Blood Games (63 page)

“What the evidence on these three factors shows is a cold, calculated, diabolical plan without pity, without conscience, without remorse whatsoever. This was not somebody that came from a slum neighborhood, somebody who was mentally defective, somebody who was poor and never had opportunity, never had a chance in life. Here was a young man, and I say man, 19 years of age, one month shy of 20, in the 97th percentile—he scored higher on his test scores than 97 percent of all the people in the country—smart, intelligent, bright, a student at one of the finest schools in the country, a man with ability, opportunity, a man of promise, not somebody that had to do this. He had been given everything, the opportunity to work like you and I, carry responsibility on his shoulders like you and I. But he doesn’t want that. Quick money, easy money, to take it any way he could. That ought to shock the conscience of Pasquotank County. That ought to shock the conscience of the people of North Carolina, because this was not a case of some deprived person—depraved maybe, but not deprived.”

Among the mitigating factors that the defense would be arguing would be Bart’s age, Norton said.

“Is Lieth Von Stein any less dead because the bat and the knife were wielded by a nineteen-year-old?”

The defense also would be bringing up Dungeons and Dragons, he said.

“I told you from the very beginning that the evidence shows that Dungeons and Dragons didn’t cause this. It was a game that helped develop the mindset, got them accustomed to thinking of killing, brought them together, but that’s the only connection Dungeons and Dragons has with this case, no matter how people want to look at it.”

The jurors, Norton said, were faced with grave responsibility in a time when nobody wants to take any responsibility.

“Over the last twenty years or so, society has become one of excuses, quick fixes on drugs and alcohol, and instant gratification in a me-centered world. Society is pervaded by a lack of responsibility. But I say to you that you ought to hold him responsible for what he did. He made the decision to bring himself here, not you, not I, not Lewis Young, and certainly not Lieth Von Stein and Bonnie Bates Von Stein.”

Norton was careful to bring up a subject that he knew the defense would argue strongly: the far lesser penalty that Chris would receive for his role in the murder. But in bringing it up, he distracted attention from it by deftly weaving in the horror that lay at the base of the case, the fear that touched almost everybody in Beaufort County and even caused veteran police officers to lose sleep.

“Yes, Christopher Pritchard is morally responsible, guilty, perhaps, greater than any others because he planned the execution not only of his stepfather, but his own mother. But we are looking at the case of James Upchurch, and when Chris Pritchard was in Raleigh, that right there is the man with the bat in his hand, a knife in his bag, covered in dark clothing head to foot while Lieth Peter Von Stein was asleep in his bed, away from the world and tribulations of what was going on, in his own home just like you or I when you leave this courtroom and go home to wherever you live, whether it’s an apartment, a mobile home, or a tent, the most important place on the face of this earth, where you ought to be able to feel safe and secure…”

Johnston had objected twice during this speech and been overruled each time.

“And to be awakened in the nighttime by the swish of a bat and the slap of it crushing the skull, and the knife as it came down through the rib cage and penetrated the heart…”

Norton kept going with his vivid description over yet another objection from Johnston.

“Yes, Neal Henderson is going to pay a price. Yes, Chris Pritchard is going to pay a price.”

But without their testimony, he maintained, “the killer, the one who had nerve to go in the house and carry out this killing,” could have gone free.

Norton kept appealing to the jurors to use their “plain old ordinary everyday common sense” in sentencing Bart to death.

“It’s the only way that you can be assured that he won’t do it again. I say to you that you are required to do it as a matter of conscience, because it’s right.

“The lawyers will tell you, ‘Well, it won’t bring Lieth back.’ They may talk to you about biblical passages and say vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. They may quote to you the Sixth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill,’ but if they do that, I submit to you that they haven’t read far enough, haven’t read the passages in the Old Testament, and even in the New Testament, when it comes to talk about the Sixth Commandment, as it was written in the original Greek is, Thou shalt not murder,’ thou shalt not kill another with malice, with an evil heart. If you do read further, you will see that, not only is the penalty of death enacted by the state, but in biblical terms and in our spiritual existence, it’s commanded. The eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I am not here to ask you to seek vengeance on James Upchurch. It’s a question of what we, as a society, are going to tolerate in our community. You are the conscience of the community. Are you strong enough to speak the conscience?”

“Objection,” said Johnston.

“Sustained. Don’t consider that, members of the jury.”

“Look at all the factors, be fair, be impartial, but focus on the case for what it is, what he did, and what we as a society have a right to expect from the people that live among us.”

Norton’s argument had carried past noon, and the judge declared a recess for lunch.

Wayland Sermons spoke first in Bart’s behalf when court resumed at 1:15 P.M.

“Your duty,” he told the jurors, “is not as Mr. Norton would have you believe, to put him to death because society requires it. Your duty is to do justice. You are going to have to have your conscience in it. And ask yourself, is it fair for Bart Upchurch to die?”

Sermons pleaded with the jurors to consider Bart’s age, his immaturity and impressionability, the drug and alcohol use, the effects of his parents’ divorce, the lack of violence in his past, the effect of Dungeons and Dragons.

“From the evidence, you can reasonably infer that this powerful, fantasy role-playing game goes a long way toward explaining how these three intelligent young men would find themselves in such a sinister affair.”

Sermons hit hardest on the differences in penalties being faced by Bart and Chris.

“‘The deal.’ Those are Mr. Norton’s words. He told you he made a deal. Well, you are entitled to consider all the circumstances surrounding this case to decide whether it’s just and appropriate that Bart Upchurch be given the death penalty. Is it just and appropriate that Chris Pritchard only face life plus twenty? Is that fair? I contend to you that were it not for Chris Pritchard, we would not be here today. Bart Upchurch would never have done what you have convicted him of. Is it fair for Chris Pritchard to enter into this arrangement December 27, 1989, five days before trial, when he was the one that started this whole mess and is not facing the death penalty? Is that fair?”

“Objection, if Your Honor please,” said Norton.

“Overruled.”

“You know,” Sermons continued, “the biblical passages can probably be interpreted in different ways, but there are two circumstances from the Bible that I would ask you to consider when you consider the fate of Bart Upchurch. And one is that although Cain slay his brother Abel, the Lord did not see fit to punish him by death. He merely banished him for life. And although the Old Testament that Mr. Norton has harped on contained the adage, ‘an eye for an eye,’ the New Testament contained a much different message. I would ask you to return a verdict which banishes Mr. Upchurch.”

Frank Johnston used his turn to touch on a question that was in many minds.

“The thing that impresses me most about this case is when you look back at these three young men in college, very intelligent, you say, ‘How, how could this happen?’ How do you explain it? How do you take this young man, place him in that house? How do you place him committing this crime?”

Nothing in his background suggested that he would do any such thing, Johnston said.

“There has got to be an explanation. And I don’t know what it is. But I will submit to you that the use of drugs, his use of alcohol, playing Dungeons and Dragons, to mention the most obvious, should have a mitigating effect on the question of his life and death because nothing else makes any sense.

“If it’s a case of greed, where is all the discussion and the bickering and the fighting afterwards of where is my money, I want a portion of it, because I did the act, I want my money? There’s never any mention of money again. Never any question about cars or money or any kind of payment. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. He got sixty dollars in the Von Stein residence and gave that to Mr. Henderson. So it’s not money.

“What effect did their lifestyle have? What does the culmination of using drugs, using alcohol, playing Dungeons and Dragons have upon a young person’s mental stability and being? I don’t know. But is there any other answer to this unexplainable situation?

“You know, it’s strange to me that Mr. Norton says to you that this is not a case of Dungeons and Dragons going wild. And yet, as Mr. Sermons has vividly pointed out, Mr. Norton also says it’s a case where Dungeons and Dragons teaches people how to kill and use swords and talk about sorcerers. So obviously Mr. Norton thinks that Dungeons and Dragons had some effect upon these young men. And I think that it did.

“I was thinking yesterday when I was sitting in church about the map that Mr. Norton presented to you in his final argument. He put it up to his face to imply a mask or some type of a cult symbol and suggested to you that it was of some supernatural nature, or divine nature, that the map was not burnt up in the fire. And the fact that the only way that this investigation continued was because they were able to find this map and link Pritchard to it because of the word Lawson, Lawson Road. And as I thought of that in the minister’s sermon yesterday on mercy, I could only think that I hope that God’s mercy will be with you in your decision.”

The judge declared a ten-minute recess, then brought the jurors back and gave them an hour of instructions. Shortly after three-thirty, the jury began its deliberations about Bart’s life.

49

When the jury had not reached a decision by 5 P.M. Monday, Judge Watts sent them home for the day to begin anew on Tuesday morning.

Bart had been more subdued since his conviction, no longer hopeful and optimistic. From the moment he was found guilty, he felt that he also would be sentenced to death. His lawyers, on the other hand, were more hopeful than they had been before the verdicts. Clearly the long deliberations on guilt or innocence were evidence that some jurors had had doubts about Bart’s guilt and they would be less likely to sentence him to death. Many of the jurors were mothers, and they might be reluctant to send another mother’s child to death.

On Tuesday morning, the jurors asked for renewed instructions on aggravating and mitigating factors, and the judge read them before sending the jury out again at nine-forty-five. Bart was returned to the holding cell, but this time his parents were not allowed to remain with him because other prisoners were there, awaiting trial in another courtroom.

To keep matters moving, Judge Watts wanted to go forth with the sentencing hearings of Neal and Chris while the jurors were deliberating Bart’s fate, although he announced that he would not sentence either until a decision had been reached on Bart. Chris’s attorney was on his way from Greensboro and would not arrive until after noon, but Neal and his attorneys, Chris McLendon and Michael Paul, were present, as were Neal’s mother, Ann, his aunt and uncle, and several witnesses who were going to testify in Neal’s behalf, and the judge allowed them to proceed.

The first witness was Weldon Slayton. Questioned by Chris McLendon, Slayton told of how he had first met Neal when he was asked to help create a program for him when Neal was in fifth grade. He went into detail about his abilities and academic accomplishments.

“He was like a sponge,” Slayton said. “He simply absorbed information He did not always work as hard as he could have, but he was certainly the most gifted student I’ve ever dealt with.”

Slayton told how Neal always had been thrown with older students, how they had looked at him as an oddity, how he had lived in an isolated spot with no playmates, how he had been stunted socially as a result.

Asked about Neal’s father, Slayton recalled how Neal had attempted to establish a relationship with him late in high school and had spent a few weeks with him during the summer before his last year at Bartlett Yancey High.

“The one thing that sticks in my mind is that his father did not attend his high school graduation,” Slayton said. “And he said something about or at least it was related to me by another teacher, that he had said that it was okay, that I was there, so it made it better, but he wished his father had been there.”

Asked about Neal’s maturity, Slayton said, “Intellectually, Neal has always been mature. And I believe that was one of the problems that he experienced. He knew how bright he was. He knew how adults looked at him and other students looked at him. And he felt he had to react as an adult in a very organized and logical way. Socially and emotionally, he was always out of place. He often was laughed at, usually not in a mean or cruel way, but because he was odd in the groups he was with.”

McLendon asked what he thought of Neal’s future when Neal went off to N.C. State.