Defense gamble of putting man on stand who shot and killed Kevin Taeuffer in Point Arena last summer pays off, jury rules innocent on murder

Did the prosecution also offer the jury manslaughter? If not, why not? We also want more info to remember the man who lost his life. Please contact us! This includes any post-trial jurors.

The man who is probably the biggest name in Mendocino County felony defense won a big victory for his client in Mendocino County’s only murder trial of 2025.

The Mendocino County District Attorney’s office charged Pan Jasper Brady, 48,  with murder, a conviction for which would have meant that Brady would have almost certainly died in prison for what he did.

But Santa Rosa-Ukiah attorney Justin Petersen made a gamble rarely used, having a client who is a felon testify in his own defense. Often, the prosecution will use this occasion to put old charges in front of a jury.  This jury was convinced and found Brady innocent  of murder charges. There will be no conviction specifically for the killing of Kevin Taeuffer, 54, of Annapolis.  The defense’s hand was forced as the prosecution had fought hard and won an order to exclude any references to self-defense being made by any witnesses, unless the defendant himself testified.  Nobody saw the shooting but  Brady (and Taeuffer).

Double jeopardy, a constitutional right in the United States, prohibits someone from being tried twice on the same charges.

“There’s always the unfortunate fact that in a murder one of the two “best witnesses’ to whether the defendant truly acted in self-defense is necessarily dead. Thus, disproving the defendant’s one-sided rendition of what happened between him and the victim can often be a dicey proposition, lamented a press release from the DA’s office.

(The word murder was put in bold by the editor to emphasize the question- why was this only a murder trial and not also a manslaughter trial?)

It appears the prosecution lost on its gamble, not including voluntary or involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses.  If Senior Deputy District Attorney Robert Waner had done that, the jury could have chosen to convict on those charges. The charging documents include only murder charges and the press release from the DA references only the murder charge.

Did he or did he not? Are we missing something here? Please contact us. In a dozen past. California murder trials I have watched, the lesser included have been an issue in several.

It is possible that the prosecution did offer that choice to the jury and revise the charging documents as the two-week trial before Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Keith Faulder went on. It doesn’t usually work like that but… 

Mendocinocoast.news was not able to speak to anyone directly about the case.

Mendocinocoast.news did contact Peterson and got a press release from the DA’s office. If a live interview with these parties or with the family of the victim is possible, this story will be updated. The facts of the case paint a chilling picture.

“On July 11, 2024, Pan Jasper Brady called 911 to report that he had shot a man. Mendocino Deputies arrived at the property on Eureka Hill Road in Point Arena, where Brady identified himself as the caller, stated that he had shot someone, and directed deputies to the location of the victim and the firearm, court filings from the prosecution state.”

Deputies located Kevin Taeuffer lying deceased near a black pickup truck, approximately 200

yards from a barn. The victim had sustained a single gunshot wound to the upper abdomen. No

weapons were found near the body. A revolver was later recovered from a piece of heavy equipment, where Brady directed deputies to look. After being advised of his Miranda rights, Brady gave a detailed statement to Detective Samuel Logan. Brady admitted to shooting Taeuffer once with a revolver, which he retrieved from a skid steer. Brady stated that he had been working on his trailer deck when he encountered Taeuffer and felt that a confrontation was imminent. He raised the firearm, aimed, and fired a single shot. Brady acknowledged that Taeuffer was unarmed at the time of the shooting and admitted he did not render aid but did call 911.” (Because a shooting was involved, emergency personnell could not get to the victim until police cleared the scene. It is unknown if there was any delay.) 

“Brady told investigators that he shot Taeuffer because of a prior altercation that had occurred weeks earlier in Sonoma County, during which he claimed Taeuffer had physically attacked him. Brady told detectives he believed Taeuffer was going to attack him again. However, he explicitly denied any other motives for the shooting–denying that it had anything to do with drugs, money, a girl, or any kind of debt.”

The prosecution summary included in the court files continues:

“A witness heard two men arguing behind the barn for several minutes

shortly before the gunshot. She did not witness the shooting or identify the individuals. Hugh Brady, the defendant’s father, stated that when he arrived at the property, his son told him, “I’m going to prison,” and admitted to shooting someone. An autopsy conducted by Dr. Mark Super confirmed that Kevin Taeuffer died from a single gunshot wound to the upper abdomen. A medium-caliber bullet was recovered from the body.”

The defense had a steep climb to prove self-defense if the victim did not have a gun on him when Brady shot him and the case seems to read more like manslaughter than first, or even second-degree murder. But the prosecution felt they had a strong enough case and that the shooting could in no way be justified. 

Brady, who was initially held on $1 million bail, hired Petersen, bail was reduced and he posted the required funds to get released on $500,000 bail. He is still facing a long stint in prison, but not for murder. He had a felony conviction from 2008 for possession of a controlled substance while armed. That conviction made it a serious crime to possess ammunition and a separate crime to use the firearm in the commission of a crime. The case involved a major effort by the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office. With his prior felony, the sentence on either first or second degree murder would have been 25 years to life minimum. Brady would have almost certainly died in prison had he been convicted of murder charges.

No mention of why manslaughter was apparently not in the conversation is left out in the press release from the DA’s office, which gives an explanation of why the high bar of murder charges was not met, but not giving any explanation of why manslaughter was not offered, when the facts they filed seem to indicate that as a possible charge. If Mendocinocoast.news is able to find out the answer to this key question or, more importantly, hear more about the victim and get victim statements, we will update this story.

Here is what the prosecution said in their press release

“The defense presented evidence during the trial, which included the defendant taking the witness stand to testify, and then argued to the jury that the defendant Brady acted in lawful self-defense.

Under California law, a person who reasonably believes there is an imminent danger of being on the receiving end of bodily injury or death, who then acts in self-defense on that belief, and uses reasonable and necessary force to protect against such imminent harm shall be considered not guilty of the unlawful killing of another.

Danger is deemed imminent if, when the person under attack defends with lethal force, the danger from another actually existed or the person under attack reasonably believed it existed. The danger must seem so immediate and present so that it must be instantly dealt with.

Thus, the prosecution has the burden to disprove and negate a defendant’s claim of self-defense. This principle is important because, if a jury believes the defendant has presented credible self-defense evidence, it is up to the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of force was not justified, making it a critical focus of the trial proceedings.

If the evidence available to the prosecution does not convince the jury and negate beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s rendition of what happened, the jury is required by law to return a not guilty verdict.

As for the two felony counts for which the defendant was found guilty, defendant Brady is a lifetime “prohibited person” when it comes to firearms and ammunition because of his 2008 felony conviction for possessing methamphetamine while armed with a loaded firearm.

After the jury was excused, the defendant was referred to the Mendocino County Adult Probation Department for a background study and sentencing recommendation.

The defendant was ordered to return to court for his formal sentencing hearing on Thursday, September 4, 2025 at 9 a.m in Department A of the Ukiah courthouse.

Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Keith Faulder presided over the two-week trial and will be the sentencing judge when the September sentencing date rolls around.”

 On the witness list (although all may not have been called during the trial) were detectives Samuel Logan, Jared Chaney, Jason Logan, and Jack Woida. There were also deputies Refugio Zavala, Braeden Rossich and Michael Jensen plus Cynthia Bartley, coroner investigative technician.The DA’s investigator Bryan Arrington, was also on the list. Then came experts  Dr. Mark Super, M.D., Kelly Faeth, a criminalist and Richard Kruetzer, computer forensics expert.

Petersen is the private attorney many turn to in Mendocino County. His office is in Santa Rosa but he long has had roots in Mendocino County. He currently represents Cayden Craig, 23, of Fort Bragg who faces rape charges.

Petersen stepped in to represent 28-year-old Elijah Bae McKay in a 2010 case in Lake County. McKay was initially charged with murder, but Petersen was able to help secure a plea of guilty to accessory to murder after the fact in connection to the January 2010 deaths of Frank and Yvette Maddox of Augusta, Maine.

The Maddoxes were shot to death by Robby Alan Beasley, who had grown up with McKay in Maine and came west to work in McKay’s marijuana growing business.

Beasley, 32, who had a different attorney, was sentenced to two life terms.  

Justin Petersen also represented  27-year-old Anthony William Oakley, then of Little River,  in a high-profile rape case from 2020.  Oakley was convicted and sentenced to 45 years to life in prison. He currently represents Cayden Craig, 23, accused of rape and lesser charges relating to window peeping and burglary which happened at the homes of two other women.

Petersen also represented Terrell James Marshall 46 of Vacaville, who pleaded no contest to the murder and rape by force of Kayla Grace Chesser, 27, of Willits. As part of Marshall’s plea, he agreed to a 50-years-to-life prison sentence, that the sentence would be in addition to the time spent in jail awaiting trial, and he waived his appeal rights

Licensed for 33 years, Richard Justin Petersen is a lawyer who attended UC Davis School of Law, according to online listings about him.

Please contact reporter Frank Hartzell about this and any other story at frankhartzell@gmail.com

(Editors’ note- Want to go beyond the press release? Subscribe for free to Mendocinocoast.news. We are determined to get the victims’ stories, in particular in these cases. The focus should be on victims. Mendofever does have some memories of the victim in their follow-up to the press release but otherwise there is a forest of the same press releases about this, one with a badge from the DA’s office as the image! We plan to have more information about the victim of this crime in a follow-up.