After queries, NAU shooting trial jurors adjourn for weekend

FLAGSTAFF - The jury in the Northern Arizona University shooting trial adjourned for the weekend without reaching a verdict.

Jurors plan to return to deliberations at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the case of defendant Steven Jones, who faces charges of firstdegree murder in the fatal shooting of Colin Brough and aggravated assault in connection with shooting and wounding three other students — Nick Piring, Nick Prato and Kyle Zientek — in October 2015.

The incident, in which an argument and fight near an off-campus apartment complex spilled onto campus, drew national media attention and marked the first time a school shooting had ever taken place on the Flagstaff campus.

Jones says the shootings were in selfdefense, while prosecutors say the shootings were premeditated.

Jurors on Friday had a half-dozen questions for Coconino County Superior Court Judge Dan Slayton that focused primarily on self-defense and the law.

They wanted a re-reading of two statements that Jones uttered in the patrol car minutes after the shooting. Slayton had read the statements to jurors Thursday, after they had already started deliberating, when Slayton determined that inaccurate statements made by prosecutors during closing arguments would diminish Jones’ claims of self-defense. Among the questions: “Could we go to the crime scene?” This was a request the prosecution made before the trial, but Slayton ruled it out because of concern that jurors would see or hear something that hadn’t been introduced as evidence.

Slayton told jurors Friday that they could not visit the crime scene for logistical reasons.

“What are the two exact statements Steven Jones said in the police car?”

Slayton said he would send the jury in writing the two statements that Jones made. They were: “Why were they trying to hurt me?” and “I thought I was going to die.”

“(Prosecutor Ammon) Barker said in his closing statement that Colin Brough had the right to charge Steven Jones once he had the light shined in his eyes. I never heard that during the testimony. One juror is holding onto that. I think it is wrong.”

Slayton responded by instructing the jurors that they are to rely on their own memory of the evidence.

Three other questions for the judge — one in multiple parts — focused mainly on self-defense:

“Does a non-contact motion directed toward someone legally justify self-defense if it is believed action was aggressive?”

“Define adequate time for a cooling off period?”

“What does the law say regarding pointing a gun at an unarmed person? Is it a threat? Is it an assault? Is it a crime? Is an unarmed person charging at someone with a gun considered self-defense?”

The judge, after a lengthy discussion with the prosecution and defense, told jurors that they are to rely on the written jury instructions they were given previously, as well as their wisdom and common sense.

Jurors began deliberating Tuesday after listening to 37 witnesses and hours of testimony.

The prosecution has described Jones as someone who “couldn’t wait to shoot his gun” during the early-morning hours of Oct. 9, 2015. Prosecutors said he wanted to enact his own “deranged sense of justice” after being punched in the face during an altercation with members of the Delta Chi fraternity in the street outside an apartment complex.

Defense attorneys countered during closing arguments that someone doesn’t need to have a weapon in hand to threaten someone else’s life, and that Jones felt threatened by the fraternity members.

“This wasn’t a fistfight,” said Jones’ attorney, Burges McCowan. “This wasn’t a couple of guys who decided to take it outside. This was a mob.”

If found guilty of first-degree murder, Jones would face a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no possibility of release. Conversely, the jury could also find Jones guilty of the lesser crimes of second-degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.