State vs. Stennett Case This article in The Baltimore Sun serves as an outlet for many of the jurors involved in the "State vs. Stennett" case to speak out regarding what they feel are inaccurate accusations regarding their acquittal of 17-year-old Eric Stennett. April 20, 2000 was a night that many police officers will never forget, but it was also a night that saw the tampering of evidence, the mishandling of evidence, as well as the confusion among the police officers who were there regarding what had actually happened. Police procedure was forgotten, and that is just the beginning of the prosecutions problems when it came to building a solid case against their defendant. All the defense had to do was produce some reasonable doubt, which the jurors obviously felt the defense had done its job.

It would seem that there is no disputing the fact that Eric Stennett was driving the tan Bronco that rammed police officer Kevon Gavin's cruiser at around 90 M.P.H. Stennett was pulled from the vehicle shortly after the crash occurred. Stennett was involved in a high-speed chase that proceeded the supposed attempted shooting of another individual, Antonio Dorsey.

Seems like a pretty easy case to try and get a conviction - after all, there were four police officers that witnessed the events almost in their entirety. There is a gun that matches the casings left at the shooting. Stennett was driving the Bronco. How did he get acquitted?

A large part of the jury was already predisposition to favor the defense. African-Americans made up over half of the jury (10 out of the 12), and African-Americans are less likely to convict someone if there is any hint of police brutality or abuse. African-Americans, especially after the many publicized incidences of wrongful detainment, unnecessary force, etc., tend to mistrust police....

Immediately, ten of the members of the jury would be overly sensitive to the actions of the police - if there was any hint of conspiracy, cover-up or just plain lying, these jury members would most likely catch it, and act upon it.
Nine of the jury members were women, which sometimes isn't a factor at all in a case. This one, however, included a minor defendant who was refused any access to his family or a lawyer while he was being held in police custody. He had a concussion and a possible skull fracture, which caused him to take three days before he could be questioned by police. Those three days his mother and a lawyer hired by her were not given any time with him. How could women, especially mothers, on the jury not feel like the police were trying to sandbag the defendant? The poor excuse given was that the police didn't have to inform him that his mother had hired him a lawyer, and that he had never requested one. The jury didn't buy it.

The entire jury only had one white person on it, a white male. The other two men were Hispanic and black, along with the nine black women jurors. Both the defense and the prosecution have a say in the jury selection, therefore the jury selection process must have been fair. There is no way that the defense could be held responsible for "stacking a jury" against Stennett - both sides had their chances to make the jury as close to fair as they could. That, and the judge had no qualms about the jury selection process, either.

As stated before, some members of the jury came into the trial with predispositions that were in favor of the defendant. But both sides were able to present their evidence, and by all accounts the evidence is what harmed the prosecution the most. The police reports from the four witnessing officers were in contradiction of one another. Their testimonies…