Head Shot (32 page)
Authors: Burl Barer
“The first reason you can't believe Webb's plea-bargain statement beyond a reasonable doubt,” argued Ladenburg, “is Carl Hultman. I think Carl is a reliable person. He said that Webb told him there were inaccuracies in that statement.” Again and again, Ladenburg assaulted any shred of reliability in Webb's plea-bargain statement. Having placed the entire issue of statements in the forefront of the jury's collective conscience, he then turned their attention to the statement of Paul St. Pierre.
“Remember, there is an instruction from the court that says there is one thing you cannot consider with regard to Chris St. Pierre, and that is anything Paul said to anybody. Paul's statement that he made to the police, the statements he made to anybody else. All of those things that Paul said are absolutely not evidence against Chris. That's the law. So what are you left with? You're left with two things: what Chris said about what happened, and what Andrew Webb said about what happened.”
No matter whose statement the jury believed, Chris St. Pierre's active participation in the decapitation and burial of John Achord was beyond dispute. Ladenburg didn't deny his client's involvement in that ghoulish and reprehensible behavior. Rather, Ladenburg was defending Chris St. Pierre against a charge of premeditated murder. “Going out and decapitating the body is not the crime charged here. It is some other criminal activity,” he acknowledged, “but it's not aggravated murder. It's not murder of any kind. When you are deliberating as a jury, don't let someone tell you that Chris's involvement in events that occurred afterward means that he's guilty of a crime that took place earlier.” A crime, it was often noted, that Chris believed transpired before he even walked in the door.
His client, John Ladenburg insisted, entered the residence and saw what he believed was the dead body of John Achord sprawled on the dining room floor. Chris saying, “Let's bury the body,” the defense reasoned, didn't mean “Let's kill him.” Even if the jurors believed every contradictory word of Andrew Webb's recanted statement beyond a reasonable doubt, what Webb said about Christopher St. Pierre did not prove his client guilty of murder.
The horrific nature of the case, the unsettling, gruesome details, and the often nitpicky nature of thorough cross-examination could wear down the jurors' patience. Eager to “get it over with,” a jury might rush to judgment for the sake of their own collective comfort. Not a pleasant thought, but one that trial attorneys must seriously consider and occasionally address.
“You all promised me that you would uphold your oath as jurors, and that you would not compromise to reach a verdict, not just cave in,” said Ladenburg, “not say, well, âThis crime is too awful. I don't want to think about it. I just want to go home. I think Paul did something wrong and so therefore Chris did.' Do one of those things that are clearly prohibited in the law, and you will not be able to live with yourself. You will not be able to sleep at night. I think you are the kind of people that want to do the best job you can and uphold the law. That's what we ask you to do.”
The law to which he referred precluded relying upon assumptions as proof of guilt. Ladenburg returned to that theme for his well-crafted conclusion. “If you are to convict Chris St. Pierre, there are many things you have to assume. Remember that you are not allowed to assume anything. They have to be facts, not assumptions.”
“First of all,” he elaborated, “you have to assume Mr. Webb's statement is accurateâthat he was a reliable witnessâthen you have to assume that Chris knew John Achord was still alive. What's the next thing we better assume? You've got to assume Chris said, âLet's cover up the killing of Damon Wells,' although Webb was the one who actually slit the throat, and the only one with reason to fear Damon going to the police.”
Jurors must also assume, Ladenburg advised them, that Chris meant “Let's kill him” when he said, “Let's bury him.” And lastly, Ladenburg told the jury that they must assume that Paul stabbed Achord to death only because Chris made that remark, “and not on any other motive such as his own paranoid delusions.
“When Mr. Hultman gets another chance to stand up and shoot down everything I said, or attempts to, I will be very interested to see him tell you why you have to assume all those things. I don't think he's talked to you about the facts. He tried to say that if you can convict Paul, you can convict Chris. That's not the law; that's not the case. He would have you believe that Andrew Webb can be relied upon as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that you can't believe Chris St. Pierre.”
Ladenburg then offered a unique approach to the Webb and St. Pierre statements, asking the jury to imagine “the tables were turned, and that I was defending Andrew Webb and Chris St. Pierre was the main prosecution witness. I think Mr. Hultman would be jumping up and down about the consistency of Chris St. Pierreâfrom day one, he told the same story. He never deviated. He told the same story on the stand as he told all along, but my client Andrew Webb has told different stories and changed his mind and lied. Imagine the shoe on the other foot.”
Chris St. Pierre potentially faced being found guilty of any of four charges in Achord's death: aggravated murder, premeditated murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter. “Chris is not guilty,” said Ladenburg, “because the only way he can be involved in any one of those is if he's an accomplice. I'm convinced you will come back with a verdict of not guilty for Chris St. Pierre. I threw so much at you for your consideration in such a short time,” concluded the defense, “I know you are going to take time during deliberations to do an honest and good job.”
That was John Ladenburg's last word. For Chris St. Pierre, it was now up to twelve King County residents bused down daily to Pierce County. “We'll take a fifteen-minute recess,” said Judge Steiner. “We will then hear from Mr. Murdach.”
David Murdachâthe only qualified attorney with a window of opportunity to defend Paul St. Pierre, the lawyer who respectfully requested that he not be assigned the case, the defender whose client didn't want himâwould argue on behalf of Paul St. Pierre.
“It's difficult,” David Murdach acknowledged. “I have a client who admits to taking a person's life. I've got a client who's suspicious of me, of the psychiatrists, and globally suspicious of everybody.”
“Suspicious enough to kill,” Wesley Webb later commented. “I think the way Paul was suspicious of everyone, and the sense of power he got from killing, I bet he would have just kept killing one person after another as long as he could. And the whole time he'd be thinking that he was protecting himself.”
Paul St. Pierre's only protection from being hanged by the neck until dead was the final argument on his behalf by someone that he never trusted to begin withâDavid Murdach.
Â
Â
“My client is a demented individual,” stated Murdach. “Dr. Tappin said that Paul St. Pierre suffers from what we call a paranoid personality illness. I admit it has been difficult trying to fit Mr. St. Pierre into the diagnostic manual for psychiatric illness. He is borderline schizophrenic, psychotic ... There can be a lot of intellectual discussion amongst psychiatrists as to how to classify him, but they all agree that he suffers from a rather severe mental illness.
“This is important,” said Murdach, “a paranoid individual is an individual who has difficulty interpreting what is happening around him. In most instances, the interpretation is fear of being persecuted.” Paul St. Pierre's perception of the world, explained Murdach, “is one in which he feels there is hostility constantly surrounding him.” Indeed, a primary symptom of St. Pierre's mental condition was “a readiness to counterattack at any threat that is perceived.”
“I'm up here acting on behalf of my client, and he even distrusts me. He distrusts everyone. He distrusted the psychiatrists. Dr. Tappin said that Paul St. Pierre sees everyone as a threatâhe even thought Dr. Tappin was part of a conspiracy against him. Dr. Tappin said, âI feel that he comes frighteningly close to the edgeâgiven enough stressful situations, Mr. Paul St. Pierre can become psychotic.'
“Quite frankly,” Murdach said, “this case cries out for the sickness which my client is affected with. It cries out for an extreme analysis of what disorder was going through my client's brain at that time. Here is a man who is so paranoid that he goes out and he decapitates a dead man's head! Can you imagine anyone in their right mind doing something like that?
“I have a client who cut off the head of a dead man so they wouldn't find the bullet,” acknowledged Murdach. “I have a client who is sick. He's been sick since before the case started. He is sick now. He's on medication. He's been sick throughout these proceedings. He was sick and out at Western State Hospital until the psychiatrist that was treating him was dismissed by the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office. They took the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Lloyd, off the case for no reason and put on Dr. Allison. They put on the retired Dr. Allison to find the man competent. Then take this man from the hospital to the courtroom for trial.”
David Murdach's final argument was long, detailed, tiring, and required two fifteen-minute stretch breaks. The length and detail were not due to excessive or needless prolixity. Jurors needed to understand how Paul St. Pierre could be “not guilty” of murder or manslaughter despite having undeniably killed John Achord. The reason, Murdach explained, was that Paul St. Pierre was incapable of forming purposeful intent. Suffering from undeniable mental illness, St. Pierre was further deranged by the mind-altering effects of alcohol and LSD.
“The state is required to prove,” said Murdach, “that the defendant acted with premeditated intent, intentionally or knowingly or recklesslyâthe state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a mental disorder that was interfering with his ability to form the requisite intent.”
No acts committed by a person in a voluntary state of intoxication are less criminal simply because the person is intoxicated. “A drunk is equally culpable as a person that's not drunk,” Murdach acknowledged, “but so far we have talked about mental disorder, mental defect, intoxication, and drug useâall of these are present in this case. It's not as if we are selecting one from a multiple-choice list. All of these are present in this case. All of them apply.”
The issue of self-defense also came under close examination. If jurors didn't believe Paul St. Pierre suffered from diminished capacity, there was still the burden on the state to convince them that there was no self-defense. “The state must prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt,” he reminded the jurors. “Put yourself in the shoes of Paul St. Pierre in this circumstance. Imagine a person operating under the influence of LSD, intoxicated, and [who] also has a mental disorder. It's difficult for us to imagine exactly what was going through his mind. All the objective facts in this case say that Mr. Achord had some sort of weapon and was coming toward Mr. St. Pierre.
“We have to deal with both issues in this case,” explained Murdach accurately, “diminished capacity and self-defense. The provision that the state must prove the absence of self-defense applicable to first-degree manslaughter, second-degree murder, first-degree murder, and aggravated first-degree murderâit is in all four. It's a complete defense to all the crimes charged.”
As the old courtroom saying goes: “The evidence was uncomfortable, and so were the seats.” By 2:45
P.M.
, jurors were dripping with perspiration, clock-watching with anticipation, and nearly fainting from the heat.
P.M.
, jurors were dripping with perspiration, clock-watching with anticipation, and nearly fainting from the heat.
“It's hot in here,” said Murdach, and no one objected. “It's stuffy in here,” he added. Carl Hultman didn't interrupt. “Because of the largeness of the spectator gathering, and ourselves, it's very uncomfortable in here.” Judge Steiner seemed to momentarily meditate upon “ourselves” and “largeness.” His Honor was very hot under his black robe and was valiantly fighting the torpor created by the oppressive courtroom atmosphere.
Although David Murdach represented Paul St. Pierre, he took time to speak on behalf of Paul's younger brother. “There was a statement by my client that he felt that Chris was in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you look at all the facts here, the truth of that statement is borne out. We have a brotherâChris St. Pierreâwho is on trial for a murder he didn't commit. He walked into a room in which a body was laying on the floor. That killing was done by a man who had a severe personality disorderâa mental illness by everyone's admission. The truth in this case is that my client was a severely disturbed individual then, and now. There is no getting around the fact that my client was mentally ill and sick. He did not have the prerequisite intent in each one of these crimes. That's the lawâfollow the law whether you agree or disagree with that concept.
“We don't punish people out of retribution,” concluded Murdach, “we look at each case individually. We don't treat a mentally ill person by sending them to the gallows.”
“Thank you, Mr. Murdach,” said Judge Steiner. “Mr. Hultman, I'm going to give the jury about five minutes to stretch their legs before we go into rebuttal argument.”
Carl Hultman spent the stretch break reviewing his notes, mentally rehearsing the elements of evidence and emotion most favorable to the prosecution. In this final address to the jurors, who desperately wanted to go home, Hultman would verbally assault the combined arguments of Ladenburg and Murdach.
Other books
God's Chinese Son by Jonathan Spence
Starbound by Dave Bara
Angel Fire by Valmore Daniels
Windmills of the Gods by Sidney Sheldon
Air Ticket by Susan Barrie
Fight by Helen Chapman
Seduced in Shadow by Stephanie Julian
Brother and Sister by Edwin West
Bitter Business by Hartzmark, Gini
An Imperfect Miracle by Thomas L. Peters