Jail Cell Love Affair - 2. Jury Selection and the Prosecution's Case

Bully Williamson couldn't believe his luck. He has been called for jury duty for Tuesday October tenth. According to the papers, that's the trial date for the faggot from next door. He arrives early and is number thirty-one in the jury pool. He's hopeful that will be low enough to make it onto the jury.

During the voir dire, thirteen candidates were excused for personal reasons, another seven excused for cause prior to Bully being questioned. He was possibly juror number eleven. The ADA begins questioning him.

"Mr. Williamson. You are an orderly at St. James hospital in Galveston, is that correct?"

"Yes, sir."

"As such, do you have any knowledge of drugs used in the process of sedation?"

"No."

"Do you have any prior knowledge of the crime being discussed today?"

"Only the little that was in the papers."

"Do you believe you can be impartial having that knowledge?"

"Yes. There really weren't any details."

"Prosecution accepts this juror."

The judge turns the questioning over to the defense. "Mr. Watson?"

Fred tapped his lawyer, who indicated, "One moment your honor."

He and Fred huddle together and talk quietly.

"Yes Fred?"

"He looks familiar. I think he's our next-door neighbor. You need to bounce him."

Watson shakes his head, "I've only got one more peremptory challenge, and I really don't like the next guy. I think we have to take our chances. Let's see what he says."

Shoulders sagging, "Okay, I guess you know best."

Watson stands, "Mr. Williamson, I see that you live in the same apartment building, and on the same floor as the defendant. Do you know him well?"

"No. I've seen him around the building, but I don't remember ever speaking with him."

Watson looks at Fred, who nods.

"He is accused of murdering his male roommate. Do you believe there are any negative connotations attached to that statement?"

"No. I had a male roommate in college, at least for the semester I was there, it's no big deal."

"Getting a little more specific, are you aware that he and his roommate were lovers, and does that bother you?"

"I didn't know, but what people do behind closed doors is their own business."

"The defense accepts Mr. Williamson as a juror."

Watson rejected the next potential juror, who was looking at Fred with disgust the entire morning. The next three were accepted as juror and two alternates.

"The rest of you are excused. The fourteen remaining jurors will stay for some instruction."

After the unneeded portion of the jury panel cleared out, the judge addressed the jurors and alternates.

"As you're aware, this is a case of capital murder. As such, you are reminded that should you find the defendant guilty, a death sentence is possible. You've all indicated that is acceptable on your questionnaires. You are not to discuss this case amongst yourselves or with anyone else until you are released for deliberations; and then only amongst yourselves. I do not expect to sequester you, but a situation may arise that requires it. You have been previously made aware of that fact. You are excused for the day. Please return tomorrow morning at nine AM, prepared to hear opening statements."

The jury panel is made up of four white men, five white women, one black man, one black woman, one Hispanic man, and two Hispanic women. One of the white men is gay, two of the others are married, the last is single. The black and Hispanic men are married, as are all the women except one of the Hispanics. It is a good representation of the city of Galveston. Bully Williamson is the straight, single white male. After the jury leaves, the judge addresses the pre-trial motions.

"Defense's motion to exclude the toxicity reports and DNA results are denied. Nice try, Mr. Watson, but you know that never happens when they are legally obtained. Prosecution's motion to include the lesser offenses of murder two and manslaughter one are approved. Anything else gentlemen?"

"Not for the prosecution, your honor."

"Defense is ready your honor."

"OK, then we'll see you all tomorrow at nine o'clock. I'll be in my chambers at eight o'clock for any last minute motions, if there are any. Adjourned."

The next morning, all the players are on time, in the courtroom, or jury room.

"All rise. Criminal Court of the county of Galveston, Texas is now in session. The honorable Judge Marvin Pepperdine presiding."

"Bailiff, please call the jury."

As the jury enters, they each look at Fred once again, sizing him up, perhaps making some assumptions of his guilt or innocence.

"You may be seated. Mr. Lofton, is the prosecution ready to make its opening statement?"

"We are, your honor."

"Proceed."

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution will prove, without a doubt, that the defendant, Fred Jamers, did willfully, and with premeditation, murder the victim, Stephane Thibedeau. While no motive was discovered, the evidence will show that the defendant was the only person with the opportunity to perform this heinous act. The deceased was found in his own bed, inside a locked apartment, sedated, sodomized, and strangled by the defendant. The defendant was found with the blood of the victim on his genitals. The defendant's semen was found in and around the victim's anus. Both the victim and the defendant were found to have propofol, a strong sedative, in their blood. The defense will argue that because both parties were drugged, that proves the defendant did not commit the crimes. The prosecution will show the distinct possibility that the defendant performed the crimes and then drugged himself, in an effort to avoid prosecution. Finally, the prosecution will request that you, the jury, find the defendant guilty of first-degree murder. Failing that, the jury may alternately find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder or first-degree manslaughter, based on the evidence you believe is associated with the definition of those two crimes. The judge will provide those instructions prior to your deliberations. Thank you."

"Mr. Watson?"

"Thank you, your honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense will show that the defendant wasn't the only person with the opportunity to perform the crimes and that this unknown third-party entered the apartment late at night to perform the crimes and manipulate the evidence to point at my client, Mr. Fred Jamers. We will present character witnesses that will testify that Mr. Jamers is a non-violent man, who would never have performed these acts. Mr. Jamers loved the victim, and as the prosecution already indicated, had no known reason to have killed his partner. Thank you."

"Mr. Lofton, please call your first witness."

"The prosecution calls officer Arnold Linton."

The officer is sworn in. As will be all other witnesses going forward.

"Officer Linton. How long have you been a police officer?"

"Twelve years."

"When you arrived at the scene of the crime, in what condition was the front door?"

"The front door was locked. My partner and I announced ourselves as the police, attempted to turn the doorknob and found it was locked. The defendant had to unlock the door before letting us in."

"What did the defendant do next?"

"He led us to the bedroom where the victim lay prone on the bed, apparently not breathing. He told us that he woke up, discovered the victim was not breathing, and called an ambulance."

"Did he say anything else?"

"Yes. He claimed he initially thought he had a dream that someone pinched his behind and sat on him. He then indicated he felt that perhaps he'd been sedated."

"Was he sure of that fact?"

"No."

"What happened next?"

"My partner and I began a cursory examination of the victim. I lifted the blanket and saw blood beneath his lower abdomen, and what looked like ligature marks on his throat."

"The prosecution wishes to submit three crime scene photos as state's one through three."

"Very well."

"Can you define, in laymen's terms, what a ligature mark is?"

"Essentially, it is an indication that strangulation has occurred. Pressure to the neck sufficient to prevent breathing and thus cause death."

"And was strangulation indeed the cause of death?"

"Objection. The officer is not qualified to make that decision, he is not a medical examiner."

"I withdraw the question. Nothing further of this witness."

"Your witness, Mr. Watson."

"Thank you. Officer Linton, is there a deadbolt on the front door of the crime scene?"

"Yes there is."

"And was it engaged?"

"Not that I could tell. It appeared the defendant only unlocked one lock before opening the door."

"Did you notice what kind the deadbolt was? Meaning did it require a key to lock and unlock it from the inside?"

"Yes, it required a key on the inside."

"Did you see a key in the defendant's possession at the time he opened the door?"

"No, I did not."

"Would you then say it was possible that someone else performed the crimes described, and left only engaging the primary lock as he or she left the apartment?"

"Yes. I suppose that would be possible."

"Did you find any unidentifiable fingerprints on the door or doorknob?"

"Objection. The officer was not involved in that part of the investigation, and would therefore have no direct knowledge of that."

"Sustained."

"Did the defendant seem nervous, or afraid, to you?"

"Objection. The witness is not a psychiatrist."

Watson tried to hold back his anger, "The witness has been a police officer twelve years and is certainly qualified to have an opinion of the state of mind of a suspect. I'm not asking for a medical diagnosis."

"Overruled. The witness will answer the question."

"I would say he only appeared upset. I didn't detect any nervousness or fear."

"Thank you. No more questions."

"Redirect?"

"No, your honor."

"The witness may step down."

"The prosecution calls officer Lawrence Pittman."

"Your honor, we understand that Mr. Lofton will ask the same questions of officer Pittman as he did of officer Linton. The defense will stipulate that officer Pittman will respond exactly as officer Linton did."

"Any objection, Mr. Lofton?"

"No your honor."

"So stipulated. Call your next witness."

"The prosecution calls detective Patton Phillips."

"Detective, what is your role in the Galveston police department?"

"I am one of the leads in the Crime Scene Investigations division."

"In that role, what activity did you perform first after arriving at the scene?"

"Hearing that drugs were possibly involved, my team and I searched the premises for the presence of anything indicating that a hypodermic needle was used and left behind."

"And at that time, did you find any evidence of that?"

"No."

"What did you conclude from that observation."

"We felt it was possible that the defendant disposed of any evidence of such prior to calling 9-1-1."

"What led you to make that assumption?"

"After nearly twenty years on the police force, one becomes accustomed to what a perpetrator may or may not do avoid prosecution. It was an educated guess."

"In your experience, would the defendant have had sufficient time to inject himself with a highly potent sedative and still be able to dispose of the evidence?"

"I wouldn't want to make any comment on that whatsoever. It's a better question for the ME."

"Fine. I'll ask him that. What did you do next?"

"We dusted the residence for fingerprints."

"And did you find any that did not belong to the police, victim, or the defendant?"

"Only one set on the inside of the doorknob on the front door."

"Were you able to ascertain the owner of those prints?"

"Yes. After searching the apartment, we found a menu from a local pizza parlor. The fingerprints belonged to one of their deliverymen."

"Nothing elsewhere inside the apartment?"

"No."

"Was a search of anywhere outside the premises performed?"

"Yes. Since the use of a sedative was indicated, we searched the trash room."

"And what, if anything, was found there?"

"Two hypodermic needles containing trace amounts of what was later determined to be propofol."

"Were fingerprints found on these?"

"No."

"Is there a garbage chute or similar in these apartments?"

"Yes. There is one on every floor."

"And the chute on the defendant's floor leads directly to the trash room?"

"That is correct."

"Approximately how long would it take to walk from the defendant's bedroom to the trash chute on his floor?"

"If one was hurrying, maybe one minute. Even walking slowly, less than three."

"Were photographs later taken of the defendant's genital area?"

"Yes."

"What did those photographs show?"

"Blood and semen around the genitals."

"The prosecution would like to introduce those photographs as state's exhibits four through six."

"Agreed."

"Finally, did you locate any witnesses that claimed to have seen or heard anything?”

"No, we did not.”

"Nothing further. Your witness."

"Detective Phillips, would an unknown third party who was wearing gloves have left any fingerprints in the residence or on any of the evidence found?"

"No. The gloves would prevent that."

"Thank you. Nothing further."

"Redirect?"

"No, your honor."

"The witness is excused. Court will take a fifteen-minute break. Please be back at eleven-oh-five."

Being the defendant, Fred was not allowed to leave the courtroom.

"What do you think so far, Mark?"

"As well as can be expected. We have to lay the groundwork that someone else could have committed the crimes to get a reasonable doubt. That's really all I can do to shoot down the prosecution's case. And the strongest point to do that is with the ME's testimony. I'll get him to admit that yours wasn't the only semen present. We'll be able to argue that better when we present our case. On the negative side, were no witnesses who saw anyone else entering or leaving the apartment."

"I just hope it's enough."

"It should be, but juries are fickle."

After the break, Lofton called the Medical Examiner.

"The prosecution calls Dr. Stanley Tarrington."

"Dr. Tarrington, how long have you been a Medical Examiner?"

"Ten years here in Galveston as chief ME and thirteen more in Houston as an assistant."

"In that time, approximately how many autopsies have you performed or taken part in?"

"I'd have to give a wide range, but certainly at least a thousand, perhaps fifteen hundred."

"Would it surprise you if that number was actually one thousand, six hundred and forty-nine, up to and including Mr. Thibedeau?"

"No. After twenty-three years, one tends to stop counting."

"And you did in fact perform the autopsy on the victim in this case?"

"I did."

"What did you determine as the cause of death?"

"Asphyxiation due to strangulation."

"In laymen's terms?"

"Pressure was placed on the windpipe for a sufficient length of time to prevent breathing and therefore oxygen deprivation to the brain, resulting in death."

"Thank you. Are there any scenarios where that could happen without intent to kill?"

"Yes. There is an action called auto-erotic asphyxiation where strangulation could occur due to the victim being choked longer than desired."

"What exactly is auto-erotic asphyxiation?"

"In the course of performing a sex act, sometimes one person prevents the other from breathing only long enough to enhance the orgasm. It is possible for the the victim to die, even though the performer of the strangulation didn't wish to cause death."

"In your experience, when that occurs, is that generally a punishable offense?"

"Yes. Most people accused of strangulation due to auto-erotic asphyxiation are charged with, and convicted of manslaughter."

"During this autopsy, what evidence did you find to either suggest, confirm, or deny that auto-erotic asphyxiation could have been the case?"

"Generally, sedatives are not used because the victim would not have the ability to indicate that the act of choking has gone too far."

"The presence of a sedative tells you what, in general?"

"It indicates that the perpetrator wished to debilitate the victim in order to make their act of strangulation easier. The victim cannot fight back."

"And, in your professional opinion, does the presence of a strong sedative, as in this case, indicate premeditation?"

"Yes."

"Regarding the sedative, propofol, were you able to ascertain whether it was introduced prior to or after the time of death?"

"Prior. There was sufficient distribution throughout the body to indicate the propofol was given somewhere between five minutes and thirty minutes before death occurred."

"Was a similar amount found in the defendant's bloodstream?"

"No, there was a slightly lesser amount."

"How long after the introduction of the propofol in that dosage would unconsciousness occur?"

"Depending on a number of factors, such as dosage, weight or heart problems, within a minute, but not more than ten minutes."

"In your professional opinion, would that be enough time for a person to inject themselves and also dispose of the needle?"

"Yes."

"The prosecution would like to enter the DNA and toxicology reports as state's exhibits seven and eight."

"Agreed."

"Nothing further. Your witness."

"Dr. Tarrington, was any conclusive evidence found during the autopsy that directly linked the defendant to the victim?"

"Aside from the blood and semen, No."

"Would strangulation leave fingerprints on the victim's neck?"

"Fingerprints would not normally be retrievable in that case. A match to size and orientation of the perpetrator's hands and fingers would be the best indication."

"And did the markings remaining on the victim's neck match the defendant's?"

"There was an approximate match."

"Not an exact match?"

"No."

"Was the defendant's semen the only DNA discovered in the victim's anus?"

"No, there was a minute amount of a third person's DNA."

"Was the police department able to identify the owner of that DNA?"

"No."

"Thank you. Nothing further."

"Redirect Mr. Lofton?"

"Yes, your honor."

"Dr. Tarrington, what might explain a less than perfect match of hand and finger markings?"

"If the perpetrator's hands slipped at all during the period of strangulation, it would appear that the perpetrator's fingers were longer than they actually were."

"And was that the case here for the approximate match?"

"Yes. The markings appeared to be made by a slightly larger hand."

"But would it still be reasonable that hands the size of the defendant's could make the marks present on the victim?"

"Yes."

"What would be a circumstance where semen from two different men would be present?"

"If the victim had unprotected anal sex in the prior few days.

"Thank you. Nothing further."

Do you have any more witnesses counselor?"

"No, your honor."

"Okay, then. We'll break ninety minutes for lunch, and then the defense will present their case."

Next up - "Watson for the Defense"