Michael Spencer testified that he fatally shot his girlfriend by accident, and a Yakima County jury found him innocent. But some of the jurors question whether a lesser charge should have been an alternative.

In recent interviews with the Yakima Herald-Republic, jurors in the case defended their Aug. 8 decision to acquit the 26-year-old Naches man of murder charges in the 2006 shooting death of Rebecca Tatum, with whom he had two children.

Jurors, who agreed to be interviewed on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case, said the panel found it puzzling that manslaughter was not a lesser charge in the case -- so much so that they briefly discussed it during deliberations.

"That's the one charge (manslaughter) everyone would have gone with, but they didn't have it," said Juror 11. "Why?"

"I just can't see how they felt they had a strong enough case for murder," added Juror 10, "but it definitely could have been manslaughter."

The case was notable for several reasons -- not only because of a dispute over how many shots were fired, but also because of ongoing tension between the Tatum and Spencer families that stemmed in part from a court order that gave custody of the couple's children to Spencer's parents.

After the verdicts were announced, some supporters of Tatum's family reacted with anger, and her mother collapsed. Courtroom security escorted jurors through back corridors.

During the course of the two-week trial, prosecutors ridiculed Spencer's statement that he fired a single shot accidentally while playing with a newly purchased 9 mm pistol in their Naches home.

Prosecutors argued that Tatum's numerous injuries were proof that Spencer fired at least twice and that he did so because Tatum, who was 23, was about to leave him. She was also five weeks pregnant.

But jurors said they had a number of problems with the prosecution's case, including a belief that Tatum's family exaggerated claims Tatum was fed up with Spencer, and the lack of a second bullet or empty shell casing.

As it turned out, Spencer told deputies after the shooting that he and Tatum had been arguing over his use of meth at a party the night before. That part of his statement, however, was suppressed by the court as too prejudicial.

The jurors also said they found forensic expert Kay Sweeney, who testified for the defense, very credible. Sweeney told the jury a single bullet could have caused Tatum's various injuries.

"I was very impressed" with Sweeney, said Juror 7, a 71-year-old retired casino worker who lives in a quiet mobile home park in Yakima. "It all added up."

Juror 10, a 39-year-old network administrator from Yakima, said the prosecution simply didn't offer an airtight case.

"I just couldn't wrap my head around a second shot with no proof," she said. "No bullet, no casing, no clue where it could have gone. It just did not make sense to me."

"The evidence just wasn't there," added Juror 11, an 81-year-old retiree who lives in the Toppenish area. "It was a lot of speculation."

At the same time, Jurors 10 and 11 said they believed Spencer's handling of the pistol was reckless and that the subject of manslaughter was even briefly discussed by the jury. The group, however, had only two possible charges in front of them: first-degree murder and second-degree murder.

"Each of us having an idea what (manslaughter) was, we were surprised it wasn't on the table," Juror 10, the network administrator, said.

"We thought he was stupid," said Juror 11 of Spencer, before adding, "Stupid like a fox, maybe. I don't know."

Juror 7, the retired casino worker, said she was reluctant to speculate how the jury would have ruled without knowing the intricacies of a manslaughter instruction.

Nevertheless, she conceded Spencer's handling of the pistol was clearly negligent: "I believe he was probably stupid," she said, "but I didn't think he meant to kill her."

Lead prosecutor Melanie Tratnik, an assistant attorney general from Seattle, defended her decision to seek only a murder verdict on the grounds that she and her colleagues were convinced the evidence was too strong to risk a watered-down outcome.

She said including a lesser charge, known in legal parlance as a lesser-included, is a good strategy in some cases. This was not one of them, however.

"When the evidence of murder is overwhelming, you don't toss (the jury) a gimme that they can just cop out on," she said. "I just could not imagine that with this type of evidence that they would let him walk. It was simply inconceivable."

Concluded Tratnik: "I think he literally got away with murder."

Spencer's attorney, John Crowley, conceded his client was guilty of some form of manslaughter, but blamed the prosecution for letting him off the hook.

"It was murder or nothin' with them all the way," he said Friday during a phone call from his office in Seattle. "The only problem was, it wasn't a murder case."

Crowley said the prosecution didn't offer manslaughter as a lesser-included jury instruction, so neither did he -- a risky move that most attorneys wouldn't advise.

On the other hand, a conviction for first-degree manslaughter could have resulted in a prison sentence of 16 or 17 years, Crowley said. Spencer was also looking at five years in prison had he been convicted of second-degree manslaughter.

In the aftermath of the acquittal, Juror 7 said he found jury service "a real eye-opener" and said she was glad to have the opportunity to speak about the experience.

She praised her colleagues on the jury as dedicated and principled and said she would never again second-guess a jury's reasoning without the benefit of being there herself.

"You just don't know unless you're in that courtroom or on that jury whether they're guilty or not," she said. "You just don't know."