Head Shot (35 page)

Read Head Shot Online

Authors: Burl Barer

BOOK: Head Shot
9.38Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Twenty-one
Paul St. Pierre's death aborted his appeal, but Chris St. Pierre's appeal moved ahead. On June 17, 1986, John Ladenburg requested the court appoint a cocounsel to assist him in the appeal's preparation. “The appearance of fairness,” said Ladenburg, “may be violated if cocounsel is not appointed.” Fairness became a serious consideration, recalled newsman Chet Rogers, “because John Ladenburg had officially become a candidate for Pierce County prosecuting attorney. He was running against Bill Griffies in the next election.” The court appointed Bertha Fitzer as cocounsel on July 21, 1986.
In the first week of November 1986, Bill Griffies was voted out of the prosecutor's office. Chief Deputy Prosecutor Chris Quinn-Brintnall and Carl Hultman now worked under Chief Prosecutor John Ladenburg. Christopher St. Pierre understood the problem of having the chief prosecuting attorney involved with his appeal and strongly requested that John Ladenburg no longer be involved. The Pierce County Prosecutor's Office agreed.
“I probably wouldn't have handled the appeal personally even if I hadn't won the election,” Ladenburg later commented. “At that point in my career, I wasn't doing many appeals. The excellent defense attorney Bertha Fitzer was first assigned as cocounsel; then she assumed full representation. She appealed Chris St. Pierre's conviction to the state supreme court.”
Although there was a precise time frame for filing the appeal, the appellate court allowed Fitzer an added measure of grace. “That's because I was pregnant with my son,” recalled Fitzer. “That's one reason I remember it so well.”
Her brief on behalf of Christopher St. Pierre cited numerous reasons why his convictions should be overturned, and/or a new trial granted. “Chris St. Pierre did not murder either of the two victims,” stated Fitzer factually. “Nonetheless, based on the statements of Andrew Webb, who pled guilty and then refused to testify, Chris St. Pierre must spend the remainder of his life in prison. His brother Paul also gave statements to the police. Admission of these statements assured that Chris St. Pierre would be convicted. Yet, Chris had no opportunity to test the truthfulness of these statements by cross-examination. Because admission of these statements violated Chris St. Pierre's right to confront witnesses against him, and for other reasons, Chris St. Pierre's convictions must be reversed.”
Among the other reasons cited for consideration by the state supreme court were:
1. Violation of his right to a speedy trial.
2. The improper refusal to sever his case from Paul St. Pierre's.
3. Appearing before the jurors in leg irons tainted his right to an impartial jury.
4. Admission of Andrew Webb's plea-bargain statement was improper.
5. Admission of Paul St. Pierre's statement was improper.
6. The prosecutor's conduct, before and during the trials, was reprehensible and improper.
7. Evidence of the decapitation of John Achord, which occurred days after the murder, should not have been admitted.
8. Evidence relating to the manner in which Damon Wells was killed was not admissible against Chris St. Pierre.
9. The spectator outburst of “Bullshit!” during his testimony denied him a fair trial.
1 0 . The judge should not have allowed the prosecutor to amend the information in a capital case immediately prior to the case going to the jury.
11. There was not sufficient evidence to convict Chris St. Pierre of aggravated murder.
“Chris St. Pierre, Paul St. Pierre, and Andrew Webb were the only three people present when Damon Wells and John Achord were killed,” said Fitzer. “Each gave statements about the events, but only Chris St. Pierre chose to testify.” In doing so, St. Pierre was subjected to rigorous cross-examination by Carl Hultman. Neither Andrew Webb nor Paul St. Pierre's testimony—the sworn statement—were subject to cross-examination.
The United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The constitution of Washington State contains an equivalent, and perhaps stronger statement: “The accused shall have the right to meet the witnesses against him face-to-face.”
“One cannot imagine a more explicit requirement than face-to-face confrontation,” noted Fitzer. This requirement assures three fundamental safeguards: one, it insures that the witness will give his statement under oath; two, it forces the witness to submit to cross-examination; three, cross-examination permits the jury to observe the demeanor of the witness, thus aiding in assessing his credibility.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Wells and Achord trials, in Fitzer's opinion, was the behavior of the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office. “Repeatedly publicizing the case, baiting the witness, making sarcastic comments during the defendant's cross-examination, commenting on the defendant's right to remain silent, and drawing from evidence in the Wells trial to prejudice the jury in the Achord trial” were among reasons Fitzer cited in requesting the supreme court's intervention.
“Hultman, and his former boss, William Griffies,” she said to the state supreme court, “seem to measure their devotion to duty, like the prowess of the savage, by the number of their victims. This attitude is not only unseemly in a prosecutor, it is impermissible.”
The Washington State Supreme Court upheld Chris St. Pierre's conviction for the murder of Damon Wells. “Admitting the statements from Paul St. Pierre and Andrew Webb did not deny Christopher St. Pierre his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation,” wrote the supreme court, “since Christopher St. Pierre's own statements established his guilt for this crime.”
Judge Waldo F. Stone, the man who had presided over the Wells trial, was perfectly pleased with the court's decision. “Nothing has occurred in the last five years to alter my previous recommendation of life in prison without parole. The defendant participated in two brutal murders. The only mitigating factor was the fact that the defendant's brother was the prime instigator and this defendant played more of a follower role.”
On July 26, 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Christopher St. Pierre, reversing his conviction in the murder of John Achord. “Andrew Webb's statement pertaining to Christopher's alleged involvement in the slaying of John Achord did not have sufficient indicia of reliability,” wrote the supreme court, “and its admission in that case improperly denied Christopher St. Pierre his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The conviction for aggravated murder is reversed.”
The supreme court's ruling was perhaps more a victory for the American Constitution than for Christopher St. Pierre. His conviction and life sentence for the murder of Damon Wells remained irrevocable. So did the heart condition with which he was born and the multiple sclerosis that revealed itself during his incarceration.
When the latter disease became increasingly manifest, Carmella and George St. Pierre retained attorney David Zuckerman on their son's behalf. “Chris has heart problems, and he also has multiple sclerosis,” confirmed Zuckerman. “That's part of the reason that the family is so eager to litigate these issues over his precise release date, because, you know, they want him to get out while he can still walk.”
By the time Zuckerman began representing Christopher St. Pierre, any attacks on the convictions had run their course. “We're looking into the legitimacy of the sentence that the parole board gave him. You see, there are certain things that are unique to Chris's case and certain things that are common to everyone under parole jurisdiction. Back when Chris was convicted, everyone convicted of a felony murder—if they had been good—got a parole hearing after thirteen years and four months. Then, in 1989, they changed the rules on everybody. We don't have a parole system anymore. We have determinate sentences, which I think is a much ... a far superior system to the parole system, that everyone gets a definite sentence based on certain tables and guidelines. So then the question is: what do we do with guys like Chris St. Pierre who committed their crimes back at the time when we had a parole system?”
According to David Zuckerman, they gave them the worst of all worlds. “The minimum term gets recalculated under the sentencing reformat. It is much, much longer than thirteen years four months for almost everybody, and then you still don't get out. When you've done that lengthier term, you're still just a parole prisoner at the whim of the board. Even after you've done this lengthy minimum term, the board can still keep you in prison.”
This controversial policy of indeterminate incarceration was taken to the state supreme court and was upheld 5 to 4. Then it went to federal court, and the federal court judge threw it out. “But then it went up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and two out of three of the judges on that panel upheld it.” Christopher St. Pierre's sentence remained indefinite, indeterminate, and subject to extension, termination, or neither.
While in prison, Christopher St. Pierre drafted a letter of apology to the family of Damon Wells. Forbidden to contact the Wells family directly, he asked David Zuckerman to track down the victim's mother and/or siblings. Zuckerman's efforts also were to no avail. The undelivered letter written by Christopher St. Pierre on November 15, 1998, reads as follows:
I want to begin this letter by first saying how sincerely sorry I am for my actions that contributed to your son's death. There hasn't been a day in my life since that evening, nearly fifteen years ago, that I haven't thought about it, regretted it, and wished that none of it had ever happened. I often look back and try to understand how the events of that evening escalated to the point where Damon was killed.
 
I am not attempting to excuse my actions or the role I played in this senseless crime, but I swear I honestly never expected or intended this to occur. Still I know that is probably little or no consolation to you. How can it be, compared to the enormity of the pain, anguish, suffering and loss I have caused you and your family? I realize that this changed the course of your life and that of your family life forever. Again, I am so sorry for this and would do anything I could if it were possible to change it.
 
You're probably wondering why I'm writing and expressing this now. Well, I talked with and listened to a woman whose daughter had been murdered, and the man responsible had never apologized. This further compounded the trauma and suffering because she wanted to at least hear the man say he was sorry and take responsibility. I know why I did a very similar thing to you and your family. At the time of my trial, I was thinking of nearly no one but myself. I was fixated on the plea-bargain the prosecutors made with Andrew Webb, who I saw as the worst offender. With some time to think things over in prison, my perspective changed. But I still said nothing because I could not even find words that could be adequate to reconcile or lessen the damage I have done to you, your family and my family as well. I know even now what I am saying is not enough to express the level of remorse, sorrow and shame I feel for what I did, but I feel that I should at least try.
 
I am sending this to you through an attorney, who may use an investigator to try to find you. Both of them are under instructions not to reveal your address or phone number to me or my family. If you wish to respond to this letter you can do so through the attorney. Whether you respond with anger, hatred, outrage—or perhaps forgiveness—I'm willing to listen.
 
Sincerely & respectfully,
Christopher St. Pierre
David Zuckerman expressed understandable amazement at Andrew Webb, and the unorthodox arrangement made with him by previous Pierce County prosecutor Bill Griffies. “Chris was actually the first one through the door, and most of the prosecutors that I'm used to dealing with will value that. If one defendant comes in and gives a complete confession, and fully cooperates before he even has a lawyer, and before he's even pushing for any kind of deal for himself, that is something that typically they want to encourage and reward. It sends a message that “this is the way we want people to behave—this is what gets rewarded.
“In this particular case,” elaborated Zuckerman, “they punished that behavior, and rewarded the guy—Andrew Webb—who wouldn't say a word until his lawyer made some cushy deal for him. What kind of message does that send? It sends the message ‘Don't tell the truth, don't confess, don't cooperate with the police, but make sure that you get everything you possibly can, and get it promised to you first before you say anything.' ”
John Ladenburg, Christopher St. Pierre's former defense lawyer, issued an official statement concerning the Webb incident, and did so in his new capacity as Pierce County's chief prosecutor. This admission of error was read aloud at a special hearing in the state capital in December 1999.
“The purpose of that hearing,” said Anne Webb, “was to decide if Andrew could leave prison early, you know, for being so wonderful, spiritual, and reformed. My former father-in-law, Lowell Webb, gave a real impassioned plea, saying how much his son had changed since 1984.”

Other books

A Distant Summer by Karen Toller Whittenburg
Chasing the White Witch by Marina Cohen
Tremor by Winston Graham
Jam by Jake Wallis Simons
Two for Joy by Mary Reed, Eric Mayer
Rottenhouse by Ian Dyer