HLG Watches Live Jury Murder Trial

Most cases never get close to the courthouse steps, so it is always good for a trial attorney to spend some time observing the process. After learning about a high stakes murder trial nearby I decided to attend the closing argument and jury deliberation phase. The trial received national attention on Court Tv, Law and Crime Network, and even a later 20/20 episode on ABC after the trial’s conclusion.

On July 24, 2024, a trial dubbed the “Black Swan Murder Trial” took place in Manatee County, Florida. The trial went viral for several reasons as it involved intense drama, conflicting versions of events, Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law and the dynamics of domestic abuse.

A short synopsis of the facts of the case were that the Defendant, Ashley Benefield, was a young 24-year-old female who married a recently widowed 54-year old man named Doug Benefield. They married only 13 days after first meeting at a political fund raising event. They had an up and down whirlwind romance that ultimately culminated Ashely shooting Doug one night at her Lakewood ranch home in what she claimed was self defense.

The prosecution charged her with second degree murder and argued that Mrs. Benefield murdered her husband in an attempt to retain custody of their newly born young daughter. Interestingly, the prosecution asserted that Mr. Benefield only knew of his daughter’s existence after Mrs. Benefield had filed a domestic restraining order against him in court. They further based their theory of murder on the fact that prior to the shooting, Ashely and Doug had attempted to reconcile by both going to psychologist. That psychologist was scheduled to release a report days after the murder that they argued would show Doug that Ashley never intended to reconcile and was only attempting to position herself to retain full custody of her daughter.

The defense based their arguments on a theory somewhat similar to a battered wife syndrome defense, whereby they claimed Ashely was in constant fear of her life and only acted in the best interests of her child. They painted Doug as someone who on the outside looked charming but in reality had a darker side that could present itself outside of the public eye. The defense pointed out that Doug had previously kicked the family dog during an argument about their failed business venture and even fired a gun into the kitchen celling in a heated exchange with Ashely.

After both sides presented evidence including, witnesses, expert’s forensics, and psychological experts, both sides made final closing arguments. At those closing arguments the tension was evident between both sides as each had highly conflicting versions on the events that lead to Doug’s shooting.

After the conclusion of each side’s closing arguments, the judge ordered the jury to go back and deliberate in the early afternoon. After a few hours the jury informed the judge via a letter that they were unable to all come to a unanimous decision. The judge then gave the jury the option to return home and come back tomorrow after informing them that they must make a decision.

The jury then informed the judge they would rather make a decision at that time and came to a unanimous decision within the next hour. They found Mrs. Benefield guilty of manslaughter. Note, this was a lesser charge than she was charged with (second degree murder), but it also did not find her innocent based on her arguments of self defense.

This illustrates how variable jury decisions can be and at the end of the day it seems the jury decided to negotiate the sentence with some feeling she may have been innocent and some feeling she was guilty of the higher charge of second degree murder. At some point, the jury realized that in order for them to come to the same decision it would be necessary to find compromise and meet in the middle at manslaughter.

Note: the jury is not aware when they make the decision of the different levels of punishment of each charge and it is only their job to determine whether or not the crime charged occurred.

Now, the judge at a later date will have the choice to sentence Mrs. Benefield up to thirty (30) years in prison for the crime of manslaughter.

All in all, this experience was a good reminder that you never know what is going to happen at a jury trial. Often times, each side makes very strong arguments and has expert witnesses that must weigh evidence that they often times do not fully understand. Many people have different interpretations of the evidence and a jury of six random people does not always agree on the appropriate decision. This is the same process that plays out in car crash and other negligence cases, albeit a civil and noncriminal matter.