Violence (12 page)

Prosecutors early on also tried to get Roney to “turn State’s evidence.” They could sense his more frail nature, and offered him a sentence of 5 years on the lesser second-degree murder charge with 3 years probation to testify against his accomplices. He refused, flat out. He was far more afraid of the Lysanders and what they would do to him when
they got out
. Derek and Gabriel had mentioned repeatedly how a snitch, in their world, doesn’t ever deserve a beat down but should always be killed. Roney didn’t want to rely on them getting maximum prison terms.

The prosecutors knew they were shooting low, hoping to hit something and move on, but this time they missed. Derek and the others indicated through their public defenders that they were not interested in any plea deal. They were taking the gamble as well. They actually hoped to get an acquittal, and stranger things have happened.

Derek, Gabriel and Ruben also all agreed to be tried together. Their testimonies matched. There were no accusations of blame towards each other, no vast differences in who was where aside from Ruben who said he was outside when the fatal shot was fired, which was true. It was simply a very cost-effective way to try them considering that essentially identical witnesses were to be called in all their cases, with the same evidence being presented, and since they didn’t bargain, bundling the cases could possibly be appreciated at sentencing, should they lose. That was good lawyering as well, since the judge they drew had fifty criminal cases pending, and his calendar was not unusual.

There were the typical maneuverings and standard hearings before the trial itself ever began. There was even a defense motion to dismiss all charges claiming the indictment itself was incomplete. It challenged that
“there was not even enough evidence to bring charges,”
and
“if there is an insufficiency in the charging instrument, a judge is compelled to examine the whole of the case, and if there is a deficiency anywhere, even concerning probable cause, then a motion to dismiss may be brought.”
They did bring their motion. And the judge did deny it.

There was also an “In limine” motion before the start of the trial where the defense counsel asked the judge to bar introducing their prior convictions saying they were unduly prejudicial. Since the defendants were not testifying in their own defense, the judge agreed and therefore that evidence would not be presented to the jury.

The Lysanders “priors” wouldn’t have clearly shown a pattern anyway because the “unlawful restraint” convictions, for which they spent sixteen months apiece in Joliet Penitentiary, were “plead downs” from the much more serious attempted sexual assault. This was an aborted rape of a 19-year-old grocery store check-out girl who happened to go to the wrong dance club one evening.

Also, it was the dropped deviate sexual abuse charges against them, (if charges could be introduced into evidence which they cannot), that would have created the most damage against the Lysanders. Deviate sexual abuse is usually against a minor and was so in their case. It was against a 15-year-old girl who they had “met” when they were working as part-time drivers for a school bus company. The young girl came across them at a summer carnival where they brought her to their vehicle and forced her to orally copulate both of them. The parents of the girl went to the police and filed charges but some weeks into the process decided not to subject their daughter or themselves to the rigors of a trial, and promptly moved out-of-state. The parents had gotten especially nervous when they learned they needed a conviction or else there could be a lawsuit brought against them by the suspects for falsely claiming their daughter was sexually assaulted. The parents of the girl concluded they had all suffered enough.

As Ward predicted, the defense did ask for Anderson to be excluded from the trial because his presence would also be “
prejudicial
” and Judge Marr denied it. However, as Ward also foretold, in a subsequent motion they put Anderson on their witness list and claimed his hearing the testimony of others would taint his own eventual sworn statements and the judge allowed it. Therefore, Ward would have to give Anderson an accounting of events until Anderson took the stand.

The trial itself took place several weeks past the 2nd anniversary of Karen and Tristan’s deaths. That second remembrance had been an incredibly cold day in May, a record for the date. It was now mid-June and so hot the asphalt was spongy walking across the thoroughfares to the court building. The street surfaces reminded Anderson of that plushy carpet in the funeral home.

The court building always smelled similar to a petting zoo, like straw and animal urine with feces. Maybe it was because of the distasteful, beastlike nature of the business that was done there. Regardless, it smelled that way all year round.

Anderson waited restlessly for Ward to arrive in a corner of the vast vaulted lobby of the criminal courts building. They had already spoken in the parking lot of the Heart-O’Mine motel that morning. They had very few words. Anderson was anxious to get going with the trial, hoping with it there would be some measure of closure.

Ward was careful not to give any false hope but he was not downbeat, either. He also didn’t tell Anderson the trial could’ve been delayed much further, months, even years, but he heard the defendants were just as anxious to get at it because recent indications were, with the lousy economy and prison overcrowding, violent crime was not getting the usual hard look, especially at sentencing, even where homicide was concerned.

It took ten minutes standing on line for Anderson to get through courthouse security which was choked with attorneys, witnesses, victims, jurors, defendants free on bail, relatives of defendants, and the odd law student or spectator.

The sheriffs who were assigned as screeners growled commands at the sweaty, nervous inflow of courthouse arrivals. Anderson thought it felt like you were entering a prison of sorts. Everywhere it was dirty, like O’Hare airport during the Christmas rush, only this place was no doubt always filthy.

Anderson was going to be left to bide his time in the plaza while Ward would have the job of monitoring the trial proceedings and taking notes in the spectators’ gallery.

Right now, Anderson simply watched Ward move up in the queue where Ward finally got to empty the contents of his pockets into the plastic bins provided by security before he would be allowed to proceed through the metal detectors. There were several gang members immediately ahead of Ward, dressed banger-chic, off to attend some “associate’s” trial. They slowed things up, each gang member having to submit to an individual pat-down and hand-held wand detector search.

Ward eventually walked-through the large, upright rectangular metal detection portal without setting off the dreaded “beep” and collected his belongings on the other side of a long table. He disappeared into an elevator with a gaggle of lost-souls, low-lifes, and lawyers.

Judge Marr took his seat behind the bench in the courtroom in his flowing robes. He gave the gavel a tap on the sound board and said, “Let’s begin.”

Derek, Gabriel and Ruben were dressed in suits with ties. They had fresh haircuts. They were clean shaven and stone-faced as they sat next to their public defenders at the defense table.

The gallery had a spattering of spectators, including Al Ward who sat at the back.

The jury was comprised of six men and six women.

Judge Marr took some time to go through trial procedure for the jury, and delivered a reiteration of previous instructions telling them to “put aside all preconceived notions you may have about the case,” after which Opening Statements then took up most of the morning of that first day.

The lead prosecutor was a woman, Ms. Patricia Henklin, who had over a dozen years of experience toiling for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. She had won more than her fair share of cases and even had some awards from victim’s groups. She was diminutive but had a bull-dog quality that made her seem tenacious and at the same time caring. She didn’t “find herself” in the prosecutor’s office, she “found herself.” Unlike most attorneys, it mattered greatly to her that she was on the side of right and so she resisted taking a position in a private firm where a partnership would surely await her.

Ms. Henklin went first, as per custom, and very diligently put forth the outline of their case and what they expected to prove, namely that this was a crime of rage and opportunity. The first words out of her mouth were what she hoped the jury would conclude at the trial’s end, “Mr. Derek Lysander, Mr. Gabriel Lysander and Mr. Ruben Roney are guilty of the rape of Mrs. Karen Anderson and the subsequent murders of Mrs. Anderson and her 14-year-old daughter, Tristan Anderson. And the evidence in this case is going to show how it all took place. We will show how they wanted to get back at the Andersons-”

“Objection, your Honor, argumentative.” A twenty-something male, who was the youngest member of the defense counsel, interrupted. “’Getting back at,’ I don’t see where the evidence is going to prove frame of mind.”

“Your Honor, we have witness testimony to support this.” Ms. Henklin explained.

“Overruled.” Jude Marr intoned, siding with Ms. Henklin and the prosecution.

“And we will show how their rage at having-” Ms. Henklin continued before the same young male member of the defense counsel quickly interrupted again.

“This is arguing, your Honor.” He protested.

“Can we get counsel up here?” Judge Marr ordered the opposing lawyers to a sidebar where he could speak to them out of earshot of the jury but still converse on the record.

It took a second, but as soon as the three separate public defenders and Ms. Henklin were assembled at the bench, the judge lowered his voice and spoke to them all firmly. “Look, these are opening statements which I hope we can get through without undue stoppages-”

“But-” The young public defender started to object again and was halted in his tracks by Judge Marr’s raised hand.

“A fairly wide berth is given during openings. Let’s keep our objections at this point
to a minimum.
” Judge Marr strongly suggested, essentially addressing this particular member of the defense counsel’s greenness and ending the sidebar.

Counsel returned to their respective places.

Jurors are much more attentive at the beginning of a trial. At the start of anything for that matter, but especially during an opening statement. It was always a good idea to hit them fast.

Ms. Henklin went seamlessly right back into her opening statement and told the jury exactly what evidence they could expect to see. She went over what “he’ll tell you” and “she’ll tell you” referring to the various scheduled experts and witnesses they would hear from that would support the State’s case.

Henklin did not want to be longwinded but did make sure she underscored and addressed the “abundant bruising present on Mrs. Anderson’s vaginal area to indicate rape” with the “fact that physical force is used in 85 percent of all rapes,” but she cleverly left out any mention of guns in the home at this point (which she hoped the defense would overlook) because while firearms are turned on the owners in many cases, statistics also point towards an extraordinarily high correlation between home ownership of a firearm and suicide.

In wrapping up, Henklin made it strictly personal when she bellowed, “Yes, the three defendants were working at the Anderson home earlier in the day, and yes, they were fired for lewd and lascivious behavior directed at Mrs. Anderson, but no one forced them to return later that same day to confront the Andersons where no good outcome could occur.”

She also ended by laying out the sensible scenario that had the defendants waiting their turns to rape Karen, not leaving out Ruben “whose fingerprints and hair were there, just not his ejaculate,” before she described how Tristan returned from her “grade-school graduation dance,” went around behind the house to investigate, and when the “daughter of Mrs. Anderson” saw what was happening, “the horrific sight of her mother being brutally violated by the very same strangers who played peeping tom earlier in the day,” the “innocent young Anderson girl” backpedaled from the window where she then tragically hit her head and fell into the swimming pool, “a life wasted for no reason.”

To an astute observer, opposing counsel did sink in their seats at this, albeit imperceptibly.

The prosecutor then followed that with a very emotional contention, her voice cracking, “…and each of the defendants
is
guilty of Tristan Anderson’s murder as surely as if they all three together slammed her head against that patio post!”

Ms. Henklin paused at that point because she knew she had driven home her assertions. You could hear a pin drop in the courtroom. After a moment, she commenced into her concluding statement, building at a steady pace, with increasing volume, towards the final crescendo.

“In the days to come you will hear every possible excuse by the defense.” Henklin lowered her head momentarily for a solemn effect, before taking a deep breath and continuing, “An excuse for why they were there. An excuse for why they ran, ‘we were just scared,’ what else can they say?” Henklin then walked directly in front of the jury box and made sure she made eye contact with each juror as she spoke.

“But that brings us to: why is the State here? Why are the good people of Illinois here, with all the resources we have as a free society?” Henklin asked this as if she were a member of the jury, “Because we want to make sure that justice is served. We’re not here to tell a story. We’re here to tell the truth. There are too many victims. And instead of a little girl being alive who should be dreaming about what high-school will be like and a mother wanting to make sure her daughter’s every dream is fulfilled, we will instead be talking about the ugly tragedy of their deaths, and always asking ourselves why? Why are they dead? And the answer is simply because…” Henklin pointed at the defense table, making sure her voice was high-pitched, and vengeful, “…these three defendants were fired from their jobs and wanted to express their rage!”