Prosecutors seek to block self-defense instruction in homicide case

Patrick Kernan, The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
·2 min read

Apr. 21—WILKES-BARRE — Weeks before a trial is scheduled to start in connection with a 2017 homicide in Hanover Township, parties on both sides have issued filings in regards to a charge of illegal possession of a firearm.

Prosecutors are asking Luzerne County Judge Joseph F. Sklarosky Jr. to preclude a jury instruction that suggests Tremaine Jamison, 31, was acting in self-defense when he allegedly fatally shot Devone Brown during a dispute at a kindergarten graduation party in May 2017.

According to the filing from prosecutors Thomas Hogans and Brittany Quinn, the self-defense instruction should not be included because Jamison is facing a count of illegal possession of a firearm due to previous robbery conviction.

"The Commonwealth submits that on the date of this incident that prior conviction made the defendant a person in illegal possession of a firearm," the filing reads.

Further, they suggest that evidence shows that Jamison did first retreat from Brown when Brown was coming toward him with a knife.

"The Commonwealth submits that the evidence will show that the defendant had a duty to retreat before using deadly force and he did not do so," the filing goes on. "Since the defendant was in violation of his duty to retreat before using deadly force, the Commonwealth respectfully requests this court to prohibit the defendant from receiving the self-defense jury instruction."

Alternatively, prosecutors suggest that, if this motion were to be denied, they should be allowed to present evidence of Jamison's prior conviction, something that defense attorney Robert Saurman has attempted to block from the case.

In response to the commonwealth's motion from last week, Saurman filed a response motion on Monday, suggesting that Jamison should be tried on the illegal possession charge before the homicide.

"It is evident from a review of the case law that the only way to resolve this matter will be to try the person not to possess case prior to the criminal homicide," he writes in his filing.

Further, Saurman suggests that, since the weapon was not his but rather provided to him in the moment by Basim Labeem Murdaugh, when Brown retrieved the knife, this technically means that Jamison did not possess the weapon.

Saurman points to previous case law which suggests that an individual previously having been deemed a person not to possess a firearm could still make a self-defense claim.

The two charges have previously been severed for the purposes of trial, meaning they will be tried at two different times. It's unclear how, if at all, these motions will affect the time frame of Jamison's scheduled May 24 trial.