Tuffree Jurors Deadlocked on Murder Charge

A Ventura County jury declared itself hopelessly deadlocked Wednesday on whether Daniel Allan Tuffree should be found guilty of first-degree murder in the fatal shooting of a Simi Valley policeman last year.

But--only an hour after being ordered back into deliberations--the jurors did find Tuffree guilty of the lesser charges of armed assault and attempted murder during the shootout last August that resulted in the death of Police Officer Michael Clark.

The stunning disclosure that the jury sees itself hopelessly split on the key charge against Tuffree raised the prospect of Ventura County’s first mistrial in a death-penalty case in about a decade.

It also touched off an afternoon of dramatic legal moves in the courtroom of Superior Court Judge Allan L. Steele, who told jurors he wants them to resume deliberations today on the murder count after he answers two written questions from them on what constitutes premeditation in a murder case.

Tuffree, 49, is accused of first-degree murder in the slaying of Clark on Aug. 4, 1995, during a gunfight with police. He faces a possible death sentence if convicted, but Steele could be forced to declare a mistrial on that count if the jury remains deadlocked.

On Wednesday, veteran prosecutors could not recall the last time a capital case has ended in a mistrial in Ventura County but said it has been at least a decade.

Although Tuffree is charged with first-degree murder, the jury has the option of finding him guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the slaying of Clark. It could also acquit the former high school teacher, whose defense was that he shot Clark because he thought the policeman was going to shoot him.

Three police officers were sent to Tuffree’s home on the day of the shooting, after reports that he had been mixing Valium and alcohol and had stopped answering his phone. A gunfight broke out after Clark spotted Tuffree inside his home, asked him to come outside and then saw through his kitchen window that the man was holding a gun.

Defense attorneys have argued that Clark fired at Tuffree when he saw the pistol, prompting Tuffree to shoot back. But prosecutors say that Tuffree, a former Van Nuys high school teacher with a long history of emotional problems, was a police hater who killed the 28-year-old officer in premeditation.

After Steele’s urgings, the jury submitted two questions to the judge Wednesday afternoon on what constitutes premeditated murder--the difference between a first-degree and second-degree murder charge.

The first question asked whether Tuffree’s act in getting his gun when he saw officers by itself shows premeditation. The second asked for examples of case law explaining premeditation.

Steele directed jurors to return at 10 a.m. today to hear the responses to those questions before resuming negotiations.

His effort to keep the jury deliberating came after a six-week trial and one week of deliberations that had provoked growing tension among attorneys as days passed with no sign that a verdict was near.

The first indication that the jury was split came in a note from jurors Wednesday that was delivered to Steele about 11:30 a.m. as the judge was presiding over a burglary trial, attorneys said.

Steele delayed the burglary trial and summoned all the parties in the Tuffree case to report to his courtroom at 1:30 p.m. to hear what had developed.

The courtroom was packed with members of the slain officer’s family, Simi Valley police officials, Tuffree’s relatives, curious attorneys and U.S Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) as the judge delivered the news.

Jurors looked visibly unhappy as they took their places in the jury box. Tuffree, brought to the courtroom from his cell in the nearby County Jail, sat expressionless.

Speaking softly before the hushed crowd, Steele announced that the jury was “hopelessly hung up on count one.” Hoping to avoid a mistrial, he then asked jurors if there were any questions that could be answered to break the deadlock.

“If there are questions, perhaps it would be helpful to write them down and send them out,” Steele said. “Certainly, I think it is worth an effort.”

When asked by Steele whether the jury had discussed the two lesser counts, the jury foreman said, “No.”

“We need you to go back out,” Steele responded.

With that, the jurors shuffled back into the jury room to discuss the charges of armed assault and attempted murder that were also filed against Tuffree in connection with the gunfight. Those charges accused Tuffree of firing at Simi Valley Police Officer Michael Pierce, Clark’s partner.

Following the first courtroom session of the afternoon, members of Clark’s family and police officials walked silently out of the courtroom, looking frustrated and upset. They declined to comment on the case, reserving their remarks until after the jury’s final verdict, they said.

“It’s unfortunate that they haven’t been able to come to a conclusion,” Gallegly said outside the courtroom. “My heart goes out to the family. It makes this day more difficult. The family is still sitting there without any justice in their lives.”

Prosecutors and defense attorneys said little about the deadlock on the key charge against Tuffree, but looked downcast as they hurried out of the courtroom.

Within two hours, the lawyers were back in the courtroom after being informed that verdicts had been quickly reached on the two charges involving Pierce. The guilty verdicts on those counts alone could put Tuffree in prison for 20 years or more, lawyers said. Deputy Dist. Atty. Peter Kossoris remained optimistic about the possibility of a conviction on the murder charge as well and said it is not unusual for a jury to initially deadlock.

“There have been juries that have said that and later returned verdicts,” said Kossoris, a veteran prosecutor who has won death sentences in his last two capital cases. But whether this jury will break its deadlock is anyone’s guess.

“I like to predict elections, baseball games and football games,” Kossoris said, “but not trials.”