A grocery bag, electrical cord, recovered hatchet and video evidence became pieces of the case that ended with Jeremy Pulver’s murder conviction.
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — Inside the West Valley City bedroom where 72-year-old John Pulver was found dead, investigators documented ordinary household objects that later took on significance in a murder trial: a plastic grocery bag, an electrical cord and items matching parts of the account his son had given police. Miles away, officers recovered the hatchet prosecutors said caused John’s fatal injuries.
More than two years later, those objects became part of a larger evidentiary record placed before a Third District Court jury. Jurors also watched police body-camera footage, viewed video from a neighbor’s security system and heard investigators explain what they found at the house and after Jeremy Ross Pulver was arrested. The jury convicted Pulver, 48, of murdering his father and rejected his argument that the fatal confrontation was an act of self-defense.
West Valley City police officer Adam Rose testified that a Walmart grocery bag found in John Pulver’s bedroom appeared consistent with an attempt to suffocate him. An electrical cord in the room could have been used in an attempt to strangle John or in connection with the bag, Rose testified. Investigators also documented a portable tool bag they believed could belong to Jeremy, who worked as a general contractor, and a metal bottle that corresponded with information Jeremy had provided during interviews. The state used those details to argue that portions of his initial statements were independently supported by the scene.
One thing officers did not find in the room became just as important. Rose testified that investigators found no firearm, knife or other dangerous weapon there. Jeremy Pulver later testified that he feared his father had a gun and that the perceived threat helped trigger his response. His attorney, Melinda Dee, told jurors that Jeremy knew his father owned guns and said he felt a firearm during the encounter. Prosecutors argued that the physical evidence and Jeremy’s earlier statements did not support the version he gave at trial.
The case began in the early hours of April 26, 2024. A caretaker who lived at John Pulver’s home returned after spending the night away from the residence because, she told investigators, she was afraid of Jeremy. Charging documents said she encountered Jeremy outside the house and that he told her he had killed his father. After Jeremy drove away, she entered the residence and found John on his bed. Police and emergency responders were summoned, beginning an investigation that quickly focused on the victim’s son.
Jeremy Pulver was arrested later that day. According to the initial police account, he told investigators he had been staying with his father and claimed John had expressed a desire to die because of his age and condition. Jeremy described making several attempts to end his father’s life before using a hatchet when John resisted. Prosecutors said the hatchet was subsequently found in Jeremy’s vehicle. Investigators said the condition of the scene was consistent with important parts of what Jeremy told them, though his statements also contained claims that became disputed as the case moved toward trial.
Prosecutors did not rely on the scene alone. Video from a neighbor’s security cameras showed Jeremy coming and going from the residence, according to trial reporting. Jurors also saw officers’ body-camera recordings. Witnesses included responding officers, investigators involved in processing the home and the medical professional who performed John Pulver’s autopsy. Deputy Salt Lake County attorney John Ham told jurors that John died of blunt force trauma after being struck repeatedly on April 26.
The defense’s interpretation of the physical evidence was different. Dee argued that the investigation left unanswered questions and said officers should have interviewed Jeremy again after he was sober. Jeremy was under the influence of methamphetamine during the period surrounding the killing, according to the arguments presented at trial. The defense also emphasized toxicology findings involving John and argued that his drug use, the darkness of the room, Jeremy’s knowledge that his father had firearms and the history between them were relevant to why Jeremy believed he faced a threat.
That explanation required jurors to reconcile the evidence with Jeremy’s previous accounts. Prosecutors said Jeremy did not initially describe seeing the gun in the way he later did from the witness stand. In his earlier statements, he had instead spoken about his father asking him to end his life. Charging documents said Jeremy claimed he eventually decided to comply after John repeatedly expressed that desire. The state argued that those statements showed planning and aggression rather than an unexpected need to defend himself.
Investigators had additional statements to compare. A man encountered by the father and son at a bar told detectives that Jeremy had said he was going to kill his father because his father had asked him to do so, according to charging documents. One of John’s other sons later told detectives he strongly doubted that his father wanted to die and said John had never been suicidal. Prosecutors also cited letters Jeremy sent to his brother and a jail call that contained other explanations or descriptions of what happened.
The caretaker supplied investigators with context about the hours preceding John’s death. She described Jeremy’s relationship with his father as strained and volatile, according to charging documents, and said she had become frightened enough to leave the residence. She also described events involving John’s credit card and conversations inside the home. Those allegations formed part of the investigative chronology, although the murder trial ultimately turned on whether prosecutors proved Jeremy unlawfully killed his father and whether his asserted defense applied.
Ham told jurors that some of Jeremy’s early statements were unusual, but argued that investigators had corroborated key details about the killing. The prosecutor maintained that Jeremy’s methamphetamine use helped explain why he might have believed his conduct was reasonable without making it lawful. Dee argued the opposite implication: that investigators had not sufficiently accounted for the condition of both men and the possibility that Jeremy perceived an immediate threat. She told jurors the state had not disproved self-defense.
Jurors were also asked to consider imperfect self-defense. Under the theory presented by the defense, even if Jeremy’s actions were not legally justified, his claimed belief that he was protecting himself could affect the jury’s assessment. After hearing evidence Monday and Tuesday, jurors deliberated for about two hours Tuesday afternoon and resumed for about two more hours Wednesday morning. They returned guilty verdicts and determined that the asserted imperfect self-defense theory did not apply.
The verdict covered more than murder. Jeremy Pulver was convicted of first-degree felony murder, second-degree felony obstruction of justice, three third-degree felony weapon-possession counts and misdemeanor drug-related offenses. Court scheduling records identify the prosecution as case 241905338 in Utah’s Third Judicial District. He had also been convicted separately in May of aggravated assault in a case arising from allegations that he threatened a man in a dispute involving the attempted purchase of a puppy the day before John died.
The trial evidence described how investigators reconstructed the final hours of John Pulver’s life, but his obituary recorded a broader history. John earned a sociology degree from the University of Utah and worked for the U.S. Postal Service for 30 years. He served as a union president, enjoyed the outdoors, gardening, old movies and cars, and was remembered for his humor. He was a father of five and was survived by grandchildren, great-grandchildren and siblings.
Currently, Jeremy Pulver is scheduled to be sentenced Nov. 2. Until then, the guilty verdict stands as the jury’s answer to the central dispute presented at trial: after examining the physical scene alongside Pulver’s statements and testimony, jurors did not accept that the killing was legally justified as self-defense.
Author note: Last updated September 29, 2026.