Jury acquits father in shooting death of drunk driver

ANGLETON - The bereaved father who witnessed the death of his two young sons did not murder the drunken driver who killed them, a jury here in Brazoria County decided Wednesday, a coda that ratcheted up the emotions already thought to have peaked when both sides lost loved ones.

The jury acquitted David Barajas, who faced a murder charge in the shooting death of a 20-year-old man, Jose Banda. Banda drove his Chevrolet Malibu into the children while they pushed their father's stalled Ford 250 truck on an unlit road near Alvin to their nearby house. In a fit of retaliatory rage, prosecutors argued, Barajas returned to his home, retrieved a pistol and fired away at Banda's head with revenge.

But prosecutors faced an uphill climb in erasing any reasonable doubt in jurors' minds. Police failed to produce a murder weapon linked to the killing, gunpowder residue tests on Barajas' hands were negative and no witnesses saw anything that transpired on the dark December night. Though Barajas' attorneys could not identify who else could have killed Banda, who had a blood alcohol level twice the legal limit, the lawyers managed to create enough ambiguity that pushed a conviction out of reach.

The verdict opened any wounds that may had begun to heal since the 2012 deaths of Banda and Barajas' children, 11-year-old Caleb and 12-year-old David Jr.

That verdict has GOD BLESS TEXAS all over it.

GTC

once in awhile, you can even find a bit of justice in a courtroom.


God Bless Texas!

when the evidence just won't convict, it drives the liberals nuts.

First heard of that on last nights news here. I was thinking some form of temporary insanity would get that one by. Seems the practice though of being able to shoot the wife's lover or a child molester are pretty much a thing of the past.

I'm surprised the practice is not a bit more common given the instances where obviously guilty folks get off on some technicl issue.

Sometimes juries trump overzelous prosecutors, glad they triumphed in this case.

In Alaska, "he needed killing" has been a valid defense in a few cases.

I'm guessing that guy didn't talk to police without an attorney.

Calhoun, you took the words right out of my mouth. The importance of this is lost on many people.

mike r

No witnesses, no weapon, no powder residue, no incriminating statements by the defendant.

Based on what I've seen on the news, the prosecution was left with "Who else would have done it?"

Fair call by the jury. Not enough to convict. I wouldn't even call it jury nullification.

Why did the passengers in Banda's (the drunk) run from the scene? Nobody wants to say.

Open warrants?

Probably fuggin Illegals, would be my guess.

Anyhow, it's nice to see the Jury actually made a call where Justice was allready served.

And a big PLUS 100 on the Accused KEEPING his mouth SHUT when the cops made the arrest. Making a statement of ANY kind only helps the prosecutor.

Great news.

Now how in heck did he get the job done, get rid of the gun, and defeat powder residue tests?

All in all, I'm glad it wasnt me driving down a road at night with two people pushing a lightless truck. They were probably pushing from each rear corner and blocked the drunks headlights from hitting the reflectors. It's possible that the same result would have occurred whether the driver was drunk or not.

Jury nullification is a Fundamental Right!!

This is Texas, we understand that some folks just need killing.

They were all illegals, didn't speak English and I doubt the prosecution was too aggressive. Whatever the case, there are no winners here.

All the prosecutor had was a daydream.Takes more than that to win.

Gotta remember...a Grand Jury indicted the guy. They had to go forward with the case at that point.

True

My thoughts exactly.......

Justice was served.

Yep you know what they say about fish keeping their mouth shut. Glad to see the proper verdict.

I can't help wondering whether some evidence went the route of Lois Lerner's emails... or was never collected? That's an entertaining thought.

But this does partially illustrate the great disparity between individual states and how use of deadly force is handled by their respective judicial systems. If this case had occurred in, say, California or Mass. or a number of other liberal states, I suspect there would have been a different outcome. Since I happily relocated to Texas, I've marveled at the number of news stories I see on fatal shootings which end with the words, "No charges will be filed," in circumstances that would almost certainly have landed the shooter a life sentence in those other states. It's almost like people here have -- Lord forbid -- common sense!

Y'all still can't drive worth a chit, but I digress.

I guess the salient point of this is: If you absolutely, positively have to shoot someone, it's probably best to do so in Texas.

I'm proud to call it home.

This^^^

Lousy and biased reporting. The defense lawyers did not "create" the ambiguity - the ambiguity always existed in the context of the law. It was the responsibility of the zealous attacking prosecutor to build her case on the available ("circumstantial") evidence and she failed. Poor judgement/performance by a lawyer holding office.

Someone had to make the decision to present the case to the GJ.

Nope. Every homocide must go to the Grand Jury in Texas.

"to present" - even as a homicide?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but every time a person is killed by another in Texas, it has to go before a Grand Jury.

Fairly big blanket, there. Not arguing at all - but just seeking clarity. Does that include killed by another due to a vehicle/traffic event, killed by another due to farm/construction mishap, armed intruder killed inside a home by defensive homeowner, perp killed by a policemen in the line of duty, drug/gang person found killed, including bullet holes, on some remote ranch, etc. "Every"? "Has to"?