Jury selection begins

Stridiron, Davis being tried together for alleged roles in death of Velasquez

By DAVE CALDWELL, Staff Writer, dcaldwell@minotdailynews.com
The jury selection process in the murder trial of a Minot man accused of shooting another man to death in July began Monday morning in Northwest District Court in Minot.


Antonio Phillip Stridiron, 32, is accused of shooting to death Joshua Velasquez, 27, of Minot, in Minot’s Eastwood Park neighborhood in the early morning hours of July 29. Another Minot man, 27-year-old Bradley Antoine Davis, is accused of hitting Velasquez multiple times with a scythe during a fight that immediately preceded the shooting.


Monday morning’s “housecleaning” hearing also saw arguments made by attorneys on placement of security inside the courtroom as well as in what order the attorneys would be presenting their cases.


Stridiron and Davis are being tried together for their alleged roles in the incident, each having his own defense attorney in court. Stridiron’s lawyer, Robert Martin of Minot, asked Judge Douglas Mattson to allow him to present his defense second, following Davis’ attorney, Joshua Rustad of Williston.


Martin argued among other reasons that since the crimes are alleged to have occurred in that order, it would be proper for the case to proceed that way. Mattson granted Martin’s request.


Martin also asked Mattson to have uniformed deputies moved farther away from Stridiron so as to limit the appearance that Stridiron is dangerous to Martin or anyone else in the courtroom.


“I have been alone with Mr. Stridiron several times, in and out of restraints, and I don’t feel that he is a threat to my safety in any way,” Martin said.


“I’ll take your comments to heart,” Mattson said. “I’ll visit with (Ward County Sheriff Vern Erck, who is in charge of security).”


As jury panel questioning began Monday afternoon, only two deputies were in the courtroom – one by each door and none near either defendant.


Martin also renewed his motion for change of venue for the trial, specifically citing a story that appeared in Saturday’s Minot Daily News. He cited unspecified “inaccuracies” in the story and said it was potentially prejudicial against his client. Rustad was receptive to the change of venue as well.


State’s Attorney John Van Grinsven said that he also felt there was “misinformation” in the media about the case – also declining to be specific – but told Mattson that he didn’t feel change of venue was necessary.


“Obviously, I wish (the story) wouldn’t have happened, but we all know we can’t control those types of things (with the media),” Van Grinsven said. “But I think if we tell the jury to base their decision only on what they hear inside the courtroom, they will do so.”


The story summarized previous published accounts of the alleged crime, which have never been disputed.


A panel of 26 jurors was brought into the courtroom Monday afternoon so lawyers could ask general questions of the entire group before narrowing questioning down to an individual level.


Rustad’s questions were along general lines, such as whether panelists were familiar with himself or his colleagues, and whether panelists could wait to hear the evidence before deciding individual guilt or innocence.


Martin was more specific, probing the panelists about familiarity with individual witnesses he expects will be called.


He also queried as to whether the potential jurors could avoid giving testimony of police officers more weight than that of other witnesses simply because they are police officers.


“You can’t throw the badge of an officer onto the scales of justice,” Martin said.


He also told jurors not to hold his scrutiny of police against his client.


“It’s my job to do that,” he said. “I question the actions and evidence gathered by police officers when I need to do so.”


Van Grinsven outlined that guilt in the case must be beyond a reasonable doubt, but made sure that the panelists accepted the possibility that reasonable doubt could be overcome.


He gave the jury an example of direct versus circumstantial evidence, telling a hypothetical story about a mother finding a plate of chocolate chip cookies with three missing, finding a trail of crumbs and then a boy hiding under his bed with chocolate on his mouth.


He explained that in that case, it’s reasonable to believe the boy took and ate the cookies, because even though the mother didn’t see it, several factors led to a common-sense decision.


“The state has a right to a fair trial too,” he said.


Both Stridiron and Davis were dressed in button-down shirts during Monday afternoon’s proceedings. Stridiron appeared calm and relaxed, while Davis was slightly more active, his eyes darting from panelist to panelist periodically during questioning.


Three more groups will be called, two today and one Wednesday. Media members were not allowed inside the courtroom for individual questioning of prospective jurors.


Mattson said he hoped to be ready by Wednesday afternoon to begin wrapping up the jury selection process.