The judge in a reckless homicide case upheld the jury’s recommendation of a one-year sentence during a sentencing hearing held Thursday.
Jeremy Grundy, 44, was found guilty of Reckless Homicide in the death of 19-year-old Jason Hislope in a two-day trial held in June.
During Thursday’s hearing in Pulaski Circuit Court, prosecutor Forrest Brock asked Judge Eddy Montgomery to follow the jury’s recommendation, while defense attorney Dylan Gorski asked for probation for his client.
Ultimately, Montgomery chose to follow the jury’s recommendation, saying, “I think the jury made the correct decision.”
Montgomery also said that had the decision been left up to him, he would have given Grundy a longer sentence because Grundy had taken a life in a way that Montgomery didn’t feel was warranted.
During the trial, the jurors heard that the victim in the case, Hislope, had been threatening toward other people within the Science Hill home where the altercation occurred.
Hislope’s autopsy also showed there was methamphetamine in his system.
Montgomery said that while Hislope was being “unruly,” there was no evidence to show there were any weapons in his hand nor that there was any immediate danger to Grundy or the others within the house.
Before sentencing, Grundy expressed remorse for the situation, giving his condolences to Hislope’s family and saying, “I wish that night had gone differently.”
Before Thursday’s hearing, Gorski submitted a motion to set aside the guilty verdict and declare Grundy not guilty, based on several arguments.
The one argument addressed on the record in court was that Gorski complained that the amount of time for the trial had been cut short.
The trial had been scheduled for three days, but at the beginning of day two jurors sent a note to Montgomery indicating that they would prefer to stay late in order to wrap up the trial by the end of day two.
Judge Eddy Montgomery told jurors that they would work to make that happen.
In Gorski’s motion, he stated that “the Defense then elicited audible sighs and grumbling from the jury when asking questions that went too long and making objections, as the jury was wanting the case to be done. … At numerous points during the second day of trial, jurors were rolling their eyes, grumbling, talking to one another and even hitting their foreheads with their notebooks when objections were made or follow up questions were asked.”
As such, Gorski said he chose not to call several defense witnesses in hopes of not upsetting the jury by having the trial go on longer. Therefore, Gorski said, Grundy did not receive a fair trial.
However, Montgomery said that he did not see anything that indicated the jury was aggravated.
“I don’t think there was any pressure on anybody not to call witnesses,” Montgomery said, adding that both sides chose not to call several witnesses.
He also said that he didn’t feel like the jurors acted any different than other jurors he has seen during his 30-year history of participating in trials.