• Speak with An Experienced Defense Attorney Today
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Theodore Edgecomb Found Guilty in Road Rage Trial

Last Wednesday, a 32-year-old black man named Theodore Edgecomb was found guilty of first-degree reckless homicide for the shooting of a white man named Jason Cleereman in Milwaukee, Wisc.

Edgecomb claimed that he shot Cleereman in self-defense after Cleereman allegedly used the n-word during a traffic altercation. Cleereman then followed Edgecomb in his car and onto the street—Edgecomb was on a bike at the time of the incident. Surveillance footage shows Cleereman’s wife, who was driving the car at the time, pull up alongside Edgecomb and Cleereman exiting the vehicle to pursue Edgecomb.

Prosecutors and Cleereman’s wife allege that Edgecomb punched Cleereman through the car window when he suddenly veered into their lane. Cleereman’s wife testified that she knew Edgecomb had a gun. She also testified that her husband did not tell her to follow Edgecomb; instead, she said her husband just wanted to talk to the stranger.

After the incident, Edgecomb, who feared for his safety, fled the state with the gun. Prosecutors argued that his actions following the shooting were suspicious and not reflective of an innocent man claiming self-defense.

In a recent interview on Law & Crime Network, Denver defense lawyer Jeffrey Wolf discussed the use of self-defense in a case involving a black man shooting a white man and particularly on the heels of the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

“If anyone thinks that race didn’t play a part in how they had to defend this case and how they were treated by this judge, you’re wrong,” explained Wolf.

When asked whether this case was likely to be appealed, Wolf pointed squarely at the judge who displayed stark contrast toward the defense team and the prosecution.

“He wasn’t just unfair, he was unprofessional…he was screaming at them; he was ruling against things without hearing arguments. When things are going to get overturned on appeal, you have to meet these high burdens. And one of them that you typically have to meet is arbitrary and capricious. When you hear an appeals court return something because of what a judge did, it’s typically because the judge didn’t allow the attorney to make a record, so they can’t rule on something based on legal reasoning. We basically saw this over and over again in the pre-trial motions of this case. So, absolutely they have good grounds for appeal.”

Watch the videos above to learn more about the Edgecomb case and for more legal commentary from Denver defense lawyer Jeff Wolf.