Larissa Schuster Trial, Day 26, 12/6/07
The judge entered the courtroom at 9:30 a.m. He brought up discussion of juror #1, after attorneys on both sides had a chance to speak with KSEE 24 photographer Sam Yniguez. While Yniguez was shooting video of the trial, he noticed the juror seemed to be distracted and not paying attention. Both attorneys said they do not want to dismiss the juror at this time.
In the courtroom gallery were Larissa Schuster’s parents, the victim Timothy Schuster’s mother, a few unknown people and a detective.
The jury entered the room at 9:38 a.m. Larissa Schuster smiled at them as they took their seats. Juror #1 was the last person to enter the room.
DENNIS PETERSON,PROSECUTION’S CLOSING ARGUMENT
It’s been a while, he said, since he addressed the jurors. He reviewed the opportunities he’s had to address the panel. He discussed his opening statement, which he referred to as a blue print. He said he wanted to fill in the gaps as the course the evidence was to come in. He said witnesses were questioned one at a time. In closing, he said this is his final opportunity to address the jurors. He said his closing argument could go on for a while. He said he kept a list of all the witnesses who testified. He said the prosecution called around 50 witnesses in this trial. Prosecutor Dennis Peterson said there are moments and times when there is critical testimony to prove the case. He said at the end of the trial, it can all be put in context. In this case, he said Patrick Fitzpatrick, he didn’t think his testimony was central to the case. He was the man on the airplane who spoke to the defendant on July 13, 2003. Peterson said the testimony was only compelling after Larissa Schuster testified. If she was telling the truth in this case, he said, what does this say about the testimony of Fitzpatrick. Larissa Schuster said this was a horrendous piece of news. She said she was even saddened, she even shed a tear. Peterson said that information was put in context. It’s a subtle thing, that only presents itself at the end of the trial. Peterson said, imagine being confronted with a spouse who’s been killed, and supposedly you say you’re feeling some sadness, and yet, you leave your seat and your son, who’s now fatherless, and you sit down with a man you don’t know very well, and you start talking to this man about the fact your husband is missing. She told the man about injuries she had. One of the instructions says to use good common sense and experience, to determine was logical and believable. Peterson said when he thought about that, 9:46 a.m., Larissa Schuster knew her husband was dead and she had helped moved the body. To go and talk to someone about her husband being missing, is not believable, said Peterson. The attorney said it’s not the key to his case, but an example of illogical explanations from the defense. Peterson said closing is not evidence. Nothing the attorneys say is evidence. He said he doesn’t want a jury who will rubber stamp what he says.
Peterson said he was born in Iowa, and moved to California when he was five. The family went back to Iowa every year. He recalled a death in the family. He visited with his cousin, who said in a particular county in Iowa, there’s one district attorney. He said it’s hard to imagine. Peterson said he’s comfortable with not knowing his jurors. He said there should be a burden of proof on the prosecution. He said a very good part of the system, every defendant gets a good attorney. Peterson acknowledged Roger Nuttall as one of the most capable attorneys. Peterson said he knows when to ask to the right questions at the right time, but doesn’t consider himself a charismatic type. He said some attorneys address the jurors with so much passion, they seem like witnesses themselves. Peterson reminded the jurors that they are the judges, and they have to determine what has been proven and what has not. Peterson said he has a belief that really jurors are fair, and that in 99.9% of the cases, after all evidence has been provided, the jurors could come back with a just verdict, regardless of the arguments. He said there is a value for closing arguments, because it helps focus the central issues of the case. He said, possibly, the attorneys can speed up deliberations a bit.
Peterson then said he’s going to do something that will seem really boring. He said he’s going to give them a course in homicide 101. He said he’d start with the possible verdicts in this case. There’s only one count, but three possibilities under theories of guilty. The possible verdicts were displayed for the jurors.
THE POSSIBLE VERDICTS:
Count one, murder in the first degree of Timothy Schuster (with premeditation and deliberation.)
Guilty, not guilty
Special circumstances (applies only to first degree murder)
Murder committed for financial gain, true or not true
Count one, alternative guilty verdict, only if not guilty to first degree murder
Murder in the second degree (with malice aforethought
Guilty, not guilty
Only if not guilty to first and second degree murder, lesser included offense, voluntary manslaughter
Guilty, not guilty
RANGE AND THEORY OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (GUILTY VERDICTS)
1st degree murder (premeditation and deliberation)
2nd degree murder (killing with malice aforethought)
Express or implied
Intentional act
Natural consequences dangerous to human life
Deliberately performed with knowledge and conscious disregard for human life
Manslaughter (malice aforethought)
Negated by either
Heat of passion
Honest but unreasonable belief for self-defense
Peterson said in this case, voluntary manslaughter is ridiculous. He said he’s paraphrased the law, and if he contradicts anything the judge says, the jurors should follow the judge’s instruction. Peterson went into a more lengthy explanation of voluntary manslaughter. Peterson started to tear up, when he brought up an example of a father who finds his 12-year-old daughter raped and beaten. The girl says the next door neighbor did it. The father grabbed a bat and killed the guy. The father killed a human being, but most would understand that reaction. Peterson said voluntary manslaughter should be an option that is crossed off the list right away.
Peterson then talked about the break-in at Timothy Schuster’s home about a year prior to his murder. Both James Fagone and Larissa Schuster admit to committing that break in. Peterson reminded the jurors that Fagone was convicted of that crime. Although the break-in isn’t charged in this trial, Peterson told the jurors they can use that information to decide if Larissa Schuster was capable of killing.
10:07, Peterson said people suffer for years because of the stupid and selfish acts that cause people to commit crimes like this. He said this is what’s happened in this case. Juror #1 started crying. Some of the jurors took tissues the bailiff handed them.
Peterson said there are two prongs, the first involving the break-in. He said in that 2002 case, property was taken and stored in a storage unit. And later the body was placed in that storage unit. Peterson displayed a timeline that goes starts at the August 2002 break-in to the death of Timothy Schuster. He pointed out the events that occurred between those two points. Peterson said the evidence in the case has demonstrated those events. Peterson played the messages Larissa Schuster admits to leaving for Timothy Schuster, while he was still alive. He said it gives the jurors a taste of the atmosphere that existed at that particular time. “The shear force of the anger, and hate displayed in those phone calls.” 10:15 a.m.
THIS IS NOT AN EXACT TRANSCRIPT.
I’d just like to point out…representative of the way you communicate. I sure hope it changes in the future, so it will benefit our son.
Maybe that’s why people don’t like you at st. agnes. You’re totally different at home. And I believe that’s the main reason we’re getting a divorce. Have a nice day.
Oh and by the way, make sure you write down the conversation I just left…that may come in handy later. I’d hate to see you lose out on that one.
You ucking agot I want to see all the stuff you’ve taken. You couldn’t even uck a dog. You’re just an impotent ucking agot.
Hey agot. How you doing? Those mixing bowls are mine. You get the canisters, I get the mixing bowls that was the agreement, you ucking agot.
Hey capon. You know what that is? Look it up in a dictionary. I want my grandma’s doilies. You’re a real chicken s it. You run and tuck your ucking tail, just like everything else that has gone on with your kids. This is going to come back to haunt you. You just wait, it’s coming sweetheart. 10:18. Maybe you should find yourself a nice young man and go uck him.
I’m going to write a letter to the board of nursing, because I have proof that you called the pharmacy and represented yourself in the wrong way. I will tell you one thing, if that ever happens again, you’re dead, because I’m going to make sure your license is removed. 10:19 a.m. that thing about you finding out my prescriptions, that can get you in a lot of trouble.
Call me at the house sshole.
I’ll tell you why I do what I ucking want to do, because I put all that money in there. All you give …I hate your ucking guts….i hope you burn in hell.
What the uck you need a computer for, you bought one…I want my monitor back. We need to talk about that computer also.
Oh and one other thing, how would you like to start making that truck payment…I’ll just check into that too. Oh boy, I can really think of a lot of things you can start paying for…you don’t have a sugar mamma to pay all your bills.
Prosecution said Dr. Miles Esner talked about how shocked he was when he interviewed Larissa Schuster after her arrest, she still had all of these anger issues toward Timothy Schuster, even though he was deceased, their children were fatherless. 10:22 a.m. Peterson we now know she went into Timothy Schuster’s home and got items and gave them to James Fagone. He said there are cases where mental defenses are offered, but he wasn’t sure the meaning of that testimony. Peterson said there’s evidence the doctor didn’t do a full analysis of Schuster. He said Sallie Hunt could have provided those records to him to look at.
Peterson said the jurors should look at the physical acts, such as James Fagone entering Timothy Schuster’s home with her, to vandalize the home, to demonstrate her hate and anger. Peterson said Larissa Schuster exaggerated in her testimony, about Timothy Schuster wiping the place out. He said there were issues going on there, but they didn’t revolve around those small items. Larissa Schuster told Terry Lopez that one of the things that gave her the most pleasure was going back in and admiring her work. She admitted that. Peterson said the evidence was overwhelming. The final act of destruction was that she keyed his truck when she returned it to the airport. Peterson said this took a lot of planning and goal-oriented thinking. Peterson said Larissa Schuster made promises of payment to James Fagone, and her planned worked. Lopez said Larissa Schuster described the break-in as “better than sex.” 10:28 a.m. Peterson said he wanted to make one more mention of Carlos Jiminez. The second time Larissa Schuster spoke with him, she allegedly admitted the break-in was complete. Jiminez then described the third time they met. The attorney described Jiminez as a simple person. During the final meeting, he told the court Larissa Schuster asked him if he’d help her use a stun gun on him, to knock him out, and then she would wait down the way, then come and assist, and then she’d take care of the rest.
Larissa Schuster is a chemist, had a lab, and sometimes used chloroform. The Boatwrights said they remembered seeing some chloroform out at the lab. That chemical was not available to every person in the community. Peterson guns and knives are available to a lot of people, but dangerous chemicals were restricted.
Another witness in the trial said James Fagone received $2,000 to “do the job.” Peterson said that was to use chloroform on Timothy Schuster and then stun him. Peterson said that was mentioned to two people, and in both references, Larissa Schuster was the architect behind the plan. 10:32 a.m. “James Fagone may be guilty of murder in the first degree, but he’s not alone.”
Peterson displayed for the jurors, for the first time, the resignation letter James Fagone wrote to Larissa Schuster when he left the lab. Part of the letter was read to the jurors. Fagone claimed that he needed to go in a different direction and leave the lab for reasons of stress.
Peterson said James Fagone is not a monster. He had a father who cared about him. What’s important here, Peterson said, are the keys mentioned. Larissa Schuster claims James Fagone had access to the lab during the time of the murder.
Then Peterson went on to discuss the Google search Larissa Schuster performed on June 13, 2003. It included the words “acid,” “digestion,” and “animal tissue.” Two cases of acid were ordered that day. In April 2003, the blue barrel was ordered. “It was gruesome and shocking to all of us, and to you I’m sure.” 10:39. Peterson said Larissa Schuster continued to order more acid.
The prosecution then talked about the $2,000 Fagone was advanced for an alleged job,“that job was the job of assaulting Timothy Schuster with a stun gun and chloroform,” 10:41 a.m.
He then discussed the storage unit being accessed. A morning break was called.
Judge Wayne Ellison advised the attorneys that in Los Angeles County the alternates are not excused during deliberation. They have to wait around the courthouse.
Dennis Peterson’s closing statement resumed at 11:05 a.m. On June 24, 2003 an entry was made at the storage unit. It was the last time an entry was made before the barrel was placed in the storage unit nearly one month later.
Peterson then displayed a receipt for the jurors. The receipt shows a stun gun was purchased. The receipt was located in Fagone’s room. It’s dated June 20, 2003 at 4:50 p.m. That was seven days after Larissa Schuster did the Google word search. It is two days after she buys a second case of acid, purchased June 18. Ten days later, a third case of acid was purchased.
Peterson then showed the blue barrel, 11:08 a.m. The neighbor testified to seeing Larissa Schuster in her garage moving an item described as a blue barrel. Late in the trial, Mr. Foreman testified to some rectangular storage boxes also found in Larissa Schuster’s garage. The defense believes the neighbor saw boxes, not a barrel. Another witness, Antadeep Kong, who testified that she saw a blue barrel in the archive room at the lab, but it was gone 10 days after Timothy Schuster went missing.
Larissa Schuster testified in the shed, Timothy Schuster’s body was in a barrel, but there was no blood present. The defense claims the body was severed before being placed in the barrel. So when and how was acid put in the barrel 11:11 a.m. “these are some questions we may never know the answer to.” The elements of murder don’t require exact time and place. There can be things inferred. What matters, is who is responsible. 11:12 a.m.
Peterson said there are parallels between the 2002 burglary and the 2003 murder. In both situations, the same victim, the same alleged participants, and the same storage unit used to hide the evidence.
Peterson displayed a map of Fresno and Clovis. He isolated the area depicting the location of Larissa Schuster’s home and Timothy Schuster’s home. Both houses were in Clovis. Then Peterson displayed a diagram that showed the cell phone calls made. There was a call from Larissa Schuster’s phone to Timothy Schuster’s phone at 2:02 a.m. The tower used is closer to Timothy Schuster’s home. Peterson said he suggests she was not in her home, but was possibly in a car moving. It was a 22 second call. Peterson showed a clip of the July 11, 2003 interview with Clovis Police. The original interview was more than two hours long. The prosecutor said the same portion showed during his opening statement would be played again. He said the subtleties of her demeanor are important. He said there are reasons for that. The clip last 20 minutes.
THIS IS NOT AN EXACT TRANSCRIPT
Were you at the gym?
I have an excersie room at my house. Where do you want me to sit?
Hi, how are you? Are you a detective too? (introductions)
What’s going on? I tried calling the hospital today and leaving a message there, and I haven’t heard anything.
The reason it took me so long to get here, is I had to find someone to stay with my son.
(verified name)
We’ve been looking into this. Can you go over what you talked about.
We talked about several things. What I know tim and I have been going through a divorce. It’s been stretched out over a long time. I went and looked into my email’s today. The last message I got from him was on the 8th, Tuesday. All it said was dear larissa, planning on picking up tyler at 6 oclock at terry’s…..
Then about 830ish or so, I called again. Is said it’s 830 we don’t’ know where you are. I don’t know which one I dialed. I might have done both. I was trying to find him. I would have called from my cell phone. What else? I went home and terry’s husband is a chp officer. She called and said did I hear anything. I said should I call police. She said I wouldn’t do that quite yet. i said I don’t know whether he’s goine somewhere for a while and is going to accuse me of kidnapping tyler. He’s already done that before.
My daughter lives in Missouri. She was living back there with my parents. Every time I got on a plane, he would file a police report that I took tyler out of the state without his permission.
One time he actually filed a police report and called the school and told them I kidnapped him. I opted not to call anyone, by this morning, I went to the office. I tried to call my attorney. I told his secretary I would fax a letter to him. Shortly after that, I got a call from officer willow. I hadn’t called his phone for a year. When I called it, it said the phone is no longer in service. I called the main number of the hospital. They changed the three digits. I called the switchboard and asked for tim, and they transferred me to his phone. I just said I’m getting kind of worried….i don’t know what’s going on. I need to hear from you right away.
Is he the type of person who might try to hurt himself.
We were seeing a counselor. Her name is sallie hunt. She had been talking to us separately for quite a while. We had about a 2 ½ three hour meeting. We were doing our thing. About an hour before it was over, he came at me verbally. He was sitting there like this. You could tell he was angry, nervous and whatever. He came at me with stuff that was ridiculous. So she kind of calmed him down. It looks like there’s no reconciation. I had a meeting with her the following Wednesday. I think I wrote it on a calander. She said larissa, I’m so glad your’e ok. I’ve been worried about you. I feared for you this weekend. Why are you telling me this now. I’ve studied a lot of people, tim is the type of personality he tries to remain cool, but it’s people like him who can snap. She said she had been thinking about me all weekend. Long.
You had a little snapshot.
I have seen some personality traits of his over the years I haven’t liked. I was always the problem. Kind of a passive aggressive approach. That’s what sallie told me, they have a hard time accepting anything they do wrong. That was one of the first times I ever saw that kind of anger in him. It made me feel uncomfortable. I didn’t feel like sallie felt, that I should be scared.
One night we were sitting in the livingroom, he said I feel like driving my truck headon into a semi. That would have been last year, between February, april.
Has he ever made any attempts to hurt himself.
No. not that I know. He tried to provoke me though.
What’s the status of the divorce.
My house has been appraised. We’re still waiting on a business appraisal. My new attorney doesn’t think he’s being very reasonable. He’s already took what he wanted. All it is, is splitting the equity in the house and the business, which is mine. It’s a service industry. We were going to swap retirement plans or something like this. I have $1 million in life insurance on me. All I know about him, is the policy we got when we got married. I don’t know what St. Agnes had on him. He’s the beneficiary. I renewed a policy. They replaced the policy to allow me to designate a new beneficiary. By law, I don’t think I have to notify him. I put my mom’s name down. Because I was fearful if something happened to me, there would be $1 million with his name on it. 11:31 a.m.
Are there other significant assets?
When he moved out of the house, this is his character, my business, we’ve been able to tuck away quite a bit of money. A lot of this was money I bonused myself. He moved out while I wasn’t there. I came home the house was raped. He took half the money. We already filed for divorce. The money was a frozen asset, he moved it anyway. He moved it to another account, because it wasn’t in anything joint.
He took half of the $120,000, which was around 50-60. Why couldn’t he have said you’re taking tyler back to Missouri over the summer, let’s decide what I can take, and what you awnt. While I was goine. I thought something’s wrong. I got a weird feeling. It was the day before the fourth of july. I called at 3 in the morning, there was no answer. I didn’t realize he was going to take everything.
Did he have his own accounts, where he could have been hiding money.
He could have.
Is there any question of the assets? Getting it resolved in the way it should be?
All the retirement plans we were just going to split. My attorney was fairly confident that we would be able to get my business value down quite a bit, so we wouldn’t have to pay him that much money. There’s nothing else that’s anymore complicated. The custody thing was a big thing to.
Where were you on Wednesday.
I worked all day on Wednesday, let me think. What did we do. Tyler and I stop somewhere? I don’t recall stopping anywhere. I wasn’t feeling good. My shoulder had been bothering me. We got home. Tyler and I, we watched a movie, UHF, Weird Al Yanchovic. How was it? Pretty good as Rambo.
It was kind of late, but I don’t think we went out to eat.
Was tyler still up when you went to bed? What’s his bedtime?
Normally about 10, sometimes 11. “mom I want to go to the bathroom, mom I need to take a shower,” they drag it out.
You went to bed?
I don’t remember what time, maybe midnight.
What time did you get up.
My alarm goes off around 630.
Any unusual activity.
I woke up on the couch and I had my cell phone. It looked like I might have hit a number or something and cancelled it. I don’t know.
Tell me more about that.
It looked like it had dialed. I must have rolled over and hit a button. I didn’t think anything more of.
Do you know what number was dialed. Was there any voice on the line.
It was a beep, beep, beep sort of thing.
Do you have any speed dials on your phone.
Yes, I have speed dials on my phone.
2, is my office, 3 is my home, 4 or 5. I think you just hit one number to use speed dial.
There was no answer?
No. it was a beep, beep, beep sort of thing.
In the past two months, have you left voice messages with harsh words for him?
No. the only time I did, was when I came home and found out he moved out. I was very, very upset. I called him some pretty bad names. He wouldn’t answer the phone.
Are you the type of person who could have anything to do with?
No. not at all. We’ve had our problems. And I dislike. I couldn’t do that to my son. 11:39 a.m.
There are times when I just want to punch him. Physically. He’s a bigger man than me. He could take me down in a minute.
I understand. I had a spouse. So I understand where you’re coming from.
I don’t think anyone going through a divorce. I’ve actually said that to a couple of employees. You don’t want them dead. It’s kind of a reaction. 11:40 a.m.
I have to ask this. As we said, we have to look at all potential. If some foul play has come, the finger is pointed at the estranged spouse. There’s one thing I can’t clarify. I need to get from you. If you’re not being entirely honest, you accidentally telephoned him on the night he disappeared? If there was some conversation nyou had, and he said something to you, and you’re concerned, you need to let us know.
I promise you I will. I didn’t have a conversation.
Did you call him intentionally? No is your cell phone here.
No. it’s at home. I don’t have 99 speed dial numbers. The key, 1 is 911, 4, I think was his. Where it was laying, it’s quite possible his could have been pressed.
The last call at his house was your cell phone. I’m trying to clarify that.
You’re phone called, the night he went missing? There’s got to be something more to it.
I know what you’re saying, but the only calls with messages, where why didn’t you pick up tyler.
The other thing, volatile conversations. We have several boxes of things. In his brief case you gave him, the black brief case, was an audio tape of messages left for him.
That’s what I said. My attorney has said not to have conversations with him. I’ve left hostile messages for him. He’s trying to show that I’m a bad person.
That goes along with the journal? That’s not normal behavior.
It’s obsession. It’s obsession.
(the detectives left the room, as larissa Schuster buried her head in her hands on the tape, then she moved an item on a table back and forth. She paced.) 11:46 a.m.
The detectives came back and said the cell phone was found in her car. One of the detectives said he wanted to confirm that the phone dials on it’s on.
Is there something else going on?
No.
The detectives went through the speed dial with larissa Schuster. None of the numbers came up as Timothy Schuster. Then they went back through the call history.
You said the chaplain is coming in?
Yes.
Could I get some water?
Yes.
Then the video shows her manipulating her phone while the detectives are out of the room. 11:51 a.m. When the detective came back in the room, she kept looking through her phone.
I want to show you something here. My son’s name, I have his phone number. Tyler. i must have cancelled something. I must have just deleted it.
All I want to do is get to the bottom of this. Get to the truth. And I want to do, is find out what that phone call was. You had the opportunity to shed some light. You know that this phone call was placed. You know the intent. To sit here and tell me it was accidentally dialed in your sleep. I’ve been doing this a long time, and I understand sometimes people make mistakes. I understand sometimes people do things and it has an unintended outcome. It only makes it worse when you lie. You’re playing with your cell phone for five minutes, and I come back in and you say, oops I just deleted. It may sound like a good story. I have court orders ready to look up numbers. That’s not the important thing. The important thing was to find out the intent behind that phone call. For your son’s benefit. You weren’t there at his house.
No. I made the call. I was not sleeping well. I dialed his cell phone first. He didn’t answer, then I called the house and it rang four times. I didn’t get nasty. I just said I was distraught against the fact that he has to do this court order thing, every time I want to do something, to take my son out of town. It was probably less than 30 seconds for the call.
Did he hang up on you? Did you hang up on him?
It was just kind of like, I don’t know. It wasn’t really, like. I think the reason I wanted to make sure, I didn’t want any trouble out of him on Satruday. There wasn’t a lot of talking on his end.
Did he make any threats?
No. and I didn’t make any toward him either.
Have there been any other calls?
No. absolutely not. That’s the first time I actually spoke to him on the phone.
One of the jurors asked to speak with the judge. She’s juror #119. She wanted to address the court regarding a private matter. It affects everybody here. It’s not what you say, it’s what you do. We wonder why juror number 001 is still here, after so many complaints. You folks are not in the jury room. We know a hell of a lot more than what’s being expressed here. We’re angry. We think it hampers the jury.
What conduct?
No respect for the entire preceding. Talking about what’s going on in here in the jury room. I’m sorry folks.
You don’t need to apologize at all. I need to know exactly what you’re talking about.
Two days ago. It’s not what she says, it’s attitude. “well, we’re not going to believe that,” also in light of what you were presented with on Monday, laughing at that. The jurors got the pictures of the disceased. She took it seriously. Her attitude all along, she’s not a bad person, she’s laxidasical and she’ll promise to be a good girl, what you said is not what you do. If she’s still here, that’s ok with me.
Both counsel were allowed to question her. She was cautioned not to provide her opinion about the case.
I have to say, this has nothing to do with a mistrial. This is people’s opinions.
I can’t say specifics because it’s cumulative. It had just got to here. Juror number 12 and 11, indicated that the bailiff took this up, they had complaints about the distracting behavior.
the juror was told not to talk to anyone. “I’m a tolerant person, but oh dear.”
Peterson asked her about the admonishment. Has she formed an opinion and expressed it?
The juror said she has to be really careful. She scribbled a lot. But she doesn’t know that it’s specific to what she Has said, “oh boy, she’s a distraction.” The juror said she doesn’t trust her to be fair. She said she was told several times that the juror would be replaced, and it hasn’t happened. Many of the jurors have complained. The juror said she’s trying to do the best she can. She started to tear up. The attitude was that. I’m not going to mess it up. Here I am with the family. She cried more.
Her attitude and behavior. Nuttall asked her everybody knows about this. She said it only applies to what goes on in the jury room. She said peoples’ eyes roll. It’s become like a little family, “we do not discuss the precedings that go on in here.” She said everyone takes it serioiusly, and they all know. And they’re all weighed down with the burden. She said to have someone act like that, “really pisses me off.” She said she didn’t think she would have to speak in front of everyone. She said had she known, she wouldn’t have said anything.
After juror #12 left the room, the judge said it’s fair to say earlier reports were not made of juror #1. At some point juror #3 reported to deputy Kelly Starkey, that during a cigarette break, she tried to engage him in conversation about the case. He reminded her they could not talk about the case. The information was shared informally. The attorneys were asked if they believed a record should be made. It’s the court’s view that while other reports may not be misconduct, her apparent refusal to comply with specific direction, she’ll likely be excused for misconduct.
The attorneys were asked to think about that over the break.
Court resumed at 1:34 p.m. Dennis Peterson said at some previous time, he suggested that juror #1 should be replaced. He continues to feel that should happen. He would like her replaced with the alternate juror. He believes it should be done without further investigation.
Roger Nuttall said he reviewed the proposed action. He believes at this stage, he’s seeing and hearing more problems, beyond juror #1. He said she was never specifically admonished after the incident with juror #3. He said he is struck by juror #12, who basically said a number of things. She implied it was not what juror #1 says, but does, and then followed up, if she knew she had to have evidence of misconduct, she wouldn’t have said anything. An assertion of “who’s going to believe this,” and nothing was said about it two weeks ago when it allegedly happened. Nuttall said the real problem that has developed on this jury, juror #12 said she doesn’t think #1 will be fair. She said the jurors have become like a family. Obviously, he said, this juror is not part of the family. The family has chosen to set a juror standard for behavior, and she’s not behaving properly. Nuttall said that’s not misconduct. He said he’s really concerned that juror #12 said the jurors were told #1 was going to be kicked off. Nuttall wanted to know who told them juror #1 would be kicked off. They, as a group, were apparently talking about wanting a juror kicked off. Nuttall said there are some real issues, because it will empower the group of people, in terms of their way of thinking. If they are thinking as a group about the case, Nuttall said that is dangerous. He said he’s moving for a mistrial for conduct of the group. He said he’s objecting strongly to empowering the members of “the family,” by dismissing juror #1. He said he doesn’t think what juror #1 said would be much different from what other jurors normally do on a panel. He said jurors rarely follow every instruction of the court. He said he sees more serious problems if juror #1 is dismissed. He said it sends a very problematic message to the rest of the jury. He said he thinks juror #12 found out the complaints of two other jurors didn’t get the job done, so she had to voice her opinion.
Peterson said juror #1 has been tardy a number of times, and the group was admonished. He said Nuttall is not really addressing the issues of misconduct. He continued to believe juror #1 should be removed. Juror #1 was late today because she received a ticket.
Judge Wayne Ellison said the law is clear on good cause to dismiss jurors. He said the juror should be dismissed. Ellison on Tuesday, juror #1 asked if Dennis Peterson was married. He said it was another demonstration of inappropriate behavior.
Nuttall said he wants the court to inquire when the statement, “who’s going to believe” was made. Ellison said that’s a dangerous investigation to undertake.
The juror was dismissed. The prosecution’s closing statement continued. He talked about Larissa Schuster’s “convenient lack of memory.”
At around 2:30 p.m. ,
Peterson talked about reasonable doubt. It’s a very serious and heavy burden, he believes has been met. 2:37 p.m. Peterson used the example of a puzzle. As the pieces come together, “she should share the responsibility of that act that will have lasting consequences for a whole host of people.” 2:41 p.m.
Peterson concluded his opening statement.
Defense Attorney Roger Nuttall then began his opening statement. He summarized his job as a defense attorney.