Clark guilty of murder

PALMER — After an hour’s deliberation, a jury Wednesday found Sam Clark guilty on all counts for the 2010 murder of Dirk Fast in Talkeetna.

Well, that’s not quite true. The jury found him guilty of murder, but not guilty of manslaughter. Which, in legal terms, is what’s called an “inconsistent verdict” and grounds for a retrial. But the law allows a judge to seek clarification from a jury as to whether it meant to return such a verdict. Superior Court Judge Eric Smith, after two hours of argument, got clarification that indeed the jury meant Clark was guilty of murder and therefore also of manslaughter.

In closing arguments, prosecutor Michael Perry urged the jury to think about just how intentionally Clark had to act to slay Fast. He bought two guns, ammunition and a holster. He went to the Latitude 62 bar. He talked to Fast.

And even in the very last seconds, he had to flip back the safety on his gun and squeeze the trigger.

Afterward, he admitted his actions to Alaska State Troopers.

“He said he shot him eight inches down from his chin and in the center of his torso,” Perry said. The bullet went through Fast’s heart. “He says, ‘I can’t believe I was crazy enough to go in there and shoot him,’ and then he laughs.”

He anticipated that the defense would argue Clark thought he was acting in self-defense.

Evidence at trial seemed to indicate that, for whatever reason Clark, got it into his head that Fast was involved in some kind of rape and murder conspiracy that affected women in Talkeetna. Though that conspiracy seems a delusion on Clark’s part.

But even if he felt threatened, Perry said, Clark had other options. He didn’t have to go to Latitude 62. He could have retreated once he was there. No one was stopping him from leaving.

And, he pointed out, Fast did nothing to deserve being shot, besides attempting to be Clark’s friend.

“He came over, put his arm on Sam Clark and said, ‘How’re you doing, buddy?’ and sat down. And for that he was shot,” Perry said.

Jeff Bradley, Clark’s attorney, argued that his client might have committed manslaughter, but was not guilty of murder.

Murder, he argued, requires intent to kill. Clark’s intent wasn’t to kill, it was to stop a threat.

“It was the trooper’s perception that Sam was paranoid. It was the trooper’s perception that he was suffering from a delusion,” Bradley said, referencing testimony from troopers at trial. “A lot of his statements are just plain crazy.”

But while the fear might have been unfounded and the threat didn’t exist and was only a product of Clark’s delusional mind, that doesn’t matter. He felt he was acting to stop a threat.

Bradley compared the shooting to a police officer-involved shooting. Officers are trained to stop a threat. They stop threats with deadly force, shooting suspects in a manner that is very likely to kill them. But their intent isn’t death; rather, to insure public safety.

It was negligent for Clark to act the way he did. It was reckless, Bradley argued to the jury, but it was not intentional murder.

“Looking back with the time to reflect, with care and understanding, he can recognize some of the errors in his judgment,” Bradley told the jurors, and pointed out that manslaughter is not anything to scoff at. “The consequences are severe even though it was just a mistake.”

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.