Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Nathaniel Brazill refuses to speak during the trial of a lawsuit against the distributor of the gun he used to kill teacher Barry Grunow.
©Associated Press
November 1, 2002
WEST PALM BEACH -- A somber and shackled Nathaniel Brazill, on the witness stand for the first time since he testified about murdering his teacher, refused to utter a word Thursday. Instead, he shook his head "yes" and "no" to answer questions.
Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga translated the gestures and noted that the 16-year-old Brazill, now 15 months into his 28-year prison sentence, refused to testify.
The teen's attorney, Robert Udell, said Brazill only wanted to testify if it would help the case of Pam Grunow, the widow of the teacher he shot in a school hallway two years ago.
Grunow is suing the distributor of the gun that killed her husband, charging that the company could have made the weapon safer with a lock. Her lawsuit charges that the weapon often falls into the hands of juveniles who use it to commit crimes and that its small size and cheap construction make it look like a toy.
The case is the first to address both the absence of a gun lock and the flaws associated with a cheap, easily concealable weapon that might be mistaken for a toy.
Attorneys for gun distributor Valor Corp. called Brazill to the stand. They maintain the fault lies with him, not the gun.
With a nod of his head, Brazill told Valor attorney Jennifer Anderson that he wanted to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, so nothing he said could be used against him as he appeals his second-degree murder conviction.
Jurors were secluded during his brief testimony. Instead, they'll see parts of his videotaped testimony from the criminal trial.
Grunow's attorneys criticized the defense for attempting to try the criminal case all over again.
"This gun has no business -- it's not collectible, it's not used for hunting, it's not used for target practice. It's only used for what you heard about in that courtroom, and that is to hurt people," attorney Bob Montgomery said.
Montgomery, known for successfully spearheading the state's efforts to sue Big Tobacco, compares the case to early lawsuits against tobacco companies.
In those suits, the public initially believed that people who bought cigarettes should know about their potential consequences, much like gun owners know their weapons can kill. But as juries learned how tobacco companies could have made their products safer, they began awarding multibillion dollar verdicts to smokers.
Udell said that Brazill, who testified during his criminal trial that he didn't mean to pull the trigger, believes the tragedy could have been avoided.