GovernmentExecutive.com

The murder trial of retired U.S. Marshal Arthur Lloyd, a Rockville, Md., resident charged in the death of Navy Seaman Ryan Todd Stowers, continued Thursday as the prosecution's witnesses reconstructed events from the evening of Oct. 28, 2004.

The 54-year-old Lloyd, in a dark suit and red tie, sat next to his lawyers in Judge Ann S. Harrington's Montgomery County Circuit Court, calmly writing on a yellow legal pad as the prosecution's witnesses portrayed him as "coolly" shooting Stowers in the back as Stowers tried to flee the scene in his car. Three attempts to convince Harrington to grant Lloyd bail have failed.

Witnesses became emotional at times as they recalled the incident that they said left them shocked and stunned. During cross-examination, Lloyd's lawyers attempted to show that the witnesses' memories were jumbled and inconsistent.

According to testimony, what began as a road rage incident turned into a profanity-laced shouting match that escalated into a physical confrontation between the marshal and the sailor, who was ultimately shot to death.

Both were driving on Rockville Pike in Rockville, Md., Stowers alone in a red Chevrolet Camaro and Lloyd in a black Ford Expedition with his family on his way to Toys "R" Us. According to Lloyd's lawyers, Stowers pulled up behind him and started honking because he believed Lloyd had cut him off. The two pulled into the Mid-Pike Plaza parking lot, Lloyd parked the Expedition about six feet in front of the Camaro, but what happened next is unclear.

Lloyd's lawyers said after confronting each other, Lloyd showed Stowers his badge and told him he was a federal officer. Blows were exchanged, resulting in Lloyd suffering two broken fingers, a black eye and head injuries.

At some point, Lloyd, a 28-year veteran of the U.S. Marshal Service, drew his service weapon and shot Stowers in the leg.

Savio Davis, a witness to the incident, said Stowers shouted, "'He shot me, he shot me,' in a very painful, extremely painful, yell," and returned to his vehicle, attempting to make a phone call. Lloyd followed, holding the gun up in his right hand and said, "Give me your phone, give me your phone or I will shoot you again," and Stowers asked, "Why do you want my phone?"

At some point, witnesses say they saw Lloyd's wife standing between the two vehicles, appearing to write down the Camaro's license plate number.

Another witness, Janet Hodur, said she saw Lloyd "very calmly" shoot Stowers as she and her husband, Alan Leonardi, were driving out of the parking lot. Leonardi said he heard Stowers ask Lloyd "How do I know that that's a real badge?" and "I need to see more I.D.," followed by Lloyd stating, "This is all the I.D. you're going to get."

Leonardi said he saw Stowers' Camaro pull out from behind the Expedition while Lloyd was standing next to him, tires squealing. Lloyd then pivoted about 45 degrees, "calmly turned and fired a gun" three times at the moving car, according to Leonardi.

Two of Lloyd's shots struck Stowers in the back left shoulder and his car crashed into an arts and crafts store. Police quickly arrived on the scene after multiple 911 telephone calls, according to testimony. Stowers was pronounced dead later that night at Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Md.

A state toxicology report found that Stowers had a blood alcohol concentration as high as 0.22 when he died. Maryland's legal blood-alcohol driving limit is 0.08.

On Thursday, Lloyd's defense lawyers questioned the ability of the prosecution's witnesses to reconstruct the Oct. 28 incident.

Barry Helfand, Lloyd's lead attorney, said the witnesses testifying before the 15-member jury convinced themselves, in the seven months since the incident occurred, that they had seen things they could not have seen.

"This case clearly is about well-intentioned citizens that were surprised with what happened," Helfand said. "At the end of all this, I believe that [Lloyd] will be acquitted."

COMMENTS

• You are correct when you say there is no such thing as a fair fight on the street anymore, especially when one has a gun and the other is trying to get away. If the Marshal thought he was unable to physically handle this sailor, then he should have done what any former or current law officer would do - call for assistance without approaching the other person. He chose to use his authority to challenge a drunk kid who then took him on in a fight. The Marshal then decided to shoot him not once, but twice and in the back at that. It wasan't the sailor out of control, it was an idiot who should not have been carrying a weapon to begin with. Charlie Posted June 8, 2005 10:12 PM
• One thing most of the public fails to take into account when the use of force, to include deadly force, is necessary, is the size and stature of your suspect. If you have a 5'2" 110lbs officer against a 6'2" 230lbs suspect, deadly force might be necessary to stop a suspect from inflicting serious bodily harm. This can be argued in court even if the suspect is unarmed. So here we have a 20-year-old man, intoxicated, feeling no pain, against a 56-year-old man, not numbed on alcohol or drugs. Fair? If the US Marshal can prove he was in fear of his life or the life of his family he should be acquitted. Let the ballistics tests and the coroners prove the point of entry of the round that killed the drunken sailor. On the street there is no such thing as a fair fight anymore. Nelson Posted June 4, 2005 8:16 AM
• The facts more than ever justify the charge of murder. This guy had 27 years of dealing with different elements of society. Whether the sailor was drunk or not makes little difference. The kid was shot in the back - don't forget that. This guy shot this kid more than once and finally in the back as he drove away. He wasan't defending his family; this guy was mad as hell over this sailor whipping him in a fair fight and he wasan't going to have that embarrassment in front of his family. This is nothing but a case of pure murder, aggravated by egomania on the part of the marshal. Nothing shows this sailor ever made efforts to harm this marshal's family. That reasoning won't wash. The sailor was at a disadvantage because the marshal had the gun. The marshal should have never been allowed to retire, with criminal charges against him. Never fear, the fix is in and he will get off but he shouldn't. Charlie Posted June 2, 2005 7:53 PM