Erie County grand jury indicts Adcock on murder charge

A man accused of stabbing to death his uncle during a tussle has been charged with a single count of murder.
Jessica Cuffman
Jan 5, 2013

An Erie County grand jury returned an indictment against Tre'Vonte Adcock, 18, Friday.

Adcock is accused of stabbing Jared Rhodes, 24, when the two were at a home in the 1300 block of Clinton St. at about 3 a.m. Dec. 15.

Family members said the two frequently played around and wrestled.

Adcock later told police he had simply poked his uncle with a 4-inch knife.

When police answered a 911 call to the Clinton Street home, they found Rhodes in a pool of blood and Adcock yelling profanities and trying to move Rhodes' body.

He died at the hospital about 11 hours later.

Police initially arrested Adcock for misconduct at an emergency, and prosecutors later filed a murder charge against him.

He is held at the Erie County jail on a $1 million bond.

Comments

luvblues2

Where is that part of town where they play with real knives after getting drunk and run 4 inches deep through real skin? Oh, yeah. Downtown Sandusky.

THED0N

See you in 25!

2cents's picture
2cents

You poke someone with a finger when your joking around. No more police reports from a loud car stereo, guess that was silenced too!

KURTje

Some one is gonna get poked.

starryeyes83

he 'prolly' already has been.

obscenity

With a name like AdCock, he's just begging for it.

Speakezy

He just a misguided youth. Momma didn't even know he had a knife I bet.

luvblues2

It was intent. The guy was stabbed multiple times. That is not considered "rough housing" in anyone's book.

Gardenman

I have never quite understood the need for a Grand Jury. Infact, legal scholars have questioned why one is even needed. The law enforcement and then the prosecuter who reviews either have a case in which the person is charged or they don't? When a Grand Jury is seated only the prosecutor presents...no defense attorney so clearly the who event is one sided.

It appears to me the Grand Jury is there when the case is weak or many quetions remain unanswered so you give the case one sided and then get the Grand Jury to indict so that way if its all proven to be wrongfully charged in the trial then everyone can say "Hey wasn't us the prosecutor or law enforcement IT was those folks you know the non attorneys and all who served on the Grand Jury.....they were the ones screwed up not us.

To me the Grand Jury seems in most (not all) caes useless and a waste of time and the taxpayer's money.

hmm really

AMEN to that 2cents!!! Where is the "like" button??? :D

Speakezy

Excellent comment Gardenman!

SamAdams

There doesn't need to be a defense at a grand jury proceeding. It isn't a trial. The only thing a grand jury does is judge the evidence presented by the prosecution and then determine, based on what it's seen, if there's sufficient evidence to warrant the charges and a subsequent trial. The standard isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a grand jury, but rather if there's enough to suggest that there was a crime, and that the suspect could have committed it.

While a grand jury might seems useless in some ways, it isn't. It's a failsafe to prevent unwarranted charges against people who might be nothing more or less than "convenient" to the case at hand as well as to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors gather enough evidence. It prevents people from being "railroaded" in any number of ways, not least of which is threatening someone with a boatload of charges and punishment so that, even though they didn't commit the crime, they will confess in the gamble they'll do better with a deal than in a trial where the stakes are higher.

Does that happen much? Probably not any more. But grand juries are still not a failsafe I'm willing to get rid of! In fact, given the state of government these days, including the legal system, it's possible we need it more than ever!

tiredofthecrap

wheres the list of all the other losers they indicted???

Gardenman

SamAdams I thank you for your detailed explanation. I have had similar discussions with my brother who is an attorney. He has come to the conclusion after practiciing for some 40+ years that Grand Juries by and large are useless. He says you have the law enforement who have investigated a case and "think" they have a crime but they then take it to the proscuter for review for they will have to try the case in court. So they pass a judgement but then take it to a Grand Jury where folks who have no legal eduction at all are asked to make a decision to prosecute. He says it gets even more questionable for only one side is presented to the Grand Jury. Says a bit one sided right?

He says the whole process in most cases is a waste of taxpayer's money BUT I must admit it gives one of my fellow esteemed members of the bar an opportunity to be gainfully employed. He laughs and says we do have an obligation to find positions for all those comimg out of law school. Whats better way than we attorneys endorsing more positions for our fellow attorneys. He says if the legal system was ever pushed to the wall in cutting expenses drastically the Grand Juries might be greatly reduced. Says if a prosecuter is doing their job there is little reason to take a case to a Grand Jury.

So again appreciate your take but every time I see Grand Jury action I think of his words and ask was this really a necessary expense to the taxpayers.