Jury Finds Hollywood Guilty of Murder and Kidnapping

"On the other side, Jack Hollywood seemed stunned by the verdict that will keep his son from the free world for the rest of his life. 'It’s unbelievable,” he said, speaking almost in a whisper and looking stunned. “I don’t know what to tell you. I know for a fact he didn’t order anyone to kill him.' ”

This suggests that he was close enough to the crime to know actually ordered the killing.

From this point on - Jesse James Hollywood will never be released from State Prison.

Jury only has One (1) Option to make from two choices:
- Life Without Parole;
- Death;

Either choice, Jesse James Hollywood dies in prison.... it's just a matter of "when."

If he receives the death penalty, then he will join his fellow accomplice, Ryan Hoyt, on Death Row at San Quentin State Prison in Northern California.

.

Wow. I think the jury made a good call. I must say, though, that the reporting made me believe that the defense got the upper hand... which must be wrong. The prosecution must have done better than the reporting indicated.

"This suggests that he was close enough to the crime to know actually ordered the killing".

If he did know, why did the defense not use him to help exonerate his son?

No, the truth is that his son probably denied that he ordered the killing to his Dad.... what else could he do?

a sad day indeed when money or weed are worth a mans life ..

I am really stunned how easy it is in the States to get convicted for first degree murder and probably sentenced to death. Even though one did not pull the trigger. Unbelieveble.

Tabatha: My comment was to point out the absurdity of Hollywood Sr.'s comment. I'm not suggesting he was in any way tied to the crime, but to point out his knee jerk reaction to the evidence presented.

Long time in coming, but now it's down to life without parole or death sentence. Both amount to same thing --- no chance to ever get out.

Appeal is an even longer process in such cases and seems to me very slim odds there. So Adios JJH.

Thanks Chris for all your coverage.

Peace to all.

Wow! Im so glad he was convicted of first degree murder! I admit that for a time I was worried about the outcome of the verdict. I wonder where GLwilliams (I think is the name) JJH's buddy is? They kept saying JJH was innocent. JJH was not innocent of ANYTHING! He is a drug dealing thug and murderer and he is finally going to pay for what he did. The right thing for him to do now is just go on and admit what he did and apologize and ask for forgiveness from Nick's mom and get his life right with God. And at least try to become a better person in prison being as he wasn't outside of prison.

I honestly wonder how many people on here would say he was guilty if not for "Alpha Dog" or the rest of the media. Because on evidence alone, this man should of been found not guilty of the 1st degree murder. Living on the East Coast, this didnt receive the same amount of coverage and my initial opinion of guilty was based on the movie. But after feverishly reading all the trial updates, I cannot believe this evidence convicted JJH. I think the judge's opinion will be revealed when he decides Life or Death. I do not think he will send a man to his death based on that evidence.

Ah...Kerry121...WHat about the point in the trial in which Chaz, JJH friend who took him to Colorado, said Holllywood admitted to ordering the killing of the boy. Last time I checked that is an admission to 1st degree murder. If the jury beleived that testimony, that alone would be suffiencient to prove 1st degree. Maybe, just maybe, we should not come to a conclusion based on reading news accounts of the trial and not criticize a jury's decision based on a limited understanding of what the actual evidence was. Just a thought.

Johnny123...Ok..Saulsbury...who Kessel described as a "human bong" testified JJH told him he told Rugge and Hoyt what Hogg told him and Hoyt volunteered to do it. This is the same guy who claimed the defense poisoned his dog. This guy was all over the place and who went from being charged with harboring a fugitive to key prosecutions witness. Do you remember his last line to the cops in the taped recording.."Was this helpful?" Come on. If you think Chas's testimony was a good enough reason to convict someone on 1st degree murder than I hope you are never on a murder jury. Ironically Rugge bounds his hands together, stood right next to him as he was murdered, but was acquitted of murder......I still don't know what I believe, but this evidence, at the very least, provided reseasonable doubt

In order to be convicted of first degree murder, you do not have to the be the one literally pulling the trigger. It was proved that JJH premeditated the killing of Nick. Also, this murder was committed during a felony - kidnapping. California sees first degree murder as "willful, deliberate and premeditated" or that is committed during a felony.

And Rugge claimed he had no idea Nick was going to be killed and believed Nick was eventually going to be set free whenever JJH told them to drive him back home. Rugge was not responsible for the murder and that's probably why he wasn't found guilty of murder.

All of us only have news reports.

The jury got the story as close to first-hand as it gets in our legal world.

I gotta trust the jury's judgment.

Personally, if you initiate a kidnapping, and your victim subsequently dies during the kidnapping, you're a murderer. Lawyers can argue all they want, but a death during a kidnapping should always be a murder in my opinion.

As a matter of law, it really is just as straightforward as Sevendolphins says. You do a kidnapping and you buy into all the rest, including the death of the kidnapped victim.

That's why I see the only arguable appeal by JJH to be that his ineffective counsel allowed JJH to testify that he did the kidnapping. For sure you won't see the same defense team after the sentencing, so JJH will certainly make that claim.

It will take many years to have that appeal decided. Credibility [or not] of the various others involved was decided by the jury and an appeals court ought not bother reviewing that issue.

Something people are forgetting here is actually viewing a witness during their testimony. Body language, eye contact, inflection of the voice, these are all part of a witness giving credible testimony. Jesse James Hollywood took the stand in his defense and by all accounts came off as being coached and not forthcoming on his responses to the prosecution. Indeed the DA even made that a part of his closing statement; saying Jesse remembered perfectly when questioned by his defense counsel, but couldn't remember a thing when questioned by the prosecution. I am surprised that a famed criminal defense attorney like Mr. Blatt would have put Jesse on the stand, I am sure at this point they are reevaluating that decision. In the end justice was served and this person will be off the streets for the crimes he did.

I'm a little amazed the jury found the special condition on the first primary kidnapping. During the Hoyt jurt deliberation time, there was a lengthy deliberation on to which of the "kidnappings" Hoyt was responsible for to be eligible for the special condition and thus the death penalty. The first kidnapping was tossed out in the first round of voting by the whole jury. It didn't seems as though the prosecution made a very good case that this was true this time around. But good enough I guess. JJH will be in jail the rest of his life no matter what.

OKAY , WHEW , upon reading all this , it occurs to me that
if you kidnap a boy , and tie up his hands , and have him taken to different locales , and eventually the kid ends up
dead , even if you did not originally intend the death ,
it happened as a result of this , and so , you are
responsible , period .
the two are connected , ' kidnap boy , boy dead " , JHH's breathless wonderment that he might be considered
capable of such cowardice is laughable , read the transcript , if you need proof that your actions led to this , it's all fun and video games til someone gets hurt ..

To - Woorabinda:

If you & another person or group of people agree to a plan...... Everyone is responsible for everyone's actions during that plan as if they did it themselves whether they knew it was going to happen or not.

For Example:
- If you & your friend agree to rob a bank & your role is to be the get-a-way driver waiting in the parking lot while your friend is inside the bank robbing it & your friend shoots a bank customer.... then you are guilty of that customers' murder, as well as your friend too.

The offense is called: "Conspiracy."

If any law is broken during a plan, everyone involved in the plan is guilty of that offense.... just as if they had committed it themselves.

It should deter people from agreeing to the plan of a group of criminals since they will be responsible for everything that happens.

.

actually in your example, the offense is still called "murder". Doesn't matter if you were just driving the car, you get charged with murder, not conspiracy.

It works pretty much as you described but "conspiracy" is a different animal.

Jesse Jerk Hollywood got what was coming to him. What amazes me is that he (and his lawyers?) actually thought that by admitting to the kidnapping he would somehow be absolved of the murder? That's just stupid. But then again, these were not Rocket Scientists to begin with.

As I got it, JJH admitted the first kidnapping, that ended when Nick was free to go, regardless the fact he actually didn't run. But JJH claimed he wasn't even aware of the second kidnapping, that led to Nick's death. That was all an Hoyt's idea and actions, while the weapon (that once belonged to Hollywood) was already in Hoyt's possession, being hidden in his grandfather's garage.
JJH argued with Hoyt, after the crime. Nobody was able to say why. Because he didn't want the murder at all, is probably the defense suggestion. Because Hoyt didn't have to leave the weapon in the grave, is another option. The directions to the place where Nick was, and the reasons for Hoyt to start it all alone are still unexplained. But reasonable doubt rises when questions are more than answers... his lawyer was quoted to say. Moreover, It's not a defendant's duty to find the reasons that led somebody else to commit a crime. When the other person (already convicted) could have done it all alone, there is a reasonable doubt. This is the defense, in brief, as i understood it from the news.

I am in shock. Let me address "cartoonz." Your name certainly fits your opinion. It was found to be a "simple kidnapping" by the jury, meaning that no ransom was demanded, etc. Yes, JJH (middle name Jesse. Show some dignity and respect) was involved. Nick was free to go on many occasions as testified by witnesses. Therefore, kidnapping over. (Nick didn't want to go home. He was in trouble with his parents over drug use the night before. He chose to stay and party.)
The second kidnapping is by Hoyt, Rugge and Pressley taking Nick. It was not proven that JJH had anything to do with it, much less "ordered" it. Rocket science obviously isn't your chosen field.
In S.B., JJH treated the boy like a guest, not a victim, relaxing with him, even playing video games with him as testified by Afronti. Does this sound like a "drug dealing thug and murderer" Pipa157? Ruthless people don't let their victim party at motels with girls and strangers without even being present, and come and go as they please. Sounds like typical kids, doesn't it? Would a "mastermind" allow that? I doubt JJH will ever grant your wish of admitting guilt. He claims his innocence and there is no proof "beyond reasonable doubt" that he is wrong. Would you do anything less? God will make the final determination. Mortal juries are supposed to look STRICTLY at the FACTS, without BIAS. I can't claim to know JJH's innocence or guilt first hand because I wasn't there. I can only go by the testimonies. Not what I hear in the MEDIA.
Kerry121 has the point correct re: media. This trial should have been moved elsewhere. I recall seeing JJH's case portrayed on "America's Most Wanted" shortly after it happened. Based upon that, I shared their opinion of JJH. And who wouldn't believe John Walsh after what he went through? It's called "America's Most Wanted" not "America's Most Guilty" for a reason. Then a "major motion picture" like "Alpha Dog?" Are these to be considered the "truth" or "exploitational journalism" and "artistic flare?" Is it unreasonable to think that the public doesn't form an opinion based on what is depicted in these? The National Enquirer should not be our basis for fact finding. Due to the media, our country is one of "guilty until proven innocent" instead of "innocent until proven guilty." Scores of others have been dealt the same verdict. Can you state one person who has been in the media and not presumed to be guilty before being tried? I can't. Everyone from Lee Harvey Oswald to Michael Jackson has been tried in the media. Granted, many a guilty party have been found guilty by overwhelming evidence. Overwhelming evidence trumps reasonable doubt. Where is that evidence here?
As for Chas Saulsbury, I heard him first hand, and he was ALL OVER the place. If the jury believed half of what he said, then this jury was undoubtedly tainted. Kessel got it right if he called him "a human bong." He's an idiot. Justice doesn't ALWAYS prevail.

williams , the point is , grabbing a 98 pound weakling off the street , holding him against a tree
and punching him repeatedly in the gut then throwing him in a van to be transported to a scary place , right here we
have evidence of ruthlessness , are you saying he was kinda ruthless ? so he let the kid smoke pot , ted bundy bought his victims dinner , this does not rewrite the
mans nature , which was ruthless ..where there is smoke,
there is fire ..oh , and as for his dignity being plundered by the use of the word jerk , his dignity never existed .

As far as it being 2 seperate kidnappings, if he hadn't been taken by JJH in the first one, he wouldn't have been as accessable for the second one. It's all related.

faerydragon: it's related. I agree. But to be convicted for 1st degree murder, one has to want the murder, and commit actions for it to happen. And those actions should be proved. So to speak, if someone has a car crash, and the victim with a broken leg dies in hospital because of wild fire, it's no murder, also if the fire was set (without his knowledge or will). In other words, the unpredictable breaks the causality link, just like the will of somebody else does. In those cases, you've to distinguish who created the occasion, from who's been the cause, only the latter being responsable.

You must be quite relieved then, Alberto, that we had a jury of random citizens -- selected and agreed upon by both the defense and prosecution -- to listen and observe the declarations, facts, and testimonies, and arrive at a unanimous conclusion: guilty of murder.

harryhaller, where did you read that Nick Markowitz was a 98 pound weakling? His own father testified that Nick was a martial arts competitor and they often went to competitions together. In fact, they were scheduled for one on the weekend of the abduction, but his father chose to work instead. This is simply stated in Nick's father's testimony. It immediately made me wonder why Nick didn't try to defend himself and escape initially.
By the way, JJH was not the only one present during the kidnapping, there were two others. Shouldn't they be found guilty of murder as well?
And why does everyone keep stating that the kidnapping was over a $1200 drug debt owed by Ben Markowitz? If that were the case, why wasn't any ransom demanded? Let me explain why: because the abduction was an impulsive move. The boys were pissed off at Ben Markowitz over his constant and continued harassment and death threats against Hollywood. So constant that Hollywood was forced to sell his home and move! In fact, that very morning JJH was awakened by bricks coming thru his windows, followed by yet another death threat by Ben Markowitz! They were out to kick Ben's ass, not collect $1200. Why does everyone choose to ignore facts like this? I don't think $1200 is a lot of money to someone who was making the kind of money JJH was. And it definitely doesn't make him a killer. Period.
Only these facts are relevent: 1) Did JJH abduct the boy with the intent to kill him? Not proven.
2) Did JJH (or any of the others) hold him against his will for three days? Not proven (in fact, dis-proven.)
3) Did JJH orchestrate, plan and carry out the murder? Not proven.
Not only were these points not proven, but certainly not proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."
And it doesn't matter what you or I "believe." Only what the jury believed based strictly upon the facts proven in the case. I simply don't think they followed the guidelines set forth as the judge instructed. If I had been on that jury, it would have been a "hung jury" at best, because I certainly have "reasonable doubt." There were no witnesses, no proof and certainly no smoking gun. All testimony that I heard never indicated JJH was the type of person everyone believes him to be. In fact, it was to the contrary.

But for the life without parole or death sentence which is really about the same, this case is over and so this will be my final comment.

I saw no prior media coverage nor the movie. The SB Independent's reports were all I have followed over the past few weeks and I am grateful for this coverage, esp to Chris.

Having practiced law in NY for the past 40 years, in my view clearly JJH was rightly convicted of all the direct results of his self-admitted kidnapping of the murder victim.

With candor, I have to now say GLW seems in a deep state of denial as to the basics and wanders into places usually reserved for a convict's family members, close friends and/or lovers. Of course, I've no idea which applies here since GLW has not disclosed that as several others have suggested, but his/her periodic comments are noticeably of that realm.

Peace to all. May dear Santa Barbara live on and prosper.

Sweetlips, the fact that you have received your information from the local news papers from Santa Barbara may be where your problem of ignorance or naivete' lies regarding this case. I sat in the court room during the trial listenening to witness after witness testify. I would then read the local papers each morning following and was shocked, angered and outraged at times to see what had been reported and in many cases what had NOT been reported. The SB Independent was very biased throughout until a glimmer of light at the final week or so of the trial. Only then, did they just begin to state that maybe there are two sides to this story and that there was certainly a possibility of reasonable doubt. I believe that the problem with the jury is the same. They are "random" citizens, yes as one person commented, but those random citizens have been predisposed to the opinion of the media and the local news for nine years. Therefore, they are biased. I am not in denial, but rather in shock. I only hope that you or someone you love would not be judged and convicted on this type of evidence. Love and Peace to you sweetlips and the rest of you out there who think that justice was served here. I mean that sincerely. Too much has been lost here already.

I agree, glw, not with you, but that too much has been lost already. The life of a very young boy was lost. Not just lost, but taken. Not by accident or disease or mistake.

Media had nothing to do with the death of young Nicholas. Media did not instigate the kidnapping, nor bind the boy up with duct tape. Media did not run off to Colorado or Brazil. Media did not get a girl pregnant to somehow, hopefully, to avoid the extradition of a father of a Brazilian child.

The responsibility of the media was and is to report what is found out in the research of the crime. After the crime was discovered.
What is and was so uncanny about this crime in progress is that there were many participants and onlookers before the actual killing took place, and people involved after the fact who helped Hollywood evade the law.

Media was not involved until after the fact.

Did anyone see any genuine remorse in Hollywood's attitude? That is a rhetorical question.

I think that the media did a great job of reporting what was transpiring during the trial. The media did not make the decision, but reported it.

glw, you are not about Love and Peace. But murder is not about love and peace, and Jesse James Hollywood did not stand for love and peace, but for putting into place a murder to assuage his anger over a broken window and a drug debt. Misplaced anger has gotten more than one person in trouble--serious trouble.

And an innocent boy lost his life because of this misplaced anger. glw, what is your excuse? Why do you have so much feeling for the perpetrator of the killing of Nicholas?

My hats off to the jury. It is truly difficult to have a further life in their hands as they recall and hear testimony about a life taken. Justice is justice, and the jury made a just decision.

After some very limited research, I believe California considers, "All kidnappings are felonies".

Combine that with the felony-murder rule, which is active in California, states that if an event, which would otherwise be considered manslaughter, occurs during the commision of a felony (such as kidnapping), then the charge is automatically upgraded. It also applies to EVERYONE involved in the crime.

I believe this is why some of the earlier defensive maneuvering was to attempt to define what happened to Nicholas Markowitz as a "real" kidnapping.

I'm sure this is early-year law school knowledge, and many of the previous posts put forth this basic idea, but no one seemed to have actually laid out the "felony-murder" legalese.

Personally, I think that Hollywood may have considered himself "hard", and would have gladly played the part of a serious gangster/dealer when this started. However, when push came to shove, he ran for it. So whether he regretted the death or not, he found himself in the unfortunate case of being the first domino to fall in all of this. I think he has probably grown enough to regret what happened, simply due to age. Perhaps, he warranted a full conviction with a somewhat lighter sentence, but since his "crewmen" went for hard time, it was unlikely he would get off with less.

Ah, I found this in the California Penal Code:

190. (a) Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. . . .

So at best, assuming conviction of the kidnapping, consequent felony-murder, the least he would expect to get would be 25 years.

alright, to Kerry121 and all others who feel that the verdict was unjustified... First of all, there was every reason for the DA to convict JJH for 1st degree murder and kidnapping because of the following reasons:
-there was mens reas (premeditated act) and actus reas (the act itself) involved in the kidnapping and killing of the Nick...
-the gun was admitted by JJH that it was his (whether or not he was telling the truth of the guns whereabouts, was up to the jury to decide.)
-Ryan Hoyt had NO MOTIVE to kill Nick, he was not involved in the dispute between JJH and Ben M. nor was he involved in the kidnapping. But JJH has a motive why he would order the murder.
-In JJH's testimony nothing that came out of his mouth sounded believable. "I didn't tie him up" when there were witnesses who said he did. "the gun was in Hoyt's grandmother's house" why would you put a gun in a person's house who most people describes as wild and irresponsible.
-And most importantly why would Graham Presley say that Rugge told him that JJH offered Rugge to kill Nick for $2000. Graham is not related to JJH crew and has already served time so telling the court false information WOULD NOT benefit him any.

What I am saying is every piece of "evidence" that convicted JJH was heresay. We all know the reason Hoyt couldnt testify, but why not Rugge. If what the prosecution said was true, call Rugge and have him testify. If he backed what Presley said, then case over...but they didnt. And its not the defense's position to call him because its not their job to prove. SFR_grl12-true Hoyt had no motive that we can comprehend, but we are not dealing with a stable human being...who knows what was going through this man's drug riddled mind. What kind of person just kills somebody because they were asked? Obviously he had major character flaws that I could believe thought up this crazy story that he was helping his friends.

Why would JJH have a kid killed when half of Santa Barbara saw him partying with everybody? He had to obviously know who the cops would turn to.

As people have wrote here, if the intial kidnapping that occured here and ended with death derserves the death penalty....what about Rugge and Skidmore? They were in the van. I know Rugge was charged but not convicted. BTW does anybody have trial updates on his previous trial along with Hoyt????

And Im sure people remember that Susan Markowitz testified at Pressley's parole hearing....hmmmm

2 Months ago I believed JJH was guilty as sin and deserved death, but that was based on Alpha Dog and the media. After reading the trial updates ( and supposedly they were not reporting the whole trial as glwilliams pointed out), I believe the prosecution didn't prove their case and he didnt deserve to be convicted of 1st degree murder.

Since I didnt know about this back in 2000, how did it even come out the JJH ordered all of this. Was it Hoyt, Rugge?? during their interrogations??

For Kerry121
Hoyt’s absence had an easy explanation: He is in the middle of an automatic appeal with the state Supreme Court because his is a death penalty case. An opening appeal brief is due from Hoyt’s attorney in that case by July 14. Rugge perjured himself in his own trial, allowing him to avoid a murder conviction. (He was, however, convicted on kidnapping.)
**This was a copy and paste of the reports**
I'm glad JJH got what he did, in my opinion justice was served...

srfr_grl12--- I am curious what exactly did Rugge say to prejurer himself?? And how did they come to the conclusion he did perjured himself? Thanks

The shooter had HOLLYWOOD'S GUN!!! Did he get charged with theft for having that gun or do you think it was given to him by Hollywood to take care of things?? Plus, every picture of Hollywood, taken after his capture, he always has the same sh*t eating smirk on his face. That's the look of someone who thinks they're going to get away with it. I agree that the other's involved got off easy. Personally, I think plea deals should be done away with; everyone does the maximum for the crime that they commit. If they want to turn in anyone else involved, great, but they do their full time.
And as far as culpability, think about this....if a person buys some dope and gives some to another person, who goes off by themselves and overdoses on that dope; the person who gave it to them can be charged with murder for supplying it....even if they weren't present for the actual overdose. Hollywood's actions started the dominos falling that led to the trigger being pulled.

Kerry 121 I am not capable of pulling such records to know what and how Jesse Rugge perjured himself in trial, for one thing I don't have the access to such files. The statement I put out there is written on the reports of the santa barbara independence itself... Maybe you should do a little more research before making such smart comments.

srfr_grl12---I have read every single article about this case and I am aware that Rugge perjured himself. But I wasnt making any smart comments, I truly want to know if you ( or anybody on here) have any info of their cases. I am very curious to see how those trials went down.