As a clerk read the unanimous verdict, some onlookers broke into boisterous applause; others, cries of anguish.
Banked to one side of the courthouse, in rows of ancient wooden chairs, sat the family members and friends of Phillip Lyster, 27, the stranger who Chief Calf shot to death outside Westside Lanes bowling alley in August.
As the Missoula jurors headed for the deliberation room just before 1 p.m. Friday afternoon, two full days of testimony swam in their minds, while the fate of a young Missoula man hung in limbo, facing two counts of assault with a weapon and a count of robbery in addition to the deliberate homicide charge.
In Chief Calf's trial, jurors were duty bound to decide whether he committed a criminal act when he shot Phillip Lyster at point-blank range, or if his lethal use of force was mitigated, justifiable or accidental, as was argued by the defense.
During closing arguments Friday, the defense and prosecution outlined their stances and implored the jurors to examine all of the evidence carefully and fairly.
The defense contended that Chief Calf feared for his life after receiving a barrage of anonymous telephone threats in the 24 hours leading up to the shooting, and that the shotgun fired accidentally during a tug-of-war with Lyster, who was trying to disarm him.
Prosecutors said Lyster was only trying to protect his friends and keep the peace when he approached Chief Calf in the parking lot, while the defendant acted deliberately, shooting Lyster in the torso at point-blank range.
Chief Calf's attorney, public defender Scott Spencer, tried to focus the jury's attention on inconsistencies in the statements of two brothers - friends of the defendant - who witnessed the fatal shooting. But jurors found surveillance video and the defendant's own admissions more persuasive.
In his own testimony, Chief Calf said the telephone threats made him afraid and panic-stricken in the moments leading up to Lyster's shooting, and he became convinced Lyster was the source of that fear.
But Deputy County Attorneys Jennifer Clark and Andrew Paul keyed in on basic questions - why did Chief Calf put himself into a situation that so easily could have been avoided? Why didn't he stay home behind locked doors? Why did he bring a loaded 20-gauge shotgun to the very spot the anonymous caller claimed to be?
“He decided to go back to confront the threat,” Clark said in her closing argument. “The defendant wasn't scared to go. The fight was on. He was going to show him that he wasn't afraid. He was a tough guy.”
Lyster, on the other hand, was “an innocent man protecting his friends,” Paul said.
During the two-and-a-half day trial, Spencer mounted an affirmative defense for Chief Calf, and applied legal arguments of mitigation, justifiable use of force and necessity.
But Clark balked at notions that Chief Calf's actions were anything but deliberate.
“The defendant built this path with his choices. He built it deliberately, consciously and knowingly,” she said.
Clark emphasized that police found an empty shotgun shell casing at the crime scene, meaning Chief Calf had to have racked the gun, discharging the empty shell before reloading a fresh one, which was still in the chamber when authorities arrived.
“Another deliberate action,” said Clark, as she pantomimed pumping the shotgun for the jurors. “He was ready to go again.”
Prosecutors say Chief Calf stole the gun from the brothers who live near the bowling alley, then pointed the weapon at Lyster's friends, who ducked behind a parked car.
Chief Calf denies forcibly taking the shotgun, and said his friends offered him the weapon for protection.
To prove mitigated deliberate homicide, Spencer would have had to show that Chief Calf was acting under the influence of extreme mental or emotional stress for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse.
“This is a confluence of two people that ended in tragedy,” Spencer said. “I'm not going to stand here and tell you which way to decide. You folks need to sort this out. But the evidence here does not support deliberate homicide.”
Paul pointed out that Chief Calf had spent the day swimming in the river, drinking rum and cokes and gambling at the bowling alley.
“Does that seem like someone who is under extreme emotional distress?” Paul asked. “I suggest that his actions belie his words. He had a purpose. He knew what he was doing. He was on a mission.”
Missoula District Judge Robert L. Deschamps III presided over the trial, and will also conduct a sentencing hearing, which has not yet been scheduled.
Lori Lyster, Phillip's mother, said her son was a selfless person who was always helping people - a quality she said she bequeathed him, and the reason he inserted himself into the deadly scenario.
“Phillip was always helping people. I taught him that, and it's what got him into trouble,” she said. “Knowing Phill and his personality, it's surreal that he's associated with such a violent crime. He's just so gentle.”
Chief Calf appeared unshaken as he listened to the verdict, though his voice trembled as turned to face family members just before leaving the courtroom.
“I love you,” he said. “I love you guys.”
Reporter Tristan Scott can be reached at 523-5264 or at tscott@missoulian.com
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)