Head Shot (33 page)

Read Head Shot Online

Authors: Burl Barer

BOOK: Head Shot
10.13Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Court reconvened with Judge Steiner saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, rebuttal argument on behalf of the state; Carl Hultman.” The prosecutor stood and approached the jury.
“I'm going to be brief,” he began. “You ought to retire and bring back the verdict that the evidence commands. Bring back guilty as charged.” Obligated to refute the defense's arguments, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt, Hultman took them on one at a time. “With respect to the issue of diminished capacity—just keep this in mind: there isn't any evidence at all that Paul St. Pierre satisfied any test of insanity or not guilty by reason of insanity.”
Having a “paranoid personality” wasn't sufficient to free St. Pierre from intent and responsibility, reasoned Hultman. “Dr. Tappin testified that anybody that would do these things, probably all of them that were involved in this, have some of the same sorts of problems. Use your own common sense. People who go around burying bodies and cutting off heads are bound to be bizarre people, but that doesn't diminish their responsibility for the crime.”
Hultman continued his point-by-point rebuttal, attacking Murdach's argument that Paul St. Pierre's mental problems precluded him from forming intent. “What did Dr. Tappin say about Paul St. Pierre? He said he
intentionally
shot John Achord. What did Paul St. Pierre tell Dr. Tappin the
reason
was for stabbing John Achord? It was to kill him! That's not diminished capacity. That's not even close. Paul St. Pierre killed John Achord
on purpose.
He
intended
to shoot him. When Mr. Achord wasn't dead, he stabbed him until he was dead.”
Ladenburg's admonitions against regarding assumptions as evidence were countered by reading aloud from Instruction #8: “ ‘Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which, according to common experience,
permit a reasonable inference
that other facts existed or exist.' ”
“You're entitled to examine the evidence as a whole,” said Hultman, “the way these defendants lived, what they did to Damon Wells—they are totally lacking in conscience. Another pervasive factor common to both murders is an obsessive concern with concealing evidence. They didn't just kill Damon Wells and throw him off in the bushes—they burned their clothes; they cleaned other clothes; they washed the carpet; then they went back the next day and hauled the body off into the woods. They are obsessed with secrecy; that's a fact from which you are entitled to start making inferences.”
The first inference Hultman wanted them to make concerned the reliability and veracity of Andrew Webb. “Start making inferences that tell you that there is credibility to what Andrew Webb says,” he suggested. What Webb said and Hultman endorsed was that John Achord was killed to further conceal the murder of Damon Wells. “When they tell you that there is nothing to corroborate Andrew Webb's testimony, remember that Paul's own words to his psychiatrist corroborate what Andrew Webb said. Paul admitted that he thought this man was still alive. He was breathing. Paul thought he was alive and stabbed him. He said so, and Andrew Webb said the same thing. This person was still alive.”
As he did earlier, Carl Hultman portrayed the stabbing death of John Achord as a concerted action of the St. Pierre brothers. While Achord was “laying there gurgling away on the floor,” explained the prosecutor, “Chris St. Pierre said, ‘We are going to have to bury him.' Andrew Webb says, ‘But he's still alive.' Paul says, ‘I know how to take care of that.' That's a concert of action between Paul and Chris. They knew what they wanted to do. They knew what they had to do.
“The defense tells you Andrew Webb is not a believable guy,” said Hultman mockingly. “I suggest to you it's a smoke screen. The evidence has cleared the way. There's no fog anymore. You don't need Andrew Webb alone because you've got Paul St. Pierre speaking to Dr. Tappin. Dr. Tappin said—”
Ladenburg interrupted Hultman midsentence with a strenuous objection. “Your Honor, I object! Counsel is aware that statements made by Paul St. Pierre have been directed as ‘no evidence.' He's trying to lead the jury to believe that they can use that against Chris St. Pierre—”
It was Hultman's turn to interrupt. “I haven't gotten there, and I'm not going there.”
Judge Steiner sighed and simply said, “All right.” Hultman, whatever his original intent, only mentioned that there was a “discussion” before Paul St. Pierre stabbed John Achord. “Isn't that what Andrew Webb told you? Isn't that exactly what he told you?
“Ladies and gentlemen,” said Hultman with dramatic finality, “the evidence is overwhelming. There is only one verdict you can bring. We live in a civilized society. The rules that we are supposed to live by in this society apply to everyone. They apply to Paul St. Pierre even if he does have a distorted mind. They apply to Chris St. Pierre even if he's too afraid to do the right thing. Ladies and gentlemen, bring back that verdict of guilty.”
Judge Steiner gave the obligatory “Thank you very much, counsel” before turning his attention to the alternate jurors. “You are discharged with this instruction: You cannot discuss this matter with anyone until the case is totally and completely finished. You can have no contact with this jury.
“I'm advising the people and spectators,” continued the judge, “that they are to have no contact with the alternate jurors or with the jury. Please do not hang around the outside of the courtroom or the County-City Building or in a place of proximity to where the jury is likely to appear, or anyplace where they are eating. Try to avoid all contact.”
The jury would now begin a period of complete sequestration. “You cannot have any contact with the outside world,” explained Judge Steiner, “no radio, no television, no newspaper. Your deliberations should take place only in the deliberation room. You're not to discuss the case in your hotel rooms or anywhere else. You are to have no contact with anybody from outside. You are not,” he again emphasized, “to discuss this case with anyone else nor discuss it amongst yourselves except in the jury deliberation room.”
Having endured all day Wednesday, July 31, 1985, listening to closing arguments, the jury of nine women and three men deliberated one hour before retiring to the solitude of their hotel rooms. With no foreknowledge of when deliberations would conclude, the families of victims and defendants, attorneys, court personnel, and representatives of the press kept an anticipatory vigil throughout Thursday, August 1.
“The jurors reached their decision,” recalled Detective Yerbury, “and we were all informed that the verdicts would be announced Friday afternoon, August 2, in the courtroom of Pierce County Superior Court Judge D. Gary Steiner.”
The crowded courtroom's principal players and the onlookers waited in high anxiety. The forthcoming legal determinations, the culmination of over a year's worth of continuances and court proceedings, could be condemnations, absolutions, or a combination of both.
Paul and Christopher St. Pierre's parents and siblings were noticeable in their absence, but two female friends arrived to show emotional support. When Judge Steiner read the verdicts aloud, the two women broke into uncontrollable sobs and ran from the courtroom. The Achord family held hands, some weeping quietly; a family friend gave Carl Hultman the thumbs-up sign.
Both brothers were found guilty of first-degree aggravated murder. Paul St. Pierre's only reaction was to glance up at the ceiling; Chris St. Pierre sat bolt upright, then whispered frantically to his attorney. For the second time in twelve months, the St. Pierre brothers faced the distinct possibility of death by hanging.
“I'm so happy it's over,” said Opal Bitney, mother of John Achord. “I'm sad for all of us, including [the St. Pierre family], but I'm happy at the verdict.” Damon Wells's great-grandmother, Ann Robertson, sat with the Achord family throughout the trial. “At least I know where Damon is, and he won't be hurt anymore,” she said. “He is resting in peace.”
Judge Steiner intended commencing the sentencing phase on Monday morning, giving jurors the entire weekend off. When Ladenburg and Murdach strongly pressed for continued jury sequestration, Steiner ruled that the new proceedings would begin immediately.
“This verdict will obviously be appealed,” asserted John Ladenburg forcefully. As if to demonstrate his determination, and validate his defense arguments, the following morning, Saturday, August 3, he and David Murdach launched combined strategies to overturn the convictions and rescue their clients from the gallows.
Twenty
The sentencing phase, at the outset, followed a predictable course. Mitigating circumstances intended to prompt leniency toward the St. Pierres were presented in an orderly and timely fashion. George and Carmella St. Pierre, the defendants' siblings, a priest, and a schoolteacher with positive memories of Chris St. Pierre spoke on the brothers' behalf. Even Mark Ericson and his father, Bill, testified that Christopher St. Pierre was a valued employee, a likable sort, and a good person. Once these obligatory and unsurprising testimonies were presented, Murdach and Ladenburg went into full-force legal action.
“Your Honor,” began David Murdach, “we have an additional exhibit which I propose we introduce, and that is the judgment and sentence of Andrew Webb where he pled guilty to first-degree murder. This exhibit has never been proposed so far in this trial. There was testimony from one of the police officers, but the jurors have never seen the actual document.”
Hultman objected. “I don't believe it's relevant.” The judge marked the judgment and sentence of Andrew Webb as Exhibit D1-9. “That's admitted,” Steiner said. “Now we have two other exhibits, is that correct? Why don't we take those up?”
The two other exhibits Murdach and Ladenburg had included a motion calling for an arrest of judgment and/or a new trial. If Steiner granted the motion, the convictions of Paul and Christopher St. Pierre would be reduced to nothing more than huge stacks of trial transcripts.
“This document,” Murdach announced, “lists some of the errors which we claim were committed during the first case involving the St. Pierres.” The other document was “a statement to the Washington State Supreme Court enumerating several additional errors which we claim were brought out in the first case.”
“The state objects,” said Hultman wearily. “They make major and grand assertions about misconduct, and it's not for this jury's consideration.” Judge Steiner ignored the objection; Hultman objected more strenuously. “Your Honor, they start arguing about misconduct of the prosecution, including misconduct of the prosecution in destroying evidence!” The “destroyed evidence” was Paul St. Pierre's car—the vehicle towed, stored, and sold by Pierce County. “This court has ruled that the evidence wasn't destroyed. How can the court permit the jury to see a document that alleges that without anybody explaining?”
“Let me tell you my reasoning,” responded Judge Steiner. “The question of what is relevant rests in this case purely within the province of the jury. The special sentencing procedure says that the jury explicitly has a right to determine what mitigating factors are relevant.”
“No,” Hultman snapped, “that isn't the law—”
“In my judgment,” said Judge Steiner firmly, “it's out of abundance of caution that I'm going to put it in.”
Hultman wasn't giving up or giving in. “Your Honor, now they're going to introduce the documents that they are submitting to the Supreme Court as issues on appeal in the other trial! And that's going to be admitted?”
“Yes,” affirmed the judge, “it is admitted.” Hultman, incredulous, sat down. The jury returned, court reconvened, and Father Bill Bichsel of Saint Nell's parish, the second priest speaking on behalf of the St. Pierres, took the witness stand.
“I also work with people coming out of Western State Hospital, people with emotional or mental health problems,” said Father Bichsel, who had been another occasional visitor of the St. Pierres during their pretrial incarceration. He, too, noticed Paul St. Pierre's paranoia and hypervigilance. Father Bichsel opposed the death sentence, and over Carl Hultman's overruled objections, he explained his reasoning. “The deaths of John Achord and Damon Wells are deeply sorrowful things, and they are tragic. At the same time, I feel that the death penalty is a very vindictive thing. It's a very punitive thing. It no more cures the evils that we struggle with in our society than working for peace while building weapons of destruction. I do not believe the death penalty can be justified. I have my own deep convictions about that. I'd like to say in regard to Chris St. Pierre,” he added, “I think Chris's only involvement was being there after the deaths took place, using bad judgment or whatever it is, but I believe that was his major sort of involvement.”
 
 
Detective Robert Yerbury was now a familiar face to the twelve jurors holding the power of life or death over Paul and Chris St. Pierre. Called as a prosecution witness, Yerbury's integrity and professional knowledge were also utilized effectively by the defense. Under Ladenburg's questioning, Yerbury acknowledged that police would never have found the knife, the gun, the bodies, or anything else had it not been for Christopher St. Pierre. He also verified that the defendant spent from 9:00
A.M.
until 11:00
P.M
cooperating with the police.
During David Murdach's cross-examination, Yerbury confirmed the precise sequence of the various defendants' sworn statements. “Chris gave his statement, Paul gave his statement, and then Andrew Webb plea-bargained and gave a statement,” recounted Murdach. “Does that sound right to you?”
“I wouldn't argue with that,” agreed Yerbury. “I'm sure that is exactly what it was.” The detective easily acknowledged that both Paul and Chris stated emphatically that Andrew Webb chased down Damon Wells, pulled his head back, and sliced his throat.
“From those statements, obviously, there were two witnesses that witnessed a crime, saw that Damon Wells was murdered, and the person that committed the murder was Andrew Webb. Isn't that correct?” asked Murdach. Yerbury again agreed.
“Then along comes Andrew Webb and he makes a statement against these two gentlemen and then a choice was made, a plea bargain was made, and Andrew Webb pled guilty to first-degree murder with the possibility of parole?” Yerbur y confirmed Murdach's accurate portrayal. “That decision was made in the prosecutor's office; you didn't have anything to do with that?”
“No, I didn't have anything to do with that,” said Yerbury, and he was allowed to step down.
Murdach and Ladenburg, together and separately, continually reminded the jury of Andrew Webb's manipulations, multiple statements, recantations, mental instability, and unreliability. Andrew Webb, they essentially claimed, got away with murder. In doing so, he placed the necks of Paul and Christopher St. Pierre in a noose that was rightfully his. Of all mitigating circumstance calling for leniency, contemplation of Mr. Andrew Webb was the most compelling argument.
Carl Hultman, of course, completely disagreed. The state wanted the St. Pierre brothers hanged. That was the purpose of Hultman's final address before the jury, and it was no surprise that he called for the gallows. Perhaps the only surprise was the honest intensity of his emotion. It was as if the entire community's pent-up outrage erupted during his argument.
“There are just no mitigating circumstances to warrant leniency,” insisted Hultman in his final presentation. “Who made Chris St. Pierre go out and get that cement? Paul didn't make him do that. Who went out when John Achord was to be buried? Chris—he drove himself out in a separate car. Luckily, he had, because Andrew went into a ditch and they had to move the body from one car to the other. What a bizarre scene that must have been.
“Think of the standard of conduct that these two individuals have for themselves,” he continued. “When it came down to the question of the gun being traced, they couldn't just take that gun and drop it in the Puyallup River. They did what they did—it was horrid—digging up John Achord's remains and beheading him. The testimony in this case is just awful. It's horrid what they did to these two victims, and the pain of the families of those victims.”
David Murdach had previously called the defendants' mother, Carmella St. Pierre, to plead for her sons' lives. Hultman used her touching appeal for leniency to the state's advantage. “We don't need to call Mrs. Bitney, the mother of John Achord, who got that picture on Mother's Day, the week before he was killed by these guys,” he said. “We don't need to call her to testify that she loved him and wished they hadn't killed him. We don't need to call Mrs. Wells, Damon's mother, to tell you the same thing about him.
“You're not a lynch mob, and you're not reacting like a lynch mob,” he assured them. “You're instructed to measure and weigh the circumstances. You are to determine whether the circumstances mitigate sufficiently against the charges for which these defendants are now convicted in this case.
“You've convicted these defendants of murdering John Achord in order to cover up the murder of Damon Wells. Two murders. Two murders! What mitigates against that? You've had the evidence. You've heard my arguments before. What have you heard today as mitigating circumstances that balance against the way they descended upon Damon Wells, beat him mercilessly in that bathroom, dragged him out to Salmon Beach, and slashed his throat?
“They're hostile. They're mean. They hurt people. They don't obey the rules of society,” snapped Hultman, spitting out unpleasant appellatives as if the words themselves soured his tongue. “What did they do to John Achord? He's shot in the face; then they had to stab him! Paul had to stab him in the back to kill him. Two deep stab wounds, each capable of producing death—as Damon Wells received—wasn't enough that night. What does Paul do? He puts twelve of them in this man's back. What did you hear today that mitigates against that?
“I mean, my God, you don't even hear an assertion of being repelled by what they were doing from either of them. Nothing! They cut off the head of poor John Achord so Paul could keep his gun! We heard a lot of short testimony this morning from people caring about Paul and Chris—family members, a priest—but you know what you didn't hear? Did any of these witnesses say that they ever heard Paul and Chris acknowledge that what they did was wrong? Where did you ever hear them say that they were sorry for what they did to John Achord and Damon Wells?
“Your judgment is somewhat difficult, but it's clear,” said Hultman in conclusion, “there are no sufficient circumstances here to warrant leniency. Thank you.”
Judge Steiner immediately called upon David Murdach. He cut to the heart of the issue in his opening paragraph. “This part of the proceedings is most difficult for an attorney—having the responsibility of trying to address twelve people to decide whether your client lives or dies.
“If you were to sentence these defendants to death, and that sentence is carried out, and Andrew Webb comes up and says, ‘It wasn't true. It didn't happen that way. I lied a third or fourth time,' do you want that responsibility?”
Murdach then subjected jurors to a vivid depiction of the conditions at the Washington State Penitentiary. He described Paul St. Pierre being repeatedly beaten and raped by unruly motorcycle gangs, as well as making references to the stench from open toilets that permeated the sweat-soaked bedding upon which inmates sweltered in Walla Walla's unrelenting 100+ degree heat. Life in prison was a repetitive, noisy, painful, excruciating punishment exceeding the pangs of death itself.
“If you sentence him to death, are you comfortable enough with your decision that you would attend the execution,” asked Murdach. “Death is decisive and not retrievable. To execute Paul, you would have to decide that he has no right to exist. Death is final. There is no appeal.” Murdach then reminded the jury that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a lack of mitigating circumstances. “The defense does not have to prove any mitigating factors. The state must prove a lack of it.” The state, Murdach insisted, had proved absolutely nothing regarding a lack of mitigating circumstances. “And your only verdict,” he concluded, “can be the decision that Paul St. Pierre should receive life in prison without possibility of parole. This is not a lesser punishment, but a very serious long-lasting sentence that will be forever imposed on Mr. Paul St. Pierre. Thank you very much.”
After a short recess, John Ladenburg made his final plea for mercy on behalf of Christopher St. Pierre. “Mr. Hultman glided rather quickly through the purpose of this hearing and the instructions that the judge has given you. Really, he stood here and brought up the most horrible things he could think of, and asked for vengeance and nothing more.”
Countering Hultman's emotional outrage, Ladenburg calmly quoted the first lines of Instruction No. 3:
“ ‘The defendant is presumed to merit leniency.'
I think Mr. Hultman didn't talk about that because the defendant does not have to prove the existence of any mitigating circumstances, nor the sufficiency of the mitigating circumstances. Mr. Hultman said, ‘Well, I see there are some mitigating circumstances,' but now he says, ‘They're not
sufficient
mitigating circumstances. ' ” Ladenburg reminded the jury that the defendants could be sentenced to life in prison without any mitigating circumstances being proved by the defense. In fact, the defense didn't have to prove anything—the burden of proof was on the prosecution.
One of the eight recognized examples of mitigating circumstances is extreme mental illness. “Paul is an extremely sick person,” acknowledged Ladenburg. As for his own client, Christopher St. Pierre, the law also states that another mitigating circumstance is if the defendant's participation in a murder committed by another person was relatively minor. In other words, if Christopher St. Pierre was not the man with the gun or the knife—were he not the prime mover—that qualifies as mitigating circumstance.

Other books

How Not to Date a Skunk by Stephanie Burke
Circus Escape by Lilliana Rose
Perfectly Shattered by Trent, Emily Jane
The Starter Wife by Gigi Levangie Grazer
Warning Wendy by Kim Dare
Mennonite Girls Can Cook by Schellenberg, Lovella, Friesen, Anneliese, Wiebe, Judy, Reimer, Betty, Klassen, Bev, Penner, Charlotte, Bayles, Ellen, Klassen, Julie, McLellan, Kathy, Bartel, Marg
Quick Study by Gretchen Galway