Juan Barron found guilty of murdering Hoover

After more than six hours of deliberation, a 132nd Judicial District Court jury found Juan Ramon Barron guilty of murdering Joshua Hoover in the early morning hours of Jan. 24, 2016.
Juan Barron and Jamai Barron, both of Springtown, had been accused in the shooting and stabbing deaths of Hoover, of Snyder, and Benjamin Bruns, of Victoria, during a confrontation at the Barrons’ residence in the 2100 block of Ave. Z.
Juan Barron was acquitted of murdering Bruns, while Jamai Barron was found not guilty of murder and aggravated assault in Hoover’s death. 
Trial testimony showed that Hoover and Bruns knocked on the door of the Barrons’ residence dressed in black and wearing black masks. Bruns was carrying a .45-caliber handgun, according to testimony. The Barrons, armed with knives, engaged them and, in the melee that ensued, Bruns was killed by a single gunshot wound to the head and Hoover was killed by gunshots to the head, neck and chest.
In addition to the bullet wounds, Bruns suffered more than 20 stab wounds to the head and neck, while Hoover had two stab wounds to his back. Juan Barron was uninjured in the altercation, while Jamai Barron suffered a cut lip and minor bruising.
Afterward, the Barrons admitted to stuffing the two bodies under the house and cleaning up the crime scene before reporting the incident to the police about five hours later.
The defense maintained throughout the trial that the Barrons killed in self-defense, but the jury determined that Hoover’s death went beyond that. Testimony indicated that after Juan Barron killed Bruns, he went to the section of the back yard where Jamai Barron had been struggling with Hoover, to find him lying on his back on the ground with Jamai standing over him. At that time, Juan Barron shot Hoover multiple times.
In closing arguments Tuesday afternoon, District Attorney Ben Smith urged the jury to follow a portion of the court’s instruction for what constituted self-defense. The instruction stated in part that self-defense was defined as the actions any reasonable person would take when faced with the threat of deadly force to themselves, a third person or their property.
Smith said time and time again that the Barrons’ actions were not reasonable.
“They did not have the capacity to be reasonable,” he told the jury. “By their own testimony they were really drunk, plus they had smoked pot and ingested cocaine. Drunk and high people are not ordinary people. They didn’t have the mental capacity to act in a reasonable manner that night.”
Smith said an example of unreasonable behavior came at the very start of the confrontation. Juan Barron told Snyder Police Department Detective Mike Counts that after he heard the knock on the door, he grabbed a knife, opened the door and immediately attacked the black-clad men.
“He didn’t look out the door first,” Smith said. “If you looked outside at 4 a.m. in the morning and saw two men dressed in black, you wouldn’t open the door. You’d call 9-1-1.”
Smith also said that the Barrons’ actions that night went beyond self-defense.
“The evidence is consistent — both men were shot after they were incapacitated,” Smith said. “Self-defense ends when the threat ends. There might have been some degree of self-defense that night, but we’ll never really know, because the defendants cleaned up the crime scene.”
In contrast, defense attorneys Bruce Patton, who represented Juan Barron, and Anne-Marie Gillespie, who defended Jamai Barron, claimed that their clients acted honorably in defending themselves and their property.
“I feel sympathy for the people who love Josh Hoover and Benjamin Bruns, and I wish this hadn’t happened,” Patton said. “But the indisputable evidence in this case is that Josh Hoover and Benjamin Bruns are responsible for what happened to them. Put yourself in Juan’s position, try to feel what he felt. Like I said to you last week, it was courage vs. terror — and courage won out.”
Patton, who maintained that Hoover and Bruns went to the house with the intent to commit robbery or assault, returned to the theme of courage later in his remarks.
“(Hoover and Bruns) did not get what they expected that night,” he said. “They thought this was going to be easy-peasy. But it wasn’t this time. Juan had courage. He confronted terror and that’s what we hope we can do in face of terror.”
Gillespie also said the defendants’ actions were justified.
“The defense is not required to prove self-defense, but we believe we certainly have proved it,” she said. “Were Juan and (Jamai) justified in their actions? What if he hadn’t reacted the way he did? What if he hadn’t opened the door with a knife in his hand? I hate to think what might have happened.”
During today’s penalty phase, Smith rested his case without calling any witnesses. The defense rested its case later in the morning after calling two character witnesses — Juan Barron’s employer Mike Kendrick and Jamai Barron’s grandfather Wesley Davins.
Following today’s testimony, the court recessed until 1 p.m. today. At that time, the jury will hear closing arguments and begin deliberations on Juan Barron’s sentence.