Murder trial arguments start today

The state District Court in Havre spent all day Tuesday selecting a jury in the trial of Shane Clark Johnson, born in 1968, accused of murdering his brother Travis Johnson in their shared basement apartment Nov. 9.

The jury of 12 and two alternates was sworn in and dismissed about 4:15 p.m., with Judge Dan Boucher telling them to be back by 8:45 this morning for the start of the trial itself, after thanking and dismissing the jury pool members not selected for their service.

Of the pool of 90 prospective jurors subpoenaed for jury selection, more than than 20 failed to show up Tuesday, a problem Boucher said seems to be growing and is evident statewide.

Shane Johnson was arrested after his mother, returning home from dinner with the brothers' stepfather, found Travis Johnson lying in the basement bleeding from head wounds and called for an ambulance and police.

Havre Fire Department emergency medical technicians found the injury was caused by a gun shot. Travis Johnson died shortly after arriving at the hospital.

Law enforcement officers responding to the scene found Shane Johnson lying in his bed in his bedroom in the basement of his parents' house. They also found evidence of a struggle in the dining room upstairs including broken and disarranged furniture and a pool of blood and a trail of drops of blood leading to and down the stairs, as well as several bullet holes in the basement.

Before and after the jury selection began, attorneys on both sides made arguments about whether some evidence or witnesses should be allowed in the trial.

Deputy State Attorney Catherine Truman said at one point that the defense leading up to the trial has argued the shooting was accidental and arguments of self-defense should not be raised.

Truman said Johnson has argued that he was shoved down the stairs and the gun went off accidentally.

According to a charging document, Johnson made that statement to officers the night of Nov. 9. He also said later that his brother had followed him downstairs and "would not stop," the document says.

During the lengthy jury selection, most of the time asking prospective jurors questions was used by the prosecution, with both sides covering a variety of issues during the voir dire.

Defense attorney Randi Hood - who noted that the term "voir dire" is French for "to speak the truth" and that the process is used to find unbiased jurors - asked questions including how people's relationships with other jurors and with witnesses might impact their ability to give a fair verdict.

She also asked if people disagree with fellow jurors, would they stick to their belief or "cave" to deliver a verdict.

Although one juror said that jurors should keep an open mind and listen to their fellows - the purpose of deliberations, he said - the prospective jurors were in consensus that people should stick to what they believe in trying to render a verdict.

Hood also asked if someone had just killed a family member, accidentally or in self defense, if that might not put them into shock and have them not thinking clearly and if everyone might not react differently. She asked what people thought they might do if that happened to them.

Several jury members said - with one saying she might stop to cry beforehand - that the first thing they would do is call 911.

Hill County Attorney Gina Dahl in her voir dire asked questions including if the jury understood that circumstantial evidence sometimes is the most compelling. She noted that in a case where the only witnesses are the defendant and the murder victim, circumstantial evidence is all that is available.

She also asked if jurors understood that under Montana law, the prosecution does not have to prove motive to meet its burden of proof, asking, with agreement from jurors, if some people's reasons for doing things might not seem strange or not understandable, and if some violent crimes are not simply senseless acts of passion. She also asked if jurors thought that intoxication could lead to violent acts.

She told the jurors that the trial might include some gruesome discussions and photographs, and asked if that would upset any prospective jurors or cause them to hold it against the prosecution. The pool agreed that it would not.