Hamilton testifies, experts challenge portions of state’s evidence before deliberations

By Dani McCulley  

Following the conclusion of the state’s case, defense attorneys Nicole Watt and Konrad  Kamizelich called several witnesses in support of Jacob Hamilton’s claim that he acted in self defense during the July 2024 shooting death of Zachary Drinovsky.  

Prior to presenting its witnesses, the defense unsuccessfully sought permission for  jurors to visit the scene of the shooting. The request was denied by the court. However, jurors  were shown video footage of the location during trial as attorneys continued to debate the  significance of distances, sightlines and the overall layout of the scene.  

Watt told the court the defense intended to move quickly through its witnesses after the  state’s presentation extended longer than anticipated.  

The defense first called Massad Ayoob, a nationally known firearms instructor, author  and retired police captain who has spent decades training law enforcement officers and  civilians on the use of deadly force.  

Ayoob testified about how people react during high-stress situations and discussed the  effects fear and perceived danger can have on memory, perception and decision-making.  Jurors also viewed a video demonstration involving a handgun similar to the one used in the  shooting. The state objected to portions of Ayoob’s testimony, arguing he was not qualified as  a psychologist and had not personally evaluated Hamilton.  

The defense next called forensic bloodstain analyst Paul Kish, who disagreed with  portions of testimony previously provided by state witness Kenneth Martin.  Kish testified that the available blood evidence did not clearly establish where Drinovsky  was standing when he was shot and said the absence of certain blood patterns made definitive  conclusions difficult.

He also testified that muzzle-to-target testing could have provided  additional information regarding firing distance, though such testing was not conducted.  Kish noted that after reviewing reports, photographs and courtroom demonstratives, he  believed the actual scene was smaller than it appeared in many of the visual presentations  shown during trial.  

During cross-examination, prosecutors questioned Kish regarding the lack of a written  report and asked about compensation for his testimony.  

Hamilton later took the stand in his own defense.  

He testified that he knew Drinovsky through mutual friends, community events and local  establishments. Hamilton said he briefly encountered Drinovsky earlier in the evening and was  aware that Drinovsky carried a firearm.  

Hamilton also recounted events that occurred at The Hive prior to the shooting,  including an altercation involving Drinovsky’s wife, Emily, and her sister, Abbie Oglesbee.  Hamilton testified that he physically escorted Emily from the establishment after a  confrontation.  

When questioned about differences between his recollection and forensic evidence  presented by investigators, Hamilton testified that shock, exhaustion and trauma affected his  memory of the incident.  

“I was in shock. I still don’t know where I was standing,” Hamilton told jurors.  Hamilton also testified that he continues to think about the shooting every day.  Several character witnesses testified on Hamilton’s behalf, describing him as a peaceful  person.  

During closing arguments, Kamizelich argued Hamilton believed he was facing an  immediate threat when he fired his weapon. The defense pointed to a firearm later recovered  from Drinovsky’s vehicle and emphasized that Hamilton rendered aid after the shooting while  waiting for emergency responders.  

Prosecutors maintained Hamilton’s account was inconsistent with physical evidence  presented throughout the trial. 

Assistant Iowa Attorney General Israel Kodiaga argued that even if a confrontation occurred inside Hamilton’s apartment, it had ended before the shooting took place.  Prosecutors pointed to evidence they argued showed Drinovsky was leaving the scene when  he was shot and maintained the evidence supported a conviction for first-degree murder.  

Before deliberations began, jurors received instructions outlining numerous possible  verdicts, including first-degree murder and several lesser offenses. The jury ultimately  deliberated for approximately 10 hours over two days before acquitting Hamilton of first-degree  murder and finding him guilty of willful injury causing serious injury. 

Coverage of the verdict can be found here.