Jail Cell Love Affair - 3. Watson for the Defense

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

Watson calls a few character witnesses, Fred's father, brother, and supervisor. His father and brother indicated he was currently estranged from them due to his homosexuality. They all testified that he's a gentle man and would never do anything like what he is accused of. Fred's father specifically called him a 'spineless wimp.' They also indicated he has no history of anything violent. His mother would have testified, but Fred refused to let that happen, knowing how the prosecutor could figuratively rip witnesses apart.

"Your next witness?"

"Defense calls Fred Jamers."

"Mr. Jamers, would you tell the jury what you can remember about the night of August tenth and morning of August eleventh?"

"Stephane and I watched the eleven o'clock news, then went to bed. We said goodnight, and both fell asleep. The alarm went off at seven AM. I tried to wake Stephane up, I wanted to tell him about the dream I had. But when I couldn't wake him, I called 9-1-1. The police uncovered Stephane, saw the blood on the bed and asked to see my penis. I refused and was arrested."

"Objection. The defendant was not yet arrested at that point, merely detained."

"Sustained. The jury will ignore the statement that the defendant was arrested at that point in time."

"Were you arrested at some point after that examination?"

"Yes."

"What was the dream about?"

"I dreamed I was pinched on my behind and a large man sat on me."

"What did the police discover upon the second examination of your body, after being incarcerated for roughly one hour."

"There was a needle mark on my right buttock."

"Did the police run any tests on you?"

"Yes. They took blood and also tested the blood and semen that was still present on my genitals."

"And what did they find?"

"My blood had propofol in it. The semen matched my blood, and the blood on my penis was Stephane's."

"How would you explain the semen and blood?"

"Best I can figure..."

"Objection. The defendant is about to express a potentially fabricated opinion of what happened. None of this is provable."

"Overruled. I think the defendant, being on trial potentially for his life, is allowed a little latitude. Continue, Mr. Jamers."

"I believe that the same person who injected me with the propofol, masturbated me to orgasm, then used a bloody condom to wipe Stephane's blood on me."

"Thank you. Have you ever had anything that could be called rough sex with any of your partners?"

"No."

"Did Stephane get more aroused if he was choked?"

"If he did, he never told me."

"Have you ever choked anyone?"

"No."

"Did you inject Stephane, choke and rape him, then inject yourself, dispose of the needles, and then lie back down, resuming your sleep?"

"No. None of that."

"One more topic. Do you have an app on your phone that tracks your sleep?"

"Yes. I use Sleep4Me."

"Why would you use that?"

"There were many days where I would feel groggy the next morning. After using the app for a while, I discovered that I would wake up periodically at night."

"Could you tell from this app when you did sleep through the night?"

"Yes."

"Did the App indicate you slept through on the night in question?"

"All but a moment of wakefulness at three-ten AM."

"How long was this moment?"

"Ten seconds."

"Nothing further. Your witness."

"Mr. Jamers, is your dream made up? A fantasy?"

"No. I believe I actually experienced it, rather than dreamt it."

"Did you or your partner lock the front door before retiring?"

"I thought I did."

"But you're not one hundred percent sure?"

"No."

"Has the Sleep4Me app ever indicated something happened during the night that didn't actually happen?"

"Yes."

"And were any of these things an indication you were still sleeping but in actuality, you were wide awake?"

Fred looked down and mumbled quietly, "Yes."

"Your honor, could you ask the witness to speak loudly and clearly?"

"The witness is so ordered."

"Yes, that has occurred on occasion."

"And was there any other indication prior to the app making this obvious mistake."

"Yes."

"And what was that indication?"

"A momentary period of wakefulness."

"Lasting for how long?"

"Five to fifteen seconds."

"You said occasionally. Can you estimate how many times you witnessed these errors?"

"Somewhere around ten times."

"And how many nights had you used this app before the night in question?"

"Approximately sixty, I would guess."

"Would you believe fifty-four?"

"I suppose. I don't remember exactly."

"Does this app come with a subscription of any type?"

"Yes, annual."

"Would a charge for that subscription happening on June seventeenth surprise you?"

"No."

"One last question. Do you really expect the jury to believe your fantastical explanation of what happened?"

"Objection. Counselor is attacking the witness."

"Overruled."

"Yes. Because it has to be the truth."

"Nothing further."

"Redirect, Mr. Watson?"

"No, your honor. The defense rests."

"We'll have closing statements beginning at nine AM tomorrow morning. Adjourned."

Mr. Watson admonished Fred about the Sleep4Me app.

"You could have also told me about the problems you had with that app. We would have been better off not mentioning it at all. Cross your fingers. Hopefully the jury will believe enough of your story to show reasonable doubt."

"Sorry. I didn't think of it."

"Okay, well, see you in the morning."

The next morning saw a very nervous Fred walk into the courtroom. He was seated at the defense table, bouncing a leg, tapping the table and randomly looking in every direction.

"Try to calm down."

"How? I'm seeing gas chambers and electric chairs all over the place. The jury's gonna fuck me over, I know it. Shit, any guilty verdict screws me since I DIDN'T FUCKING DO IT."

The bailiff walks over.

"Control your client or he'll have to be removed."

"Yes sir."

Watson takes a pen and pad out of his briefcase.

"Here, write a letter, doodle, just focus on the page."

The judge and jury came in.

"Judge, jury, where's the executioner?"

Watson ignored him. As long as he was quiet, it wasn't a problem.

"Mr. Lofton, are you ready with your summation?"

"Yes, your honor."

"Proceed."

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what we have here is a desperate man, grasping at straws to try to keep himself out of jail, perhaps even alive. But what are those straws? A dream that he thinks is reality. A phantom that sticks needles in people, and then sits on them. Guilt or innocence is decided by facts, not fantasy. So, what are the facts in front of you?

One, the front door was locked when the police arrived. Two, nobody saw nor heard anybody or anything. Three, the only DNA that was found and identified was the defendant's. Four, the victim's blood was found on the defendant's person. Five, the defendant's semen was found in and on the victim. This is an open and shut case with respect to who did it. The one question that hasn't been answered is why?

Okay, let's ask why. Were the two fighting and the defendant couldn't take it anymore? Were there money problems? Was this just a tragic outcome of sex play gone bad? Nobody knows. The judge will give instructions to you in a little while. He'll explain the differences between the three possible guilty verdicts you will decide upon. Guilty is the only reasonable choice. Is there any doubt in your mind that the well-dressed, clean-cut, quote, non-violent, unquote, man sitting over there had something to do with the death of his partner? There shouldn't be. Make your decision what this man is guilty of, because there's no doubt the death was of his doing. Thank you."

"Mr. Watson."

"Thank you, your honor. Ladies, gentlemen. Mr. Lofton has provided a list of facts brought up in this case. There is one he didn't bring up. That's because he can't say it as a fact. What he can't say, without a reasonable doubt, is that Fred Jamers killed Stephan Thibedeau. His facts are circumstantial. Nothing concrete that proves that the non-violent Mr. Jamers is a killer.

The defendant only needs a reasonable doubt raised in your minds. What is it what the prosecution calls a fantasy? The idea that A, the front door was left unlocked. B, another man, who did think he had a reason he wanted to kill Mr. Thibedeau walked in through that unlocked door. C, that this man drugged both the victim and the defendant, perhaps no more than a few seconds apart. D, this unknown man left semen inside the victim. E, the defendant woke up temporarily when he was injected. F, is it possible that the Sleep4Me app confused unconsciousness for sleep? It apparently had other defects, why not that one too? All of these things are perfectly reasonable. Guilty? Not by a long shot, people. Make the right decision and set Mr. Jamers free. Your only reasonable verdict is not guilty of all the charges. Thank you."

"We'll take a fifteen-minute break before I instruct the jury. Back by ten-fifty, people."

Fred and Watson huddled closely.

"I think you've planted the seed of reasonable doubt deep enough. I have to hope that it germinates and grows."

"Yes, you have a chance. There's almost no way to predict which way a jury will lean. They have what should be an easy choice."

When everybody returned to the courtroom, the judge began his instructions.

"Ladies and gentlemen, you have an immense responsibility in front of you. You have to decide whether the defendant did the things the prosecution said. As Mr. Watson pointed out, that decision has to be made without a reasonable doubt. You have four choices.

The first is that you are convinced a reasonable doubt exists and it's quite possible that Mr. Jamers did nothing wrong. In that case, you have the responsibility to return a verdict of not guilty.

After that it gets a little more complicated. Do you all believe that the defendant committed the crime of murder, planned it with malice of forethought? Did he intend to kill Mr. Thibedeau? In this case, you should return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first-degree. This decision must be unanimous.

What if the defendant intended to kill his partner, but didn't necessarily plan it ahead of time? Perhaps it was a heat of the moment reaction. In this case, once again, you must agree unanimously that this was the case and return a verdict of guilty of murder in the second-degree.

Finally, if you all agree that the defendant caused the death of Mr. Thibedeau, but didn't intend to do so, you must return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the first-degree.

There is one more decision you must make, and that is who will act as your voice once you have come to a decision. You must name a foreperson to fill that role. Are there any questions before I release you to your deliberations?"

The jury was quiet.

"Thank you. Bailiff, please escort the jury to the jury room. Alternates, you are free to go, or return to the gallery if you so choose."

After the jury left, the judge had some instructions for the lawyers.

"Counselors, be prepared to return within thirty minutes of being notified a verdict has been reached. Preferably sooner. Do not wander far. We will return at four-fifteen if the jury has not yet reached a verdict. Plan on being here at that time if you haven't been called before then. Thank you. We are adjourned."

Fred was brought back into the holding room to await his fate. The lawyers scattered to take care of other business that could be squeezed into the possibly short period of time until the verdict is reached.

Bully Williamson lobbied to be the foreman. None of the others really cared about it, so he won the position.

"OK. I'm called Bully, but I'm not a bully. I think the easiest way to go about this is taking votes from the bottom up. Does anyone firmly believe the defendant is completely innocent?"

No hands went up. Bully smiled inside.

"How about thinking he might be innocent but you're not completely sure?"

Two hands went up. Both women. Again, Bully smiled inside. Convincing only two people to change their mind isn't the most difficult task.

"Great. What about it being possible he killed the victim but didn't really mean to?"

Four hands raised, including the maybe innocent ones.

"Who thinks he intended to kill the victim but did not plan it ahead of time?"

No hands on this one.

"The rest agree that he committed the murder and planned it out ahead of time?"

The last eight hands rose up.

"So, the way I see it, we'll probably never agree on murder one. Anybody feel differently?"

None did.

"So, I think we should focus on manslaughter vs. not guilty. If you all don't mind, state your name before you speak. I don't think we should spend our time saying 'hey, you.'"

Bully turned to one of the two voters for maybe innocent.

"Ma'am, what is your name and what do you feel about his innocence?"

"I'm Peggy. I'm unsure about how the drugs play a role. I mean, if he didn't really mean to kill the victim, why would he use the drugs at all?"

"Everybody, feel free to voice your opinions. I can't answer that."

One of the black men raised his hand.

"Yes sir. Go ahead."

"Martin. I'm a pharmacist, so I deal with drugs every day. Not at all on the illegal side, but I do have an opinion about that. It's possible he only wanted to lightly sedate the victim but had no idea of the dosage. Perhaps he began the sodomy and choking and never realized his partner had passed out and simply went too far with the strangulation."

"I'm Millie, forgive my ignorance, but how would someone rape another person from behind and still be able to choke them?"

The single gay man spoke up, "Seth. I can answer that. I'll try not to be too graphic. The rapist could use what's commonly known as the missionary position but raise the victim's legs high enough to allow the, um, anal penetration."

Millie turned the darkest shade of red a human possibly could. But she nodded her understanding.

"So, Peggy and Millie, do those answers do anything to convince you one way or the other?"

Peggy spoke first, "Yes. I think he basically accidentally killed the partner."

Millie's response was a simple agreement with Peggy.

"So, the next question is, do the rest of us feel so strongly about the intent and planning to insist we try to convince the rest? I for one would be amenable to downgrading my vote to manslaughter. He'll still spend some time in jail, and as a compromise, we could recommend the longest allowable sentence. Thoughts?"

All but one of the eight were nodding.

"Luis. Does anybody know what that sentence may be? I wouldn't want to say guilty of manslaughter and he's free in like a year."

More nods.

"I suppose we can ask."

Bully went to the door and waved to the bailiff, who was sitting a few feet down the hallway.

"Yes sir?"

"Is it acceptable to ask what the difference in a sentence could be between manslaughter and murder two?"

"Hmmm. Yes, I think that's an OK question. Go back in and I'll ask judge Pepperdine."

Bully went back into the jury room.

"The bailiff will ask the judge about potential sentences between manslaughter and murder two. We show a little patience and compromise, and we can finish this off today."

"Albert. Does anybody have a problem with holding out until after lunch? I mean getting another free meal would be worth a slight delay, right? We're already here."

Everybody thought it was a good idea. They were there anyway, why not get one more free meal out of it? That decision turned out being moot. The bailiff came back with both an answer and menus as the judge was about to leave for lunch himself.

"Both murder two and manslaughter are second degree felonies. There's a fairly wide range, two to twenty years."

"Thank you."

"You're welcome. I'll be back in five to collect your orders. Write your name on the menu so we can keep them straight."

Bully, the jury's voice replied, "We'll do that."

Next up - "The Verdict, Sentence, and Off to Rosharon"