Once I get these last few pages down I'll try to reconstruct the scenario in the jury room as we deliberated the fate of these two bad guys.
The Defense Concludes
Mr. Selvin got up to begin his closing argument. His position was that Mr. Burr had a preponderance of evidence, and he was afraid that that would cause us to neglect regarding each case separately. A difficult task, indeed! Mr. Burr used the physical evidence to show a killing pattern, a man who not only practiced, but perfected his techniques and only got caught due to his fascination with the destruction he had caused.
Logically, Mr. Selvin started with the Stokes/August case. He conceded that it would be foolish to try to deny TC did it. (Really!) However, let's just look at the facts, says he. Charlie carried the gun, but he didn't have a plan to kill anybody that night. Yes. it's terrible the way these people were shot at, but Charlie is sick. He simply pulled out the gun and shot without thinking, a cold act of unpremeditated murder.
Selvin tries to minimize the act to one of second-degree murder. He tries to cast Clark in the role of the shooter in the Rochon case. He discounts the theory that TC "loved" the Desert Eagle, having us consider it as "just another gun", which Charlie would have passed around his circle of criminal friends, one of which was probably the real killer of Laquann Sloan. He puts Clark at the Noyers scene with the Desert Eagle by himself, shooting the girl for whatever reason. He decries the violence of the attempted murders but states that we must judge for ourselves whether or not Charles did it. He says that Stevens' defense rested on the evidence, charging Mr. Burr with the task of proof of guilt against the assumption of innocence. He urges us to seek any shadow of a doubt and cultivate it, not being content to vote with the group.
He's really muddying the waters, and gets so frothy at the mouth and emotional that the spit literally flies out of his mouth. It's not easy to look at him. Leigh, a juror in the front row, was having a really hard time. She's particularly affected by Mr. Selvin's histrionics.
Clark's Conclusion
Mr. Zimmer re-hashed the argument that Richard was pressured into his confession bith by over-zealous cops and his need to comply with authority figures due to his childhood exposure to abuse. To his credit, he did not attempt to argue for a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter, taking the high road all the way in insisting that Richard was not even there.
Instructions
On Monday morning, March 22, the judge read us the instructions, defining our role as a jury, the definitions of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and special circumstances.
We went up to the jury room, and within minutes I was nominated and selected foreman of the jury by acclamation. Whew! Jan says it's just people seeing the light that shines from me. Well, I haven't tried to campaign for it but I've accepted their choice. I'll do my best. As we reach each verdict I will put my signature on the bottom of the sheet, indicating a unanimous opinion.
We spent the first day of deliberations speaking about each case in detail and in general. Outside of the Noyers case it looks as if we will be concurring with Mr. Burr as to the charges. I haven't tried to guess anybody's mind up 'til now, but it looks as if we're all in agreement about TC's guilt. This guy is in a lot of trouble. We'll be talking about the two most difficult cases tomorrow: Leslie Noyers and Laquann Sloan.
We had lunch at the expense of the taxpayers of Alameda County today, going to Jack's Bar & Grill at Jack London Square. Nobody's drinking alcohol, which is really for the best.
I don't think this part will take very long. The hard part will be the penalty phase. Really hard.
Thus concludes the journal of Juror #5 in the capital murder case against Charles Arnett Stevens. My memories of the events following these will continue the tale.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Trial - Countdown
My journal from the capital murder trial of Charles Stevens....
Last Witness
On Tuesday, March 9, Sgt. Art Roth took the stand for the DA to testify as to the conduct of Clark's questioning. For the entire day he answered questions from Mr. Burr. Here are some points that really shot holes in Clark's account:
- From the time Clark was picked up in Monterrey until the night/early morning of August 1st, no mention was made to him of where any crime took place or what it was. Clark supplied the street name "Chetwood" and first said that Noyers had been shot dead.
-The interview was conducted in a passive, re-directive way, relying on Clark to provide the narrative after encouraging comments like: "Tell me more about that" and "Let's talk about that". No threatening or stern behavior was shown at that extended interview, yet Clark still unwound the yarn about the Noyers killing and the Rochon incident with very little persuasion. Hardly the picture Clark paints.
-I trust the testimony of Sgt. Roth because he is a cop. If he's outright lying about this conduct at the interview, he;s in for really big trouble. He states that no sterner measures were taken with Richard until he had already told the story I call "I held her while Charlie shot her", and refused to change it even though the officers knew it was heavy with inconsistencies. It was only after that version was directly challenged by the physical evidence at ha
nd that Richard broke down in the sally port and confessed to shooting her himself.
I can hardly wait to see what Mr. Zimmer might ask (Sgt. Roth) on Thursday.
3/22/93
I've gotten away from writing in the journal but that's just a function of how busy I've been. Mr. Zimmer questioned Sgt. Roth extensively about the conduct of Richard's questioning. He wanted to characterize it as an "interrogation", while Sgt. Roth described it as an "interview", which only became more confrontational on the second day, when Clark stuck to his BS story about holding Noyers while Charlie shot her. Zimmer tried to impeach Roth's testimony by referring back to previous sworn statements the sergeant had made at a preliminary hearing. Specifically, Roth had said that a picture of Leslie Noyers was shown to Clark at one point in time, while on the stand he stated a slightly different point. It wasn't even important to the believability of the testimony, but Zimmer needed to show that the police fed Richard information which he simply "parroted" back to them. Zimmer wants us to believe that two seasoned cops who had a real suspect in custody (Chuck), were trying to get Richard to tell a story that they didn't even have the answers to by feeding him bits and pieces of information that may not even have told the true story. Richard supposedly put it all together exactly the way they said it, even though they hadn't gotten any information from Stevens.
Now the kicker - Richard says he shot Noyers. They would have railroaded Clark into saying that before trying to force him into confessing. I'll be more lucid about this when it's over.
Roth was the last witness. Then come the closing arguments.
The Prosecution Closes
Mr. Burr was first. Even though he took three quarters of one day and the entire day after, he was really just expanding on his case against Charlie. I didn't even take any in-court notes. I knew what he was trying to show. He described the law to us in his own terms, mostly dealing with first-degree murder. He wants us to convict TC on all four counts, alleging that Stevens had malice and predetermination. Second degree murder calls for malice without predetermination. Attempted murder is a situation where a person wishes to kill and acts on it unsuccessfully, something coming between the act and its completion outside of the design of the potential murderer.
Mr. Burr wants us to find the special circumstances in this case to be true as well. The first in the case of Leslie Noyers, where Burr believes TC lured her into a vulnerable position then aided and abetted Clark by giving him the weapon with the sole intent to kill.
In the Raymond August case, Rodney Stokes' testimony makes it clear that Charlie thought about what he did then sneaked up on him, taking him by surprise- "lying in wait" is the name of this special circumstance. If we find Charlie guilty of one first-degree murder as well as any other count of first- or second-degree murder, the special circumstance of "multiple murders" will apply.
Mr. Burr is not impressed by Dr. Cooper's theory on "coercive compliant" behavior. He pretty much reiterated his rebuttal to that theory. Zimmer tried to show places in Clark's testimony where he only fed back information given to him by the cops. Burr showed us the booking photo of Leslie Noyers, he played the tape where Richard describes her as having "sandy-blond" hair. The booking photo is a poor color rendition, and her hair looks almost black. The better photo of her, the one with her on the driveway of 541 Chetwood with her brains blown out, shows sandy blond hair. When Mr. Burr showed us that one, an older woman on the gallery began sobbing uncontrollably. It was a moving and difficult moment for all of us. All of us but Charlie, who was trying his best to stifle a laugh. The judge had us recess for five minutes, and the anger in the room was palpable.
One more round o' notes, then I gotta rely on memory....
Last Witness
On Tuesday, March 9, Sgt. Art Roth took the stand for the DA to testify as to the conduct of Clark's questioning. For the entire day he answered questions from Mr. Burr. Here are some points that really shot holes in Clark's account:
- From the time Clark was picked up in Monterrey until the night/early morning of August 1st, no mention was made to him of where any crime took place or what it was. Clark supplied the street name "Chetwood" and first said that Noyers had been shot dead.
-The interview was conducted in a passive, re-directive way, relying on Clark to provide the narrative after encouraging comments like: "Tell me more about that" and "Let's talk about that". No threatening or stern behavior was shown at that extended interview, yet Clark still unwound the yarn about the Noyers killing and the Rochon incident with very little persuasion. Hardly the picture Clark paints.
-I trust the testimony of Sgt. Roth because he is a cop. If he's outright lying about this conduct at the interview, he;s in for really big trouble. He states that no sterner measures were taken with Richard until he had already told the story I call "I held her while Charlie shot her", and refused to change it even though the officers knew it was heavy with inconsistencies. It was only after that version was directly challenged by the physical evidence at ha
nd that Richard broke down in the sally port and confessed to shooting her himself.I can hardly wait to see what Mr. Zimmer might ask (Sgt. Roth) on Thursday.
3/22/93
I've gotten away from writing in the journal but that's just a function of how busy I've been. Mr. Zimmer questioned Sgt. Roth extensively about the conduct of Richard's questioning. He wanted to characterize it as an "interrogation", while Sgt. Roth described it as an "interview", which only became more confrontational on the second day, when Clark stuck to his BS story about holding Noyers while Charlie shot her. Zimmer tried to impeach Roth's testimony by referring back to previous sworn statements the sergeant had made at a preliminary hearing. Specifically, Roth had said that a picture of Leslie Noyers was shown to Clark at one point in time, while on the stand he stated a slightly different point. It wasn't even important to the believability of the testimony, but Zimmer needed to show that the police fed Richard information which he simply "parroted" back to them. Zimmer wants us to believe that two seasoned cops who had a real suspect in custody (Chuck), were trying to get Richard to tell a story that they didn't even have the answers to by feeding him bits and pieces of information that may not even have told the true story. Richard supposedly put it all together exactly the way they said it, even though they hadn't gotten any information from Stevens.
Now the kicker - Richard says he shot Noyers. They would have railroaded Clark into saying that before trying to force him into confessing. I'll be more lucid about this when it's over.
Roth was the last witness. Then come the closing arguments.
The Prosecution Closes
Mr. Burr was first. Even though he took three quarters of one day and the entire day after, he was really just expanding on his case against Charlie. I didn't even take any in-court notes. I knew what he was trying to show. He described the law to us in his own terms, mostly dealing with first-degree murder. He wants us to convict TC on all four counts, alleging that Stevens had malice and predetermination. Second degree murder calls for malice without predetermination. Attempted murder is a situation where a person wishes to kill and acts on it unsuccessfully, something coming between the act and its completion outside of the design of the potential murderer.
Mr. Burr wants us to find the special circumstances in this case to be true as well. The first in the case of Leslie Noyers, where Burr believes TC lured her into a vulnerable position then aided and abetted Clark by giving him the weapon with the sole intent to kill.
In the Raymond August case, Rodney Stokes' testimony makes it clear that Charlie thought about what he did then sneaked up on him, taking him by surprise- "lying in wait" is the name of this special circumstance. If we find Charlie guilty of one first-degree murder as well as any other count of first- or second-degree murder, the special circumstance of "multiple murders" will apply.
Mr. Burr is not impressed by Dr. Cooper's theory on "coercive compliant" behavior. He pretty much reiterated his rebuttal to that theory. Zimmer tried to show places in Clark's testimony where he only fed back information given to him by the cops. Burr showed us the booking photo of Leslie Noyers, he played the tape where Richard describes her as having "sandy-blond" hair. The booking photo is a poor color rendition, and her hair looks almost black. The better photo of her, the one with her on the driveway of 541 Chetwood with her brains blown out, shows sandy blond hair. When Mr. Burr showed us that one, an older woman on the gallery began sobbing uncontrollably. It was a moving and difficult moment for all of us. All of us but Charlie, who was trying his best to stifle a laugh. The judge had us recess for five minutes, and the anger in the room was palpable.
One more round o' notes, then I gotta rely on memory....
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Trial - Doctor's Orders
The journal of Juror #5 in the case of The People of Alameda County v. Charles Arnett Stevens and Richard Clark.
...Which brings us to today. Dr. Cooper came back to the stand to continue his testimony. Mr. Burr began by detailing all of the sources used by Dr. Cooper in formulating his opinion that Richard was inclined to be compliant in the face of authority. First, Richard met with Dr. Cooper on two occasions for three hours each. He was given the MMPI, the TAT, and a Rorschach at the first meeting and the MMPI-2 and a Babcock Story Recall test the second time. They only spoke about the circumstances of his arrest and questioning for an hour at most. The doctor "skimmed the notes" and transcripts of the interrogation. He read the reports of a private investigator from five people who had known Clark and he used the data from six published articles dealing with alleged false confessions.
From the articles, Cooper found that false confessors can be broken down into three groups: the "kooks", (a very scientific term), who call or come in to confess to high-profile crimes for attention; people who are essentially brainwashed, believing they in fact committed the crime after being programmed or forcibly coerced into thinking so; and finally the people who are "compliant passive", who will follow the flow of a perceived dangerous situation and do or say things against their best interests in order to avoid conflict or harm. As expected, he feels that Clark fits this mold due to the abuse suffered at the hands of his father, the father figure looming large in the mind of this good doctor as the atypical symbol of authority.
Mr. Burr began his attack on the credibility of this theory and its application to Mr. Clark by asking whether Dr. Cooper had studied the notes and transcripts from the actual questioning sessions of August 2-3, 1989. "I did skim them" was the reply. ("Skim" them!) Then Burr discussed the five people spoken to by the private investigator hired by Mr. Zimmer. Turned out that four of them had only known Clark in his per-adolescent years. He is now twenty-five, so they are no more than faint background noise. The fifth person was Richard's godmother, who lives over at 740 27th street, right at the scene of Loquan Sloan's death. She was the one who confirmed that Clark came to see her three or four times a week right up until his arrest, hardly something useful in the proof of innocence.
Then the real show began, One by one, Mr. Burr picked up the six articles used as research by Dr. Cooper and picked them apart. First, we found that only two of the articles were written and published in the U.S., one was the result of a French study involving their methods of interrogation, and the final three were written by the same author concerning a British study of false confessions.
Mr. Burr picked up the first U.S. study. It dealt with a 22-question test to determine a person's predisposition to falsely confess. Though over four hundred people were tested, only fifty of them were actual criminals. And of the fifty, none of them was found in a court of law to have given a "true" false confession, under duress or otherwise. The rest of the people were students, school faculty at UC Berkeley, student nurses, etc. So Mr. Burr held up the Xeroxed packet and said: "So this study really doesn't have any relevance to this particular case, does it?"
"No, I suppose not", said the doctor.
Mr. Burr deftly tossed the report to the side of his table with a soft "plop", like the showman he is.
The next article was. of all things, highly critical of the use of psychologists and psychiatrists in legal cases to determine predisposition to false confessions. It stated outright that "one should be skeptical of any claim of false confession, considering the nature of the criminal to recant in order to escape punishment." While there might have been some useful information in the study, I can hardly see why the doctor would use it to the extent that a copy would have to be provided to the DA. Didn't they suspect that any reasonable person would use its very words against them? I've given up second-guessing, preferring to be surprised...it's much more interesting.
Plop...as that one bit the dust.
Next Day
I'm a little rushed this morning, so I'm going to shorten up my notes here and expand on them later. Today I expect to hear the first closing arguments and I don't want to let this slip away with whatever else goes down'
(1) French - 48 hours limit
- sleep deprivation
- physical abuse
- American system geared against
"plop"
(3) British
- client tells barrister he committed the crime, must plead "guilty"
- British system the model by which we offset our system to counter exactly that
kind of coercion
- No evidence in these studies of somebody "true" false confessing
- Just theoretical model, not applicable to this case
"plop. plop, plop"
3/10/93
continued...
Mr. Burr then looked over the results of the MMPI and discussed the results with the doctor. Mr. Zimmer wasn't very happy about it, as none of the data were used in his claim of coerced confession. The independent analysis of the report indicated that Richard Clark was "prone to using others hedonistically for his own ends irrespective of their welfare." He has higher highs and lower lows than the norm and is said to have a "borderline" personality. Truth to tell, with all the objection to this line of questioning by Mr. Zimmer I didn't really change my opinion of Mr. Clark or his ability to kill. Mr. Selvin got a hold of Dr. Clark briefly, just long enough to imply that the part in the MMPI about using other people might lead to Clark accusing Stevens of crimes he himself had committed.
Mr. Zimmer tried to do some spin control to counter the damage done by Mr. Burr's cross. It wasn't very effective, given the masterful mix of theatrics and painstaking homework done by the man. He was able to converse intelligently and concisely in the language of the specialty to turn the testimony of this defense witness into a flaming wreck.
Judging by most of the reactions I observed amongst the jurors, (a lot of) doubt about the idea that the state of mind Clark was under was not adequately addressed was confirmed. In other words the "expert" helped shoot bigger holes in the defense than some of the prosecution witnesses.
Getting down to the wire....
...Which brings us to today. Dr. Cooper came back to the stand to continue his testimony. Mr. Burr began by detailing all of the sources used by Dr. Cooper in formulating his opinion that Richard was inclined to be compliant in the face of authority. First, Richard met with Dr. Cooper on two occasions for three hours each. He was given the MMPI, the TAT, and a Rorschach at the first meeting and the MMPI-2 and a Babcock Story Recall test the second time. They only spoke about the circumstances of his arrest and questioning for an hour at most. The doctor "skimmed the notes" and transcripts of the interrogation. He read the reports of a private investigator from five people who had known Clark and he used the data from six published articles dealing with alleged false confessions.
From the articles, Cooper found that false confessors can be broken down into three groups: the "kooks", (a very scientific term), who call or come in to confess to high-profile crimes for attention; people who are essentially brainwashed, believing they in fact committed the crime after being programmed or forcibly coerced into thinking so; and finally the people who are "compliant passive", who will follow the flow of a perceived dangerous situation and do or say things against their best interests in order to avoid conflict or harm. As expected, he feels that Clark fits this mold due to the abuse suffered at the hands of his father, the father figure looming large in the mind of this good doctor as the atypical symbol of authority.
Mr. Burr began his attack on the credibility of this theory and its application to Mr. Clark by asking whether Dr. Cooper had studied the notes and transcripts from the actual questioning sessions of August 2-3, 1989. "I did skim them" was the reply. ("Skim" them!) Then Burr discussed the five people spoken to by the private investigator hired by Mr. Zimmer. Turned out that four of them had only known Clark in his per-adolescent years. He is now twenty-five, so they are no more than faint background noise. The fifth person was Richard's godmother, who lives over at 740 27th street, right at the scene of Loquan Sloan's death. She was the one who confirmed that Clark came to see her three or four times a week right up until his arrest, hardly something useful in the proof of innocence.
Then the real show began, One by one, Mr. Burr picked up the six articles used as research by Dr. Cooper and picked them apart. First, we found that only two of the articles were written and published in the U.S., one was the result of a French study involving their methods of interrogation, and the final three were written by the same author concerning a British study of false confessions.
Mr. Burr picked up the first U.S. study. It dealt with a 22-question test to determine a person's predisposition to falsely confess. Though over four hundred people were tested, only fifty of them were actual criminals. And of the fifty, none of them was found in a court of law to have given a "true" false confession, under duress or otherwise. The rest of the people were students, school faculty at UC Berkeley, student nurses, etc. So Mr. Burr held up the Xeroxed packet and said: "So this study really doesn't have any relevance to this particular case, does it?"
"No, I suppose not", said the doctor.
Mr. Burr deftly tossed the report to the side of his table with a soft "plop", like the showman he is.
The next article was. of all things, highly critical of the use of psychologists and psychiatrists in legal cases to determine predisposition to false confessions. It stated outright that "one should be skeptical of any claim of false confession, considering the nature of the criminal to recant in order to escape punishment." While there might have been some useful information in the study, I can hardly see why the doctor would use it to the extent that a copy would have to be provided to the DA. Didn't they suspect that any reasonable person would use its very words against them? I've given up second-guessing, preferring to be surprised...it's much more interesting.
Plop...as that one bit the dust.
Next Day
I'm a little rushed this morning, so I'm going to shorten up my notes here and expand on them later. Today I expect to hear the first closing arguments and I don't want to let this slip away with whatever else goes down'
(1) French - 48 hours limit
- sleep deprivation
- physical abuse
- American system geared against
"plop"
(3) British
- client tells barrister he committed the crime, must plead "guilty"
- British system the model by which we offset our system to counter exactly that
kind of coercion
- No evidence in these studies of somebody "true" false confessing
- Just theoretical model, not applicable to this case
"plop. plop, plop"
3/10/93
continued...
Mr. Burr then looked over the results of the MMPI and discussed the results with the doctor. Mr. Zimmer wasn't very happy about it, as none of the data were used in his claim of coerced confession. The independent analysis of the report indicated that Richard Clark was "prone to using others hedonistically for his own ends irrespective of their welfare." He has higher highs and lower lows than the norm and is said to have a "borderline" personality. Truth to tell, with all the objection to this line of questioning by Mr. Zimmer I didn't really change my opinion of Mr. Clark or his ability to kill. Mr. Selvin got a hold of Dr. Clark briefly, just long enough to imply that the part in the MMPI about using other people might lead to Clark accusing Stevens of crimes he himself had committed.
Mr. Zimmer tried to do some spin control to counter the damage done by Mr. Burr's cross. It wasn't very effective, given the masterful mix of theatrics and painstaking homework done by the man. He was able to converse intelligently and concisely in the language of the specialty to turn the testimony of this defense witness into a flaming wreck.
Judging by most of the reactions I observed amongst the jurors, (a lot of) doubt about the idea that the state of mind Clark was under was not adequately addressed was confirmed. In other words the "expert" helped shoot bigger holes in the defense than some of the prosecution witnesses.
Getting down to the wire....
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Trial - Psychoanalysis
The trial was becoming my life. No matter what else was going on, umpiring, family matters, what little time I spent at work, I was thinking about the testimony. We saw pictures, heard testimony, handled weapons, listened to tapes. The folks in the jury room got considerably less chatty and we tended to keep to ourselves. Now we would be hearing a lot of VERY dry psychobabble, but I vowed to myself I would hang in there. Not so for a couple of others, who sometimes went to a local bar on their lunch break and downed a couple of shots. Had to prod one of them several times one day just to keep him awake. This was important shit we were listening to and it upset me when any of the others didn't treat it seriously enough....
After Richard finally left the stand Tuesday afternoon Mr. Zimmer called Dr. Lowell Cooper, a clinical psychologist with about 30 years of experience in general psychology. After a rundown of his credentials he was acknowledged by all present as an expert in his field. Mr. Zimmer is counting on the testimony of this man above all else to prove that Clark made a false confession, not through any extraordinarily cruel treatment by the police, but through a more complex dynamic set up by past experiences in Clark's life. Through a continued pattern of physical and mental abuse, the doctor opines, Richard is inclined to read subtle and less threatening behavior and language to alter his story and avoid conflict with authority figures.
The doctor cites studies that back up the notion that a person might become so compliant that he will do or say anything to get out of a perceived threatening situation, even if it means losing sight of the long-term consequences of these actions. He compares Richard's situation to the nervous feelings that most people have when a policeman pulls us over. He's pretty convincing, stating that there are over one hundred documented cases of false confession on record. This is interesting. There might be a case here. I hear the doctor saying things that ring a bell within me about how abusive behavior can cause you later to become a peacemaker, a person who tries to avoid conflict by any means. I have something to think about as the evening recess is called.
3/3/93
On Wednesday Dr. Cooper had other commitments, so we heard from a few other folks. First was our old friend Tech Hutchinson. I don't understand why it was brought up, but a good 30 minutes was taken up by both Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Burr concerning the location of the lights at the Chetwood site and the relative quality of the lighting overall. That was it for him. Then came one of the more emotional moments of this trial (so far).
Mr. Zimmer called Leslie Noyer's Mom. The intent of this questioning seemed solely to be establishing whether it was normal for Leslie to carry a purse, whether she may have had any money or ID on her in any other location, and whether the mom saw Leslie carrying a purse out with her that fateful night. The worst part was when the mom had to explain that. She and Leslie had fought that night before the girl went out. Even though Leslie called her later to say "I love you. I'm coming home", I'm sure her Mom carries the memory of that fight with her even now. She was very upset and needed several moments to compose herself. She stayed in the courtroom afterward until the last recess that day.
Richard's sister, Kimberly Clark, came to the stand next. She was called up to confirm that Clark had pretty much broken off all contact with Stevens after Lori Rochon was killed. Then Mr. Burr began asking her about when she knew the details of Rochon's death. She was very uncooperative, saying that she did not recall anything she might have been told in 1989. Mr. Burr played back selected portions of a taped statement she made at the time, each time "refreshing" Kimberly's memory. The point here seemed to be that we are reminded of the consistencies in the story as told by Richard Clark. There was never enough time to line up all of the details of the story between the time Richard was arrested and the taped statement she gave. The only other alternative might have been intensive coaching by Clark of his sister.
To be honest I really don't think that's likely, given the rather simple mentality of the two. They aren't stupid or mentally deficient, but I don't get the impression that they would do that on the contingency that Richard would be arrested.
The last witness today was Terry Jones, the First Sergeant of Richard's platoon in the California National Guard. He described Richard as a good soldier, always ready to volunteer for extra duty; a meek acquiescent "gentle giant" who sometimes stepped into conflicts between fellow soldiers as a peacemaker. Mr. Burr tried to balance that testimony by presenting Clark as a good soldier who could kill on command. He tried to have us see this as the "job" of a soldier. Richard was in Communications Support, hardly a front-line position. He had a sharpshooter's qualification with the M16, but I knew that all military personnel are required to qualify in some category regardless of their specialty. Sgt. Jones wasn't very happy with Mr Burr but that's to be expected.
How many of us know somebody we could classify as a potential murderer?
Next: The beat drags on through the MMPI
After Richard finally left the stand Tuesday afternoon Mr. Zimmer called Dr. Lowell Cooper, a clinical psychologist with about 30 years of experience in general psychology. After a rundown of his credentials he was acknowledged by all present as an expert in his field. Mr. Zimmer is counting on the testimony of this man above all else to prove that Clark made a false confession, not through any extraordinarily cruel treatment by the police, but through a more complex dynamic set up by past experiences in Clark's life. Through a continued pattern of physical and mental abuse, the doctor opines, Richard is inclined to read subtle and less threatening behavior and language to alter his story and avoid conflict with authority figures.
The doctor cites studies that back up the notion that a person might become so compliant that he will do or say anything to get out of a perceived threatening situation, even if it means losing sight of the long-term consequences of these actions. He compares Richard's situation to the nervous feelings that most people have when a policeman pulls us over. He's pretty convincing, stating that there are over one hundred documented cases of false confession on record. This is interesting. There might be a case here. I hear the doctor saying things that ring a bell within me about how abusive behavior can cause you later to become a peacemaker, a person who tries to avoid conflict by any means. I have something to think about as the evening recess is called.
3/3/93
On Wednesday Dr. Cooper had other commitments, so we heard from a few other folks. First was our old friend Tech Hutchinson. I don't understand why it was brought up, but a good 30 minutes was taken up by both Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Burr concerning the location of the lights at the Chetwood site and the relative quality of the lighting overall. That was it for him. Then came one of the more emotional moments of this trial (so far).
Mr. Zimmer called Leslie Noyer's Mom. The intent of this questioning seemed solely to be establishing whether it was normal for Leslie to carry a purse, whether she may have had any money or ID on her in any other location, and whether the mom saw Leslie carrying a purse out with her that fateful night. The worst part was when the mom had to explain that. She and Leslie had fought that night before the girl went out. Even though Leslie called her later to say "I love you. I'm coming home", I'm sure her Mom carries the memory of that fight with her even now. She was very upset and needed several moments to compose herself. She stayed in the courtroom afterward until the last recess that day.
Richard's sister, Kimberly Clark, came to the stand next. She was called up to confirm that Clark had pretty much broken off all contact with Stevens after Lori Rochon was killed. Then Mr. Burr began asking her about when she knew the details of Rochon's death. She was very uncooperative, saying that she did not recall anything she might have been told in 1989. Mr. Burr played back selected portions of a taped statement she made at the time, each time "refreshing" Kimberly's memory. The point here seemed to be that we are reminded of the consistencies in the story as told by Richard Clark. There was never enough time to line up all of the details of the story between the time Richard was arrested and the taped statement she gave. The only other alternative might have been intensive coaching by Clark of his sister.
To be honest I really don't think that's likely, given the rather simple mentality of the two. They aren't stupid or mentally deficient, but I don't get the impression that they would do that on the contingency that Richard would be arrested.
The last witness today was Terry Jones, the First Sergeant of Richard's platoon in the California National Guard. He described Richard as a good soldier, always ready to volunteer for extra duty; a meek acquiescent "gentle giant" who sometimes stepped into conflicts between fellow soldiers as a peacemaker. Mr. Burr tried to balance that testimony by presenting Clark as a good soldier who could kill on command. He tried to have us see this as the "job" of a soldier. Richard was in Communications Support, hardly a front-line position. He had a sharpshooter's qualification with the M16, but I knew that all military personnel are required to qualify in some category regardless of their specialty. Sgt. Jones wasn't very happy with Mr Burr but that's to be expected.
How many of us know somebody we could classify as a potential murderer?
Next: The beat drags on through the MMPI
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Trial - Richard Clark Part 3
3/1/93
The main part of Mr. Burr's cross-examination was clear today. Once Richard found out that the DA had decided not to press charges when he told the truth abut Lori Rochon, why did he continue to lie about being the killer of Leslie Noyers?
"Because if I told them something completely false then they would figure out that I was not involved. I thought that Charlie would tell them, you know, that, well, 'Rich wasn't there, how could he say that?'"
Huh?
What kind of logic says the best way to get out of trouble is to admit that you killed somebody, using the facts you know the police already have?
Mr. Burr asked Clark why he didn't report the killing of Lori Rochon to the police.
"I didn't want to be a witness. I was afraid Charlie might hurt me or my family."
Alright. Given that Richard's family had very little (financial) support with him out of work, did he know about the $25,ooo reward for the arrest of the killer? It had been mentioned in the first article about the murder as well as radio and TV reports. No, he hadn't heard about it. Would he have claimed it if he had known?
"I would of tripped over something doin' it."
"So you just didn't know about it and that's why you never claimed it?"
"Yes."
"Perhaps you didn't know, or perhaps you just had something to hide..."
Over loud objections and the judge's order to strike the remark, we were sent to lunch knowing that Mr. Burr had just sunk a 40-foot 3 pointer.
March 8, 1993
Last Tuesday, Richard Clark was cross-examined by Mr. Selvin. (Stevens' attorney) He didn't take long, concentrating mostly on the testimony surrounding Lori Rochon's killing. After establishing that Richard was not being altogether truthful, he attempted to make the same impression stick that maybe Richard was trying to cover the fact that he himself was the shooter that night. Personally, I'm not buying it. It's an impression I get through the interview tape that can't be defined precisely. I wrote down in my court noted that the way Richard said "stupid" in the interview was enough to convince me he was being truthful.
As an aside here, let me get down an interesting observation I made. While the tapes of the various confessions to Noyer's killing were played, old Chuck Stevens seemed to be rather amused. It seemed like everyone else in the courtroom was intent on following the transcript, but I watched Stevens out of the corner of my eye. As we heard Clark describing all the different ways the murder went down, Charlie was smirking and shaking his head. Then we listened to the Lori Rochon tape. As Richard's voice intoned in that slow, dull way like in the other tapes, Stevens was intent, serious. He appeared to be following the transcript word by word, looking perhaps for any small inaccuracy. When that one tape finished, he was still solemn. I take that as a measure of his belief in the account. I've watched Mr. Stevens closely several times in order to gauge his reactions to testimony.
I'm no clinical psychologist, but after these many weeks I've seen a good cross-section of his behavior. I'm convinced he killed Lori Rochon. I think it is not yet firm in my mind whether this killing warrants the death penalty. However, there is no doubt so far for me that Stevens committed a capital crime in the murder of Raymond August. He was seen by Rodney Stokes as he (Stevens) raised a gun to shoot at him. I believe Stevens killed August because he went out that night to hunt humans on I-580. God help me if it is immoral to think it, but under the law as I know it, Stevens should be put to death for that.
Continuing on next time with Adventures in Psychology!
The main part of Mr. Burr's cross-examination was clear today. Once Richard found out that the DA had decided not to press charges when he told the truth abut Lori Rochon, why did he continue to lie about being the killer of Leslie Noyers?
"Because if I told them something completely false then they would figure out that I was not involved. I thought that Charlie would tell them, you know, that, well, 'Rich wasn't there, how could he say that?'"
Huh?
What kind of logic says the best way to get out of trouble is to admit that you killed somebody, using the facts you know the police already have?
Mr. Burr asked Clark why he didn't report the killing of Lori Rochon to the police.
"I didn't want to be a witness. I was afraid Charlie might hurt me or my family."
Alright. Given that Richard's family had very little (financial) support with him out of work, did he know about the $25,ooo reward for the arrest of the killer? It had been mentioned in the first article about the murder as well as radio and TV reports. No, he hadn't heard about it. Would he have claimed it if he had known?
"I would of tripped over something doin' it."
"So you just didn't know about it and that's why you never claimed it?"
"Yes."
"Perhaps you didn't know, or perhaps you just had something to hide..."
Over loud objections and the judge's order to strike the remark, we were sent to lunch knowing that Mr. Burr had just sunk a 40-foot 3 pointer.
March 8, 1993
Last Tuesday, Richard Clark was cross-examined by Mr. Selvin. (Stevens' attorney) He didn't take long, concentrating mostly on the testimony surrounding Lori Rochon's killing. After establishing that Richard was not being altogether truthful, he attempted to make the same impression stick that maybe Richard was trying to cover the fact that he himself was the shooter that night. Personally, I'm not buying it. It's an impression I get through the interview tape that can't be defined precisely. I wrote down in my court noted that the way Richard said "stupid" in the interview was enough to convince me he was being truthful.
As an aside here, let me get down an interesting observation I made. While the tapes of the various confessions to Noyer's killing were played, old Chuck Stevens seemed to be rather amused. It seemed like everyone else in the courtroom was intent on following the transcript, but I watched Stevens out of the corner of my eye. As we heard Clark describing all the different ways the murder went down, Charlie was smirking and shaking his head. Then we listened to the Lori Rochon tape. As Richard's voice intoned in that slow, dull way like in the other tapes, Stevens was intent, serious. He appeared to be following the transcript word by word, looking perhaps for any small inaccuracy. When that one tape finished, he was still solemn. I take that as a measure of his belief in the account. I've watched Mr. Stevens closely several times in order to gauge his reactions to testimony.
I'm no clinical psychologist, but after these many weeks I've seen a good cross-section of his behavior. I'm convinced he killed Lori Rochon. I think it is not yet firm in my mind whether this killing warrants the death penalty. However, there is no doubt so far for me that Stevens committed a capital crime in the murder of Raymond August. He was seen by Rodney Stokes as he (Stevens) raised a gun to shoot at him. I believe Stevens killed August because he went out that night to hunt humans on I-580. God help me if it is immoral to think it, but under the law as I know it, Stevens should be put to death for that.
Continuing on next time with Adventures in Psychology!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)