Appeals court upholds conviction in murder of Dirk Fast

On Wednesday, the Alaska Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Samuel Clark for the murder of Dirk Fast five years ago.

On October 29^th, 2010, Dirk Fast and Samuel Clark were sitting at a table in the Latitude 62 restaurant and bar in Talkeetna while a local musician held a concert in the next room. Witnesses say there did not seem to be an argument between the two men, but when they both rose, Samuel Clark shot Dirk Fast in the chest, killing him.

At his trial in 2012, Samuel Clark’s attorney argued that the shooting was in self-defense to stop a threat, and that the jury should convict him of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The jury disagreed, and ultimately convicted Clark of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder, but acquitted him of manslaughter. The verdicts, technically, contradicted each other.

According to court documents, Judge Eric Smith told the jury that manslaughter was intentional, knowing, or reckless homicide that did not meet the criteria for murder. What Judge Smith failed to do was to tell the jury not to return a verdict on the manslaughter charge in the event that it found Clark guilty of murder.

Since the verdict could be seen as contradictory, Judge Smith gave the jury a written questionnaire asking if they acquitted Clark of manslaughter due to the merits of the case, because they believed that murder and manslaughter convictions were mutually exclusive, or for any other reason. Jury members responded that they acquitted on manslaughter because they had convicted Clark of murder. Samuel Clark was sentenced to serve fifty years in state prison.

Clark appealed the conviction based on Judge Smith’s asking the jury to explain its verdict, saying it was coercive and suggestive. The appeals court opinion, written by Judge John Suddock, rejects that claim based on the fact the jury was asked to clarify its verdicts, not justify them or explain the deliberative process.

The opinion ends by cautioning trial judges to avoid the type of explanation offered to the jury in Samuel Clark’s case.