A Sturgis man is set to face trial in the alleged shooting death of his boss after his attorney’s motion to quash the bind-over to trial proved unsuccessful. Prosecutors theorized that tensions were running high at the accounting firm where the man worked after the man was accused of embezzlement. They also theorized that the man had had an emotionally charged meeting with his boss the day before the boss was found dead, having been shot in the head.
Court documents filed by the man’s defense attorney noted that police and prosecutors had been unable to produce a murder weapon and that prosecutors remained unable to determine even the type of firearm used in the October 2013 crime. Prosecutors countered with witness testimony to the effect that the man had knowledge of and access to a .38 Colt revolver at an auto shop where he had previously worked as an accountant. They also noted that he had allegedly been been at the shop the week before his boss’s death.
The court denied a defense motion to disallow testimony from a forensic scientist about gunshot residue at trial, as well as a motion to disallow testimony about the supposed embezzlement allegations.
Though the defense attorney in this criminal investigation was unable to quash the bind-over to trial, an attorney in a similar case might be able to put similar arguments to good use at trial. In the absence of a murder weapon, prosecutors could be forced to try the defendant on weaker circumstantial evidence, potentially creating an opportunity for an acquittal or a favorable plea bargain.
Source: MLive, “Andy Brown set to face trial Tuesday in shooting death of his boss, David Locey”, Aaron Mueller, June 20, 2014