Let Renteria go? Second hung jury in double murder case of dad suspected of killing to protect son from molester

Daniel Renteria, the father accused of killing two men after one allegedly molested his 3-year-old son, is getting his day in court.

Daniel Renteria in TPD booking photo

Again and again.

For the second time in a row, Renteria’s trial ended in a mistrial, thanks to a hung jury.

A date for the third trial, if there is to be one, is scheduled to be set Nov. 8, KGUN-9 reports.

Unless a few mistakes are corrected and some changes made, a third trial seems likely to follow along the same lines.

Hung jury. Mistrial.

When can we just let the guy go already?

Renteria faces two counts of manslaughter in connection with the deaths of Richard Rue Jr., 40, and James “Red” Marschinke, 49, who were shot and killed March 1 while sitting in a front yard in the 5300 block of East 25th Street, Tucson police said.

Renteria initially fled the scene and burned his car, but then turned himself into police the following day.

Mistake number one – confession. Unless you have a lawyer present, which was not made clear in this case, blurting out your guts to authorities is never a good idea.

The first trial, in August, ended with 11 to 1 for conviction. The second trial, which puttered to a close Oct. 15, snapped shut with the jury deadlocked.

The defense argues Renteria shot the men in self-defense, especially since Rue threatened to kill Renteria and his son if he ran to police to report Marschinke’s alleged molestation, the Arizona Daily Star said. The prosecution counters Renteria shot unarmed men and the killings were not justified.

Evidently arguments are not strong – or convincing – enough, although the grand jury was convinced enough to lessen Renteria’s first-degree murder charges to manslaughter.

But it still indicted him for manslaughter.

Although a new jury is introduced with every new trial, all other variables are staying the same.

The most recent trial, which kicked off Oct. 6, did so with “the same judge, the same lawyers, the same witnesses, the same game plan and the same animosity,” ADS reported.

So why expect different results? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is one of the definitions of our friend insanity.

The animosity noted is not necessarily between the families of the victims and the accused – but between the defense attorney and the judge.

The Star story says the judge was not quick to offer explanations when the defense attorney asked for them. And at one point when the judge got up to leave, the defense pressed him to “make a record” for future reference if the case is ever reviewed. The judge told her to sit down and asked if he needed to call for additional security. The Star then quoted him telling her, “If you insist on this, there will be consequences to you personally.”

Mistake number two – a judge who seems to hate your lawyer.

Trials are supposed to be about bringing out the truth, but they are often more about putting on a show. The best showman, or woman, often gets the win. It has to be tough putting on a good show if the “emcee” doesn’t seem to like you.

Since no one is winning this show, perhaps it’s time for new showmen. Or a new judge. Or a new line of thinking – just scrap the thing altogether.

Of course, we cannot accurately say how we would truly decide unless we were actually on the jury ourselves, but 12 of us may get that chance if Renteria gets yet another day in court.


What do you think?

Should a third trial be set or should Renteria be let go?


About Rynski

Writer, artist, performer who specializes in the weird, wacky and sometimes creepy. Learn more at ryngargulinski.com.
This entry was posted in Crime, danger, death, life, Police/fire/law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Let Renteria go? Second hung jury in double murder case of dad suspected of killing to protect son from molester

  1. ado1 says:

    It will lot break my heart or cause me any distress to see this man go free.  I do not advocate vigilante justice, but I think there are definitely cases where the law ought be able to make exceptionsThis  is one of those cases.  Child molesters, IMO, deserve killing, whether it be done by the state or by the father of a son that was molested by two homosexual pedophiles makes less than zero difference to me.  Everything I have read suggests that pedophilia is not curable.  Why then should the citizens of AZ or any other state have to give pedophiles free room, board, clothing, and medical services in jails or mental facilities for the rest of their sick lives? Heard it in an old western movie, “Some people just need killin’.”  Some do . . .

  2. anonymous_coward says:

    When our great country started it was the juries who decided if a particular law applied. For example the jury could drop all charges if they deemed the murder of 2 pedophiles lawful. This allowed the local community (since the jury were your peers) to decide how the law was to be applied to them rather than a judge appointed by someone else or a legislature hundreds of miles away.  Perhaps it is time we bring back this tradition and let justice reside at the local level.

    • JoeS says:

      “Jury instructions” have all but destroyed the real purpose of a jury.  Luckily their are some that are willing to stand on principal nfrom time to time.

  3. Alan in Kent WA says:

    Over in NM, Renteria would have put both in the hospital with a baseball bat for four months so that they could think of the error of their ways and how they should not do such things.  Of course, then the molesters would have gone to Prison for ever after having the time in traction to think it over.

    One reason we originally moved from Tucson to ABQ was there was a case where a man who caught someone molesting his son put that pervert in the hospital with a two by four.  The DA said he would have done the same thing, which ended all discussion.  This was after the trial fiasco that lead to Laura’s Law.

    I do not advocate vigilantism, but enough is enough.

    • JoeS says:


      Why did you move from Tucson again?  Because someone was beat with a 2×4?   Or because the CA condoned it?  What does Laura’s Law have to do with the incident?

      Just looking for clairifucation,  thanks.

      • Alan in Kent WA says:

        Besides just moving on, there was a case in TOP (the old pueblo) where a man stabbed his wife over a dozen times, found not guilty by reasons of insanity, and then found “sane” three months later.  This lead to “Laura’s Law” in AZ.  This was so distrurbing that we decided to move somewhere where no one was allowed to get away with a horrible crime.  The incident I mentioned was from the ABQ Journal.  

  4. fraser007 says:

    Hope his aim was good. Two in the head, make sure they are dead. And I dont give a f*** if his relatives comment here.

  5. JoeS says:

    There is RECENT Az case law that will support a defense motion to dismiss based on the fact that two mistrials have occured and the likelyhood that no new evidence is to be presented.    

    In the interest of jusitce,   dismiss. 

  6. azmouse says:

    As a parent of children who are now adults, finding out someone molested one of your children is one of many huge fears every parent lives with.

    I always thought if anyone ever hurt one of my children that I would kill them. Fortunately I never had to find out if I was really capable of that and I think logic would have taken over and I’d realize I couldn’t care for them from a prison cell.

    I’m not sure what should happen in this case. If everything is true that these men molested the boy and threatened family members lives, it’s hard to feel sympathetic. But, I also don’t think it’s okay to take justice into your own hands.

  7. HJ says:

    Daniel Renteria does not deserve a third trial, he deserves a medal. Declare him innocent and let him get back to his family. A crime such as child molestation should be punished with nothing less than a bullet in the head.
    I for one am glad that Renteria took justice into his own hands and saved the taxpayers of AZ a great deal of money by putting those two scumbags in the dirt where they belong, the alternative for them would have been a lifetime of free housing, food, and healthcare from a jail cell paid for by John and Jane Taxpayer. Or they would have been found innocent through some loophole in the system and would still be on the streets of Tucson preying on children.
    Good job Daniel, I hope you are found innocent.

  8. Jack Johnson says:

    Questions to ask yourself:
    Why did he associate with people like Marschinke and Rue? Drug users, thieves, child molesters and whatever else they were. Why did he bring them around his child? Would you bring people like this around your child? Those of you who aren’t drug users, would you hang out with those who were? If you’re in a car and someone “puffs out their chest” do you drive away or get out and shoot them?
    Those two may have deserved to die and no one will miss them BUT in a civilized society we have a justice system and we don’t take the law into our own hands. Had one of these guys pulled a gun or posed an immediate threat, fine, kill them. As long as he could have driven away at that moment in time and have called they police, they did not pose an “immediate threat” and he should be found guilty and go to jail.
    His choice to associate with those monsters directly resulted in the harm caused to his child and poor decisions like that will only be repeated in the future if he is set free.  For the sake of his young son and SEPARATED wife, lock him up!

  9. J and S says:

    Hey jack Johnson,
    Dont you read anything???? or pay attention???? I guess not, Daniel hired that peice of shit Marschinke to do jobs around the house that Daniel just purchased!! And those 2 men were steeling and breaking in!!!  And No I would not have brought those kind of people around my children, but I dont think that Daniel would have either if he knew that they were drug users, theives, and molesters. He hired them out of trust!!! Because daniel wasa trustworthy person!!!!! —- My spouse and I  have known him since we were children and grew up in the same town!!!! So No therefore I know what kind of person Daniel IS!!!!  I believe he did what he did to rotect his son!!! And I would’ve done the same!!!!

  10. J and S says:

    Hey Jack Daniel hireed them out of trust to do odd jobs around the house!!! Thats why he associated with them! You idiot! Daniel is a good person, and was trustworthy of other people! We grew up in the same town where everyone knew everyone and everyone trusted everyone! he is a good person who chose to protect his SON!

  11. Jack Johnson says:

    They were friends and hung out socially as well, this is how he knew where they lived. Odd jobs? Please.

    • J and S says:

      WOW! U are so quick to protect two molesters and slander a good father! Why is that “Jack”?  Are you related to either of those sick fuc*s?? Or is it that ur just like them? And now your scared the same may happen to you one day?

  12. J and S says:

    OH WAIT! or is it that you are so perfect to never meet a person that was secretly someone else behind the mask they portayed to be! Or is it that everyone you hang out with IS perfect and THEY are who they tell you they are! NO, NO your just a fuc*n psychic to just know who everyone is and what they do! RIGHT?!!  My point to you is we never really know who people REALLY are, and I really DOUBT Daniel woul’ve knowingllyput his son and his self in danger! YA Kno cuz NOT Every1 has secret psychic powers LIKE YOU!

  13. NivenParkAfterDark says:

    I knew Jamie (James) Marschinke since I was 14, he was a drummer in several bands I was in and did odd jobs for my Grandparents. While he was by my own admission a moderate fuckup and petty criminal (at best), other than his propensity for alcohol and cocaine and some minor robberies to float his drug habit when he was unable to procure day jobs as Handiman/Manual Laborer, he was always honest and up front with me and was always into WOMEN, not men (or in this case boys). He was a petty criminal and a drug fiend, period. That I know of anyway.

    This whole case sounds fishy at best and clearly there are drug connections between Marschinke and Daniel. My guess is that Daniel was Jamie’s drug dealer and Jamie was working for him in exchange for drugs and something happened, most likely Jamie was wasted and threatened to narc him off or tried to blackmail him or something. The child molestation is a red herring, I can almost guarantee that shit. This case was about DRUGS, period. Jamie Marschinke was no child molester nor homosexual.

    I feel sorry for his brother Mark and his parents, who were already put through hell by the guy but neither they nor he deserved the death he got. Again, this was about drugs if you can momentarily block out the child molestation allegations to see clearly you will know in your hearts I am right. I have a 2 year old son myself and I know I would murder anyone who hurt him but I also can imagine what a vile and loathsome thing to be accused of something like that when you are innocent (or in this case innocent and DEAD) must be like.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s