RICHMOND, Va. -- A juror who sat through the murder trial for Amari Pollard, who shot and killed Shawn Jackson after his high school graduation, said they wanted to find Pollard guilty.
A jury of fourteen people heard days of evidence in the trial which wrapped late last month, but never ended up making a decision about Pollard's fate, because in a stunning turn of events, Pollard ended up pleading guilty to first-degree murder.
But had this juror been given the chance, they would've voted to convict Pollard.
"My view was that [the shooting] was calculated," the juror, who wished to remain anonymous due concerns for their safety, told CBS 6.
The juror felt Pollard acted maliciously, intentionally, and with premeditation when he fatally shot Shawn Jackson in a crowd of people in Monroe Park on June 6 of last year, just moments after Jackson received his diploma from Huguenot High School.
“There were seven of us that were leaning [toward] guilty," the juror said, adding that there were other jurors whose positions they were not able to confirm in discussions after the trial.
The juror said they were compelled by video evidence presented by the prosecution showing the moments of the shooting.
“On the video, you see Amari run around people to get a really good aim on Shawn," the juror said.
The juror was also convinced that video footage from the moments following the shooting, captured in the parking garage where Pollard's car was parked, showed Pollard attempting to run away from an officer and trying to pick up his gun multiple times after dropping it on the ground.
“To me, in the video from the parking deck, he was trying to flee... He was trying to get to his car on the 4th floor," the juror said. "You could tell his intention. He tried to go back for his gun."
COMPLETE COVERAGE: Video shows chaotic moments surrounding deadly Graduation Day shooting in Richmond
Meanwhile, Pollard's attorneys argued that Pollard acted in self-defense because Jackson, who was unarmed, and Jackson's friends, who were armed, made threats against Pollard.
In the moments leading up to the shooting, defense attorneys said there was a "brawl" that took place between Pollard and Jackson's group. Pollard testified that he heard Jackson threaten to "crush him" and at one point, Pollard heard somebody say, "shoot him."
But Judge Marchant said threats from people who were not Jackson and verbal threats did not meet the legal threshold for Pollard to argue self-defense. In court, Marchant also emphasized that Pollard fired six shots into Jackson and began shooting as Jackson was walking away, according to witness testimony, and so it would "defy common sense" to allow Pollard to argue self-defense.
“I think once the judge threw out the self-defense claim, to me, that would set the tone for what should have been considered," the juror told CBS 6.
CBS 6 legal analyst Todd Stone said there was nothing unusual about the judge's ruling to throw out self-defense.
"[Judges] don't just instruct the jury on whatever the defense wants. There's got to be some factual basis and some evidentiary basis for the jury instruction of self-defense," Stone said.
If the jury had deliberated, Stone said the court would've given them instructions about the laws that apply to the case; For example, how premeditation can be formed within any matter of time before killing someone.
"If they can't instruct the jury on self-defense, that hamstrings the jury quite a bit... There's always a chance a jury could do something that they're not supposed to do despite what the law says," Stone said. “They do determine the facts as they see them. They render their own opinions about witness testimony, the credibility of witnesses, and so a jury would apply their understanding of the facts to the law that's instructed to them by the court.”
Earlier this week, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported a different juror was leaning toward acquitting Pollard of first-degree murder. Mark Meier reportedly told the newspaper he was not convinced the shooting was premeditated.
The juror who spoke to CBS 6 said they disagreed, citing the previous feud between Pollard and Jackson before the shooting.
The juror also said Pollard's own testimony seemed to contradict the evidence captured in video footage and police interview transcripts.
"There was not a single credible source during cross examination, and when they put Amari on the stand, [it] definitely confirmed that he was not credible either," the juror said. "The defense seemed unprepared."
The juror also took issue with the fact that Pollard obtained his gun illegally.
A jury would have ultimately needed to come to a unanimous decision on a verdict to avoid a mistrial.
Stone said it's impossible to predict where a jury would have landed after the deliberation process, especially since they never went through the proper process of receiving legal instructions.
“You really can't give much weight, if any, to the opinions of jurors at this point, because they didn't get to be instructed on the law, and they don't know what the law is," Stone said.
WATCH: Why commonwealth’s attorney says Graduation Day shooting is ‘cautionary tale’
As part of the plea deal, which waived Pollard's right to appeal, Pollard was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Pollard's defense attorney Jason Anthony did not respond to CBS 6 before this article was published, but the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that Anthony planned to file a motion to vacate the guilty plea.
Stone said if that happens, he'd expect the motion to be denied.
Commonwealth's Attorney Colette McEachin said Pollard and Anthony both read, discussed together, and signed the plea agreement, which did not include any conditions.
Depend on CBS 6 News and WTVR.com for in-depth coverage of this important local story. Anyone with more information can email newstips@wtvr.com to send a tip.
