Jurors in the trial of Orange County Superior Court judge Jeffrey Ferguson, who is accused of fatally shooting his wife in their Anaheim Hills home inquired Wednesday about additional closing arguments from attorneys.
On Tuesday, the jurors re-heard testimony from the defendant and at the end of the day asked, “If we all agree with the below statement is that enough for a murder charge?” They were referring to a statement that said, “unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is murder.”
The jury also asked “is a willful act taking the gun out?”
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Eleanor Hunter, who is presiding over the case, told the jury that it was not her duty to “direct them in determining a verdict,” and referred them to the jury instructions they received on the law.
Just after 10 a.m. Wednesday, the jury asked about additional arguments from the prosecutor and defense attorney in the case. Hunter told them the closing arguments would focus on the areas of the law they were inquiring about and asked them to specify what they needed guidance on.
Ferguson’s Defense counsel Kaveh Newmen and Cameron Talley spoke exclusively to 2UrbanGirls given the jury is seemingly at an impasse on deciding his fate.
As deliberations continue in this deeply tragic case, we recognize the challenges the jury faces in reaching a just verdict. The extended deliberations and multiple votes on the charge of second-degree murder reflect the complexity of the evidence and the jurors’ careful consideration of the facts.
Throughout the trial, we have maintained that this was a tragic accident, not an intentional act. Mr. Ferguson has been forthcoming about the events of that evening, cooperating fully with authorities and expressing deep remorse over the loss of his wife, whom he loved. The defense presented clear forensic and testimonial evidence that supports his account—an accidental discharge, not a deliberate act of violence.
It is important to note that the jury has requested to rehear critical testimony and has asked for legal clarification on involuntary manslaughter, which suggests they are weighing all possible outcomes. We remain hopeful that they will ultimately recognize the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly in regard to their shifting theories of intent and malice.
Mr. Ferguson has spent decades upholding the law and has no history of violence. The portrayal of him as someone who acted with intent to kill contradicts both the physical evidence and the testimony of key witnesses. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that this was an unfortunate accident rather than a criminal act.
We trust the jury will continue to evaluate the facts with an open mind and reach a fair and just conclusion based on the law and the evidence presented.
City News Service contributed to this report.
