that was so called present and yes its true that Dawn did shoot herself even though my Uncle Bill and Dawn were engaged to be married. Doesn't anyone think that's extreamly odd? That should of been a good place to start trying to figure out the truth.I was simply recounting the story I read in the High Desert Star. I live in PA and have no real contact with the story. The point of the tone of my article was to make Bernard look ridiculous. Any rational person should see that Weir's story was undoubtedly the truth. I hope Mr Weir can move on with life and be happy.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.