Read the case State v. Ransom (pp. 411-425). Consider your verdict. Prepare a document that expresses your deliberation that justifies your vote of guilty or not guilty. The goal is not simply a w
Prosecution Witnesses: Dr. Arthur Hamilton
Robert Andrews, forensics expert
Lester Liggin, eyewitness
Allen Arnold, friend of the defendant
Detective Ross Reynolds, Lincoln County Sheriff’s Department
Scott Guyonovich, bartender
Defense Witnesses: Alice Lawrence
Judge: Jennifer Schwebel
District Attorney: Wendell Warren
Defense Attorney: Lisa West
JUDGE:
Is the State ready?
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Is the Defense ready?
DEFENSE ATTORNEY:
We are, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Does the State wish to make any opening remarks?
Opening Statement, District Attorney
Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, just after midnight, in the early hours of last September 10, Jim Larkin was brutally murdered in a drive-by shooting. As is often the case in brutal murders, no one actually saw the gunman: Murderers typically do their foul deeds under cover of darkness or in some other way hide their murderous designs from public observation. But that does not mean that they can always escape justice, for sometimes there is conclusive evidence—often a web of compelling facts—that points to the murderer just as certainly as an eyewitness standing and pointing a finger. And this is just such a case. The facts that we will bring before you will show, beyond even a shadow of doubt, that Robert Ransom brutally murdered Jim Larkin; and the vile nature of this crime, together with your certainty of its perpetrator, will lead you to one inescapable conclusion: Robert Ransom is guilty of murder, and must be found guilty of murder, and must pay for his crime.
JUDGE:
Does the Defense have opening remarks?
Opening statement, Defense Attorney
Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and Gentlemen, my learned friend just described for you a web of evidence. That is an accurate description: The web that the prosecution will weave is as flimsy and thin as the gossamer strands of the spider’s web. But don’t you be caught in it. Stick to the facts, and you will avoid its entanglements. The fact is that a terrible murder has been committed, a murder that does indeed cry out for justice. But convicting the wrong person will not bring justice; it will only compound the injustice. And so we must be very sure before we find anyone guilty of this terrible crime: sure beyond a reasonable doubt. The flimsy web spun by the prosecution cannot support such weight. A terrible murder was committed, yes; but if you find an innocent person guilty of that murder, then injustice will be piled upon injustice, and the actual murderer will escape justice. And as you fairly and critically examine the case against Robert Ransom, I think you must conclude that there is no good reason to think that he committed this terrible crime. Thus you must return a verdict of not guilty and send the District Attorney and the police out to find the real killer; only in that way can justice be served.
JUDGE:
The State can call its first witness.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WARREN:
The State calls Dr. Arthur Hamilton.
Dr. Hamilton enters the witness box and is sworn in.
WARREN:
Dr. Hamilton, could you tell us your position and your qualifications?
HAMILTON:
I am Chief Coroner for Lincoln County; I have an MD degree from Duke University Medical School, and I have done training in forensic medicine at several universities.
WARREN:
Your Honor, I ask that Dr. Hamilton be qualified as an expert witness.
WEST:
The defense has no objection, Your Honor; we certainly respect the expertise of Dr. Hamilton.
JUDGE:
Without objection, so ruled.
WARREN:
Dr. Hamilton, did you perform an autopsy on Jim Larkin?
HAMILTON:
I did.
WARREN:
Could you describe your findings?
HAMILTON:
The deceased had been struck by three bullets from a .38 caliber handgun; one had struck him in the left thigh, another had passed through his body, penetrating his heart; another had entered his skull and lodged in his brain. Either of the last two wounds would have been sufficient to cause immediate death.
WARREN:
So it is your conclusion that Jim Larkin was killed by shots fired from a handgun?
HAMILTON:
That is correct.
WARREN:
Thank you, no further questions.
JUDGE:
The defense may cross-examine.
JUDGE:
The defense has no questions of this witness, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Thank you, Dr. Hamilton; you may step down. The State may call its next witness.
WARREN:
The State calls Robert Andrews.
Robert Andrews takes the stand and is sworn in.
WARREN:
Mr. Andrews, could you describe your position and your qualifications for the court?
ANDREWS:
I am the director of the forensics laboratory for the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office; I studied forensic science at Ohio State University, where I received my Master’s degree in forensic science; I have since completed a number of in-service training institutes in forensic science.
WARREN:
Your Honor, the State asks that Mr. Andrews be qualified as an expert witness.
JUDGE:
Does the defense have any objections?
WEST:
The defense has no hesitation in recognizing the expertise of Mr. Andrews.
JUDGE:
Without objection, Mr. Andrews is qualified as expert.
WARREN:
Mr. Andrews, did you examine the bullets taken from the body of Jim Larkin?
ANDREWS:
I did.
WARREN:
And could you tell the jury what you concluded?
ANDREWS:
The bullets had been fired from a .38 caliber pistol.
WARREN:
Are you sure of that?
ANDREWS:
Positive. The markings on the bullets were quite clear; and those, when combined with the size and weight of the slugs, were all consistent with their being from only one type of weapon: a .38 caliber handgun. Furthermore, because of the distinctive markings of the slugs, it is clear that they were all fired from the same weapon.
WARREN:
So it is your expert conclusion that all three bullets that struck the murder victim were fired from the same .38 caliber pistol?
ANDREWS:
That’s right.
WARREN:
No further questions.
JUDGE:
Ms. West?
WEST:
Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Andrews, you have no hesitation in saying that the bullets were fired from a .38 caliber handgun, right?
ANDREWS:
Right.
WEST:
And that conclusion is based on your excellent training and the number of years you have spent making such investigations?
ANDREWS:
Yes.
WEST:
How many years have you worked at the county forensics lab?
ANDREWS:
Fourteen years.
WEST:
I guess you’ve examined a lot of bullets over the course of those years.
ANDREWS:
A lot of bullets, yes.
WEST:
And a lot of bullets from .38 caliber handguns, right?
ANDREWS:
Yes.
WEST:
In fact, that’s a pretty common handgun, isn’t it? Don’t the county deputies carry .38 caliber revolvers?
ANDREWS:
Yes, that is the standard issue sidearm.
WEST:
In fact, that’s a very popular weapon, in Lincoln County and elsewhere, right?
WARREN:
Your Honor, these questions are taking us off the track. The number of handguns in Lincoln County is not the issue, and besides, Mr. Andrews is an expert in forensics, not an expert in how many handguns there are in the area.
WEST:
Your Honor, the fact that .38 caliber pistols are widely owned and easily available in Lincoln County has obvious relevance to this case; and Mr. Andrews, through the experiences of his office, is uniquely qualified to testify on that issue.
JUDGE:
I’m going to allow this question, but I think this will just about reach the limit of the questions that can be put to Mr. Andrews on this issue of the number of .38 caliber weapons in the area. If the defense wishes to pursue this line beyond this question, you will have to call an expert more directly related to the issue.
WEST:
Thank you, Your Honor. Now, Mr. Andrews, would you say, on the basis of your long experience in the Lincoln County forensics laboratory, that .38 caliber handguns are fairly common in this area?
ANDREWS:
There do seem to be a number of .38 caliber pistols, that’s correct.
WEST:
A number of them, thank you. And would you say that a number of those weapons are owned by people who are active in selling and distributing illegal drugs?
WARREN:
Your Honor, I object to that question. It falls completely outside the expertise of this witness, and calls for speculation.
JUDGE:
That question is out of order. Ms. West, you have reached the limits of this line of questioning with this witness.
WEST:
Yes, thank you, Your Honor. And thank you, Mr. Andrews. We have no further questions.
JUDGE:
Mr. District Attorney, do you wish to redirect?
WARREN:
We have no further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Thank you, Mr. Andrews; you may step down. The State may call its next witness.
WARREN:
Your Honor, if it please the court, at this time the State wishes to enter People’s Exhibit 1. It is a copy of the vehicle registration for a car owned by Robert Ransom.
JUDGE:
Does the Defense have any objections?
WEST:
No objections, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Without objection, enter People’s Exhibit 1.
The bailiff marks the exhibit.
WARREN:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I am handing you a copy of the registration papers issued to Robert Ransom. As you will note, they are for the New Virginia registration of a Jaguar automobile, 2008 model, white in color.
The jury passes the registration among themselves.
WARREN:
The State calls Lester Liggin.
Lester Liggin enters the witness box, and is sworn in.
WARREN:
Would you state your full name and address?
LIGGIN:
Lester Howard Liggin, 788 Fairlawn Drive, Silverton.
WARREN:
Mr. Liggin, could you tell the jury where you were at just after midnight in the early morning of September 10?
LIGGIN:
I was on the corner, at 12th and Church; I had just left the Sideways Lounge, and was lighting a cigarette, and was walking toward where my car was parked on 12th Street.
WARREN:
Was there anyone else on the corner near you?
LIGGIN:
Jim Larkin was walking about 50 yards from me, on the sidewalk going up Church Street.
WARREN:
Did you recognize him?
LIGGIN:
Yes, I recognized him. I had seen him before at the Sideways, and he had walked out just ahead of me. I didn’t know who he was then, but I recognized him.
WARREN:
Could you describe for us what happened?
LIGGIN:
Well, while I was lighting my cigarette, I heard this car come roaring up the street. I don’t know where it came from, but it had its lights off, and the engine was revved up high. When it got even with Jim Larkin, it hit the brakes, and then there were four or five shots from the car, and Jim fell over, and I ducked down, and the car roared off.
WARREN:
Did you get a good look at the car?
LIGGIN:
Yes, I did.
WARREN:
Could you describe it for us?
LIGGIN:
It was a white, late-model Jaguar; a convertible, with the top up.
WARREN:
You’re sure it was a Jaguar?
LIGGIN:
Yes, I recognize a Jaguar; I was thinking about buying one a couple of years ago, so I looked at a lot of them. I can tell a Jaguar when I see one.
WARREN:
How far would you say the car was from Jim Larkin when the shots were fired?
LIGGIN:
Oh, maybe 20 feet; not more than 30 feet.
WARREN:
Thank you, no further questions.
WEST:
Mr. Liggin, you thought it was unusual that the car didn’t have its lights on, is that right?
LIGGIN:
Yes, I did.
WEST:
Why was that?
LIGGIN:
Why? Well, it was the middle of the night; it was dark; cars usually have their lights on when it’s dark.
WEST:
So it was quite dark on the street there?
LIGGIN:
Well, there’s a streetlight, but it is dark.
WEST:
You say you were leaving the Sideways just after midnight, is that correct?
LIGGIN:
Yes.
WEST:
That’s sort of a favorite hangout, right? A lot of your friends stop by the Sideways to have a couple of drinks, talk about football, maybe play a game of darts, is that right?
LIGGIN:
Yeah, that’s about it.
WEST:
So you sometimes go there after work, see your friends there?
LIGGIN:
Yes.
WEST:
On the evening of September 9, do you remember what time you arrived at the Sideways?
LIGGIN:
I think I went over after work; I get off at 8:00, I probably got to the Sideways about 9:00.
WEST:
Saw your friends there?
LIGGIN:
Yeah.
WEST:
Had a couple of drinks with some friends?
LIGGIN:
Couple of beers.
WEST:
Well, let’s see, you were there about 3 hours, maybe a little more, right? Maybe more than a couple of beers?
LIGGIN:
Maybe.
WEST:
Maybe substantially more than a couple?
LIGGIN:
I wasn’t drunk.
WEST:
But you had had a good deal to drink, right? You had been sitting in the tavern for 3 hours drinking, isn’t that right?
LIGGIN:
I drank some beer, but I wasn’t drunk.
WEST:
In fact, you don’t have any idea what sort of car you saw, do you? You were standing on the corner trying to get your balance and bearings, and a car roars by, and shots ring out, and you’re ducking behind a car, and you really don’t know what sort of car you saw, isn’t that right?
LIGGIN:
I saw a white Jaguar, I know that.
WARREN:
Your Honor, the Defense is badgering the witness.
WEST:
I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Mr. Warren, you may reexamine the witness if you wish.
WARREN:
Mr. Liggin, it was dark there; but in the light from the streetlight, do you have any doubt whatsoever that the car you saw was a white Jaguar?
LIGGIN:
No, I’m sure; it was a white Jaguar, alright.
WARREN:
Thank you, no further questions.
JUDGE:
You may step down. Call your next witness.
WARREN:
The State calls Allen Arnold.
Allen Arnold takes the witness stand and is sworn in.
WARREN:
Would you please state your full name?
ARNOLD:
Allen Barron Arnold.
WARREN:
Mr. Arnold, are you acquainted with the defendant, Robert Ransom?
ARNOLD:
I know Robert, yes.
WARREN:
Have you ever had occasion to go target shooting with the defendant?
ARNOLD:
Yeah, a couple of times Bob and I have driven out to my grandfather’s farm and shot at bottles and cans.
WARREN:
On those occasions, did the defendant bring a weapon with him?
ARNOLD:
Yes.
WARREN:
Would you describe the weapon.
ARNOLD:
It was a .38 revolver; silver barrel, I think the grip was some sort of brown or tan wood.
WARREN:
On those occasions, did the defendant fire the .38 revolver?
ARNOLD:
Yes, he did.
WARREN:
Was the defendant a good shot?
ARNOLD:
Yeah, he was pretty good.
WARREN:
Could you be a bit more specific? Was he able to consistently hit a target, what sort of target, what distance?
ARNOLD:
Well, shooting at, say, a beer can, from maybe 50 or 60 feet, he would hit it maybe one time in three, maybe a little better.
WARREN:
Did you ever see the pistol other than on those occasions when you went target shooting?
ARNOLD:
Once I was riding with Bob, and I opened the glove compartment to get a tape, and it was in there; and I’ve seen it at his apartment a couple of times.
WARREN:
When was the last time you saw the pistol?
ARNOLD:
I guess maybe about 3 months ago, at his apartment.
WARREN:
Thank you, Mr. Arnold; no further questions.
WEST:
Mr. Arnold, you say you and Robert went target shooting on a couple of occasions.
ARNOLD:
Right.
WEST:
How would you describe Robert’s handling of the pistol? Was he careful? Reckless? Or what?
ARNOLD:
He was very careful; he wasn’t waving it around and shooting wildly or anything.
WEST:
Did he ever fire the pistol while you were anywhere near the target?
ARNOLD:
No, he always made real sure that no one was anywhere near the target before he fired.
WEST:
Did he ever point the pistol at you?
ARNOLD:
No, of course not.
WEST:
Did you ever see him point a pistol at anyone?
ARNOLD:
No.
WEST:
Did you ever hear him threaten anyone with a pistol, or threaten to shoot anyone?
ARNOLD:
Never.
WEST:
So in all your experiences with Robert Ransom, you found that he used his pistol in a safe, cautious manner, purely for target shooting, and never threatened anyone with it or brandished it about or aimed it at anyone, is that right?
ARNOLD:
That’s right.
WEST:
Thank you, no further questions.
WARREN:
No further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
You may step down. Mr. Warren, you may call your next witness.
WARREN:
The State calls Detective Ross Reynolds.
Ross Reynolds takes the stand and is sworn in.
WARREN:
Would you state your full name and your position?
REYNOLDS:
Ross Reynolds, detective with the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office.
WARREN:
Detective Reynolds, were you involved in the investigation of the Jim Larkin homicide?
REYNOLDS:
Yes.
WARREN:
In the course of your investigation, did you have occasion to search the apartment and car of the defendant?
REYNOLDS:
Yes.
WARREN:
Was this an extensive search?
REYNOLDS:
Yes, very thorough and extensive.
WARREN:
In the course of your search, did you find any type of firearm?
REYNOLDS:
No, I did not.
WARREN:
Thank you, no further questions.
JUDGE:
Ms. West, your witness.
WEST:
Thank you, Your Honor. Detective Reynolds, prior to your homicide investigation, had you had occasion to visit the Westgate Apartment complex in the course of your work as a detective?
WARREN:
Your Honor, I object to this question; it’s obviously irrelevant to this case.
JUDGE:
Approach the Bench.
The following is a sidebar conference, out of hearing of the jury.
WARREN:
Your Honor, earlier investigations by Detective Reynolds cannot be relevant to this homicide case.
WEST:
Your Honor, the prosecution is obviously suggesting through this witness that my client purposefully disposed of his pistol in order to eliminate incriminating evidence; I believe we have a right to bring up other possibilities, such as the possibility of the pistol being stolen; Detective Reynolds’s investigation of burglaries at Westgate Apartments is thus certainly relevant.
JUDGE:
I’ll allow the questions. Step back.
WEST:
Detective Reynolds, had you conducted any earlier investigations at Westgate Apartments, within the period of 2 years prior to your visit in connection with this case?
REYNOLDS:
Yes, I had.
WEST:
For what purpose did you previously visit Westgate Apartments?
REYNOLDS:
To investigate a burglary.
WEST:
Was that the burglary of a single apartment?
REYNOLDS:
No, there had been two apartments burglarized during one weekend, when their occupants had been away.
WEST:
Among the items stolen during those burglaries, were there any firearms?
REYNOLDS:
Yes; a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 caliber pistol were reported missing from one apartment.
WEST:
Thank you, Detective Reynolds, no further questions.
WARREN:
Did you ever investigate a burglary at the apartment of the defendant, Robert Ransom?
REYNOLDS:
No, I did not.
WARREN:
To your knowledge, did Robert Ransom ever report a burglary or any other theft from his apartment?
REYNOLDS:
Not to my knowledge.
WARREN:
Thank you, no further questions.
JUDGE:
Thank you, Detective, you may step down. Mr. Warren, you may call your next witness.
WARREN:
The State calls Scott Guyonovich.
Scott Guyonovich enters the witness box and is sworn in.
WARREN:
State your full name.
Guyonovich
Scott Garrison Guyonovich.
WARREN:
Mr. Guyonovich, where do you work?
Guyonovich
I tend bar at the Wayward Inn.
WARREN:
Do you know the defendant, Robert Ransom?
GUYONOVICH:
I’m acquainted with him; he would sometimes come to the Inn when I was working, have a few drinks. We’d talk about baseball, that sort of stuff. I knew his first name, knew that he usually drank vodka tonics, that’s about it.
WARREN:
But you knew him, and would have no doubt about identifying him?
GUYONOVICH:
Oh, I could recognize him, certainly.
WARREN:
Did you see the defendant on the night of July 4?
GUYONOVICH:
Yes, I did.
WARREN:
Would you tell us what you observed?
GUYONOVICH:
Well, Bob was in the Wayward, had been there most of the evening; he was with a woman named Laura, she was usually with him when he came there. He had been drinking some, and while he was in the men’s room, this guy—I didn’t know him—came over to where Laura was standing at the bar, and asked to buy her a drink. I guess Laura was flirting a little, and she said OK. So I mixed drinks for both of them, and this guy picked up his drink, and raised it, and said something like “To your beautiful eyes.” About that time Bob came back to the bar, and sort of grabbed the guy by the arm, and said “Who are you?” or maybe “Who the hell are you?” And this guy said, “I’m the guy who is buying this lady a drink. Who the hell are you?” And then Bob said something like “I’m the guy who’s going to kick your butt,” and he took a swing at this guy, and knocked his drink out of his hand.
WARREN:
What happened next?
GUYONOVICH:
Well, Joe—he clears tables, and sort of keeps order in the place—grabbed Bob, and I got a hand on the other guy; and Joe—he’s a huge man, very powerful—got between them, and made it clear to both of them that there wasn’t going to be any fighting there. Then Laura was sort of embarrassed about the whole thing, and she got Bob out of there; anyway, they left.
WARREN:
As he was leaving, did the defendant say anything to the fellow at the bar?
GUYONOVICH:
Oh, the usual sort of barroom stuff.
WARREN:
Answer my question, please, as specifically as you can: What, if anything, did the defendant say to the man at the bar?
GUYONOVICH:
He was just sort of blowing off steam, you know.
WARREN:
Your Honor, would you please instruct the witness to answer my question?
JUDGE:
Mr. Guyonovich, the District Attorney has asked you a clear, specific question. He did not ask for your speculation about what the defendant may or may not have intended; he asked specifically what the defendant said. You must answer that question, as directly and accurately as you can.
GUYONOVICH:
He said “I’ll get you, I’ll blow your head off.”
WARREN:
“I’ll get you, I’ll blow your head off.” That’s what he said?
WEST:
Objection, Your Honor; asked and answered.
JUDGE:
Sustained.
WARREN:
Mr. Guyonovich, did you know the deceased, Jim Larkin?
GUYONOVICH:
Yes, he stopped by the Inn maybe a couple of times a week.
WARREN:
Do you know a woman by the name of Laura Larue?
GUYONOVICH:
Yeah; as I said, she used to come in with Bob; she was with him on the night we were just talking about.
WARREN:
Did you ever see Jim Larkin and Laura Larue together?
GUYONOVICH:
Yes, I don’t remember the dates, but I think twice, in late August, they came in to the Wayward together.
WARREN:
They had a drink together?
GUYONOVICH:
Yes.
WARREN:
Did they leave together?
GUYONOVICH:
Yes.
WARREN:
Mr. Guyonovich, where were you on the night of September 9?
GUYONOVICH:
I was at work, at the Wayward Inn.
WARREN:
Did you have occasion to see Robert Ransom?
GUYONOVICH:
Yes, he came in about 9:00 p.m.
WARREN:
What, if anything, did he say to you?
GUYONOVICH:
He asked if I had seen Laura that night, and he asked if I had ever seen Laura with Jim Larkin; and then he wanted to know if I had seen Jim that evening.
WARREN:
What did you tell him?
GUYONOVICH:
I told him I had not seen Laura, and that I hadn’t seen Jim that evening; and, well, you know, a bartender has to keep secrets, right? So I told him I hadn’t seen Laura with Jim.
WARREN:
What did Robert say after that?
GUYONOVICH:
He sort of sneered, said something like, uh, “Yeah, right”; then he left.
WARREN:
No further questions.
JUDGE:
Your witness, Ms. West.
WEST:
Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Guyonovich, how long have you tended bar?
GUYONOVICH:
About 4 years.
WEST:
During that time, have you seen any fights at the bar?
GUYONOVICH:
A few.
WEST:
Maybe more than a few?
GUYONOVICH:
Several, I guess.
WEST:
In these fights, usually someone’s had a bit too much to drink, there’s a punch or two thrown, it’s broken up, and then there’s a lot of wild talk and threats, is that the way it usually goes?
WARREN:
Your Honor, I must object; Counsel for the Defense is asking questions about the folkways and patterns of bar fighting and arguing, and this man is surely not qualified as an expert in that area; if she wishes to pursue this line of reasoning, she should bring in a tavern anthropologist to testify.
JUDGE:
Given the earlier testimony by this witness, I will allow him to answer the question. You may answer, Mr. Guyonovich.
GUYONOVICH:
Yes, that’s about it. They throw a punch or two, and then threaten to kill each other, and smash faces, and so forth; usually they’re back drinking together the next night.
WEST:
So you don’t take these drunken threats very seriously?
WARREN:
Your Honor ...
JUDGE:
Objection sustained; that’s about as far as that line of questioning can go.
WEST:
Mr. Guyonovich, you said that you knew Jim Larkin, that he came into the tavern perhaps twice a week, is that correct?
GUYONOVICH:
Right.
WEST:
During that period, did you ever have any trouble with him? Did he ever cause any trouble at the tavern?
GUYONOVICH:
No, not really.
WEST:
Didn’t you have to ask him to leave the tavern on at least one occasion?
GUYONOVICH:
Yes.
WEST:
Had he been drinking too much?
GUYONOVICH:
No; he, uh, was sitting in the back, in a booth in the back; and I saw him put his hand in his jacket pocket, and then put his hand to his nose and sniff, and I thought he might be using cocaine, and so I asked him to leave; actually, I told Joe to tell him to leave.
WEST:
What happened?
GUYONOVICH:
He left.
WEST:
He didn’t protest, didn’t deny he was using cocaine, he just left.
GUYONOVICH:
That’s right.
WEST:
While he was in the tavern, sitting in the back booth, did you ever see him pass anything to anyone, anything that might have been a packet of cocaine, for instance?
WARREN:
Your Honor, that question is completely out of line. There is no evidence whatsoever that the deceased ever passed illegal drugs, and the defense is using a leading question in a most improper manner to suggest something that is without any foundation, and is in any case totally irrelevant to this case.
WEST:
Your Honor, the witness has just testified that Jim Larkin used cocaine in the tavern; it is perfectly legitimate to inquire as to whether he might have also dealt the stuff he used; that is certainly relevant, since this sort of activity might have motivated his murder.
JUDGE:
I will allow the question, but I will caution the jury: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the mere fact that a question is allowed and asked should not be construed as suggesting anything whatsoever as to the subject of the question; allowing Ms. West to ask this question does not imply that Jim Larkin did deal drugs, nor does it imply that there is evidence that he did deal drugs. This is simply a question, nothing more: It is not an assertion, nor even a suggestion, of fact. Ms. West, you may ask your question.
WEST:
Mr. Guyonovich, while Jim Larkin was sitting in his booth at the back of the tavern, did you see him pass anything to anyone that might have been cocaine or some other illegal drug?
GUYONOVICH:
No, I did not.
WEST:
You never saw him pass cocaine; no further questions.
JUDGE:
Does the State have any more witnesses?
WARREN:
No, Your Honor; that concludes the case for the State.
JUDGE:
The Defense may call its first witness.
WEST:
The Defense calls Mrs. Alice Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence enters the witness box and is sworn in.
WEST:
Mrs. Lawrence, would you state your full name and tell us where you live.
LAWRENCE:
My name is Alice Ellen Winslow Lawrence. I live at the Westgate Apartments in Silverton, Apartment 7-B.
WEST:
Do you live alone?
LAWRENCE:
Yes, since my husband died 12 years ago.
WEST:
You certainly appear to be in excellent health; how are your vision and your hearing?
LAWRENCE:
Well, I’m in real good health, can still look after myself, my hearing is excellent, and with my bifocals I can see real well.
WEST:
Could you describe the location of your apartment in the complex?
LAWRENCE:
I live on the second floor, a corner apartment, near the entrance of the apartment complex, overlooking the apartment drive.
WEST:
So you can see the driveway from your living room window?
LAWRENCE:
Yes.
WEST:
And you can hear cars pass in and out of the complex?
LAWRENCE:
That’s right.
WEST:
Do you know the defendant, Robert Ransom?
LAWRENCE:
Well, I recognize him. I just know him to say hello. I know he lives in the next building, because I’ve seen him when I take my walk in the morning, and I’ve seen him coming in and going out in his car.
WEST:
So you recognize his car?
LAWRENCE:
Certainly; it’s white, a real sporty little thing; he drives it with the top down in the summertime.
WEST:
Mrs. Lawrence, from where you sit in your living room to watch television, can you see the driveway into and out of the apartment complex?
LAWRENCE:
Well, I have to stretch my neck a little bit, but I can see it.
WEST:
And you can hear cars pass from there?
LAWRENCE:
Sure can; sometimes in the summer it gets a little noisy.
WEST:
And is that the only driveway entering or leaving the apartment complex?
LAWRENCE:
That’s right.
WEST:
Now Mrs. Lawrence, on the night of September 9, were you at home?
LAWRENCE:
Yes, I was; I remember because I watched My Fair Lady on television, and I had been looking forward to seeing it; it’s one of my favorite movies, and I hadn’t seen it in years.
WEST:
Do you remember what time that was?
LAWRENCE:
Well, I believe the movie started at 10:00, and it was after midnight before it ended, because of all the commercials; that’s a little later than I usually go to bed.
WEST:
Did you see or hear Mr. Ransom’s car at any time during that evening?
LAWRENCE:
Yes, about the time the movie was starting, I remember I heard his car coming into the driveway—it makes kind of a special fast roar, that sports car—and I looked over and saw his car.
WEST:
You’re sure about that?
LAWRENCE:
Yes, I’m certain. I couldn’t really see him, because the streetlight wasn’t that bright; but it was his car, alright. I remember thinking that he was going a little too fast for that driveway.
WEST:
So you saw him coming into the apartment complex about 10:00 p.m., right?
LAWRENCE:
That’s right; at least, I saw his car coming in, and so I guess he must have been the one driving it.
WEST:
You’re sure his car came in. Now Mrs. Lawrence, was that the only time you saw his car that evening?
LAWRENCE:
Yes, it was.
WEST:
During the whole time you watched your movie, from 10:00 p.m. until after midnight, you never saw the defendant’s white sports car go out again?
LAWRENCE:
That’s right, I didn’t.
WEST:
And from where you were sitting watching the movie, you would have seen it if it had gone out, wouldn’t you?
WARREN:
Objection; that question calls for speculation on the part of the witness.
WEST:
No speculation is involved, Your Honor; I’m simply asking whether the witness was in a position to see a car if it had gone out of the driveway.
JUDGE:
The witness has already testified that she could see cars in the driveway from where she was sitting; that is all she can testify to: She can’t say whether she would have seen a car, in some hypothetical circumstances. Objection sustained.
LAWRENCE:
Yes, I would have seen it.
WARREN:
Your Honor ...
JUDGE:
Mrs. Lawrence, I have ruled against that question; you are not allowed to answer it. Members of the jury, please disregard anything that the witness might have said in answer to that question. Continue, Ms. West.
WEST:
So during the time from 10:00 p.m. until after midnight, while you were sitting overlooking the driveway and watching the movie, you did not see the defendant’s car leave?
WARREN:
Objection, Your Honor; that question has been asked and answered.
WEST:
No further questions.
JUDGE:
The State may examine the witness.
WARREN:
Mrs. Lawrence, My Fair Lady is one of my favorites also. Do you watch many movies?
LAWRENCE:
Yes, I do, especially musicals.
WARREN:
Now I imagine that like most folks, when you watch a movie, you don’t make it a point to watch all the commercials, do you?
LAWRENCE:
I certainly don’t.
WARREN:
And I believe you said that this particular movie had a lot of commercials?
LAWRENCE:
They all do; sometimes it just takes forever to watch a movie because of all those commercials, and they just go on and on with them.
WARREN:
There are a lot of commercials, aren’t there? And like most folks, you probably take advantage of the commercials to get up, stretch your legs, maybe pop some popcorn, or get a drink, or refresh yourself in the powder room, or even tidy up the dinner dishes, is that right? You don’t sit there glued to the television set during those long commercial breaks, do you?
LAWRENCE:
No, I sometimes get up, get a glass of milk, freshen up; I might get a treat for my cat, Whiskers.
WARREN:
Now your kitchen and pantry and bathroom, they aren’t right by the window, are they? They are over on the other side of your apartment, away from the driveway?
LAWRENCE:
That’s right.
WARREN:
And Mrs. Lawrence, you’re certainly not a nosy neighbor, are you? You don’t keep your nose out the window all the time, looking for who is going in and coming out, right? Of course you can’t avoid seeing and hearing cars pass when you are sitting by the window; but you wouldn’t run from the kitchen to make sure that a car doesn’t pass without your seeing it, would you?
WEST:
Your Honor, the District Attorney is leading the witness.
JUDGE:
Mr. Warren, I will grant some latitude during cross-examination; but your last question overstepped the bounds. Do not lead the witness.
WARREN:
I’ll rephrase the question. Mrs. Lawrence, do you exert yourself to make sure you see every car that enters or leaves the apartment complex?
LAWRENCE:
Certainly not; I can’t help seeing most of the cars that come and go, but I certainly don’t make any special effort to do so.
WARREN:
Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence; no further questions.
WEST:
Mrs. Lawrence, are you a member of the Citizen’s Watch group at your apartment complex?
LAWRENCE:
Yes, I am.
WEST:
And so as a member of that group, do you consider it your responsibility to keep your eyes and ears open for cars that don’t belong in the apartment complex, that might belong to burglars?
WARREN:
Objection; leading question.
JUDGE:
Sustained.
WEST:
Does being a member of your Citizen’s Watch group carry any special obligations for you?
LAWRENCE:
Well, it makes me more aware of the need to watch carefully about any strange cars that might be coming into the apartment complex, in case they belong to burglars.
WEST:
Burglary has been a problem there, hasn’t it?
LAWRENCE:
We did have some break-ins, yes, made me real nervous.
WEST:
Thank you, Mrs. Lawrence; no further questions.
JUDGE:
You may step down. Ms. West, do you have any other witnesses?
WEST:
No, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
The State may make its closing argument.
Closing statement, District Attorney Warren
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, we said at the outset of this case that we would show you strands of proof that would weave together to form a powerful and inescapable web of proof: proof that the defendant is the person who stalked Jim Larkin, drove a white Jaguar past the victim, and killed him with several shots from a .38 revolver. These are the ropes of that proof. First, consider who had a motive for killing Jim Larkin: who else but Robert Ransom? The lovely Laura Larue, who had been Robert’s girlfriend, was slipping into the same taverns where she had gone with Robert. But now she was on the arm of Jim Larkin, sipping drinks beside him, laughing at his jokes: and at the very same places where she once had gone with Robert! Not only would Robert be jealous of Laura’s new romantic interest, he would also be humiliated by having the two of them seen by his friends. And Robert Ransom has the potential: He is not a man to suffer jealousy patiently. When a man bought Laura one drink, he challenged the man to a fight, and then threatened to kill him. That’s the sort of reaction that jealousy provokes in Robert Ransom: “I’ll get you.” And the very night of Jim Larkin’s murder, Robert Ransom was looking for Jim, and for Jim with Laura; Robert Ransom was looking for Jim Larkin just 3 hours before Jim was murdered. Robert had the motive; Robert had the violent personality; did Robert have the means to get Jim Larkin? Certainly. He had the means of carrying out a murder, for he had a .38 revolver and he knew how to use it. And Jim Larkin was murdered by slugs accurately fired from a .38 revolver. Now Robert Ransom’s .38 revolver is missing. Not in his house, not in his car, nowhere to be found. And finally, Robert had the means of transportation to track down his victim: a white Jaguar. And it was a white Jaguar that was used in the killing. So wrap these cords together: Robert Ransom had the motive, the violent temper, a .38 revolver like the one used to fire the fatal shots, and a white Jaguar like the one used to hunt down Jim Larkin, drive by him, and murder him. Wrap those cords together, and they bind Robert Ransom to the murder of Jim Larkin. They bind his guilt with a certainty that eliminates any possibility of reasonable doubt. And they demand a verdict of guilty. The evidence points conclusively to Robert Ransom as the murderer of Jim Larkin; and that same evidence convicts him of first-degree murder: You cannot find him guilty of less. For when someone stalks his victim, waits for him in the night, drives into close firing range, and methodically pumps bullets from a .38 caliber pistol into his victim’s heart and brain, then there can be no doubt that this was a coldly calculated premeditated murder. The State asks that you weigh the evidence carefully, follow the law conscientiously, and return a verdict of guilty: guilty of murder in the first degree. Thank you.
JUDGE:
Is the Defense ready to present its closing arguments?
Closing statement, DEFENSE ATTORNEY
Yes, thank you, Your Honor; and thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, for your careful attention throughout this entire case. The defendant has a right to your fair, careful consideration of all the evidence and all the arguments; and that is all we ask. For when you scrutinize the case offered against Robert Ransom, its flimsiness is readily apparent. What is the case against Robert Ransom? That he is jealous when his girlfriend goes out with another man; well, if that is the charge, then he is guilty. But then, who is innocent? Of course he becomes jealous, as any of us would. But that is no grounds for thinking Robert guilty of murder: you know it, I know it, and the prosecution knows it, and that is why they try to prop it up with all these other things. What other things? Well, that Robert Ransom once took a swing at a guy in a bar. True enough: Robert was celebrating our national holiday, had perhaps a bit too much to drink, was provoked when his girlfriend teased him a bit with another man, and took a wild swing. And from that flimsy episode, the prosecution hopes to persuade intelligent jurors that Robert Ransom has the sort of violent, vindictive personality that would turn him into a cool, calculating, stalking killer. It just doesn’t add up; it’s too big a jump, from one small tavern altercation to cool, methodical murder. So what evidence does the prosecution have to offer you? Jim Larkin was killed with a .38 pistol; Robert Ransom owns a .38 pistol. So what? What does that prove? There are .38 caliber pistols all over this city! Walk in any gun shop, and ask to see a .38 caliber pistol: They’ll bring out whole cases of them. Go to any target-shooting range, and count the number of people taking target practice with a .38 caliber pistol. Check the holsters of the policemen in this very courtroom! If owning a .38 caliber handgun is proof of guilt, then there are lots and lots of guilty people in this city! The prosecution wants to make something of the fact that Robert’s pistol is missing. But Robert lives in an apartment complex where things go missing not infrequently, where dear old ladies like Mrs. Lawrence join crime watchers to struggle against theft and burglary. And of course, as we all know, what is one of the favorite theft targets? Firearms, and particularly pistols. So what remains of this powerful prosecution case against Robert? Well, there’s the white Jaguar: The murderer drove a white Jaguar—or perhaps, in the darkness of the street, some other model of sportscar, or a Jaguar of a different shade, or a different sort of car altogether; it’s hard to be sure. And Robert owns a white Jaguar. But what sort of evidence is that? Even if the murderer did drive a white Jaguar, there are plenty of white Jaguars—and lots of cars that closely resemble white Jaguars, especially on a city street at a bleary-eyed midnight after a few drinks. And Robert’s white Jaguar was safe at home, parked next to its owner’s apartment, from approximately 10:00 p.m.—when, according to Mrs. Lawrence, Robert drove it home—until well after midnight. Now the prosecutor wants you to believe that maybe that loud sportscar slipped past under Mrs. Lawrence’s window without her noticing, but I don’t think so. In fact, God bless her, I don’t think you could slip a skateboard past Mrs. Lawrence’s window without her noticing. I doubt that a single sparrow falls in the Westgate Apartment complex without Mrs. Lawrence taking note of it. So even if the murderer did drive a white Jaguar, there’s no reason to think that it was Robert’s; and there is excellent reason—the good, honest testimony of Mrs. Lawrence—to believe that it was not.
So who did kill Jim Larkin? I don’t know, and Robert doesn’t know; and unfortunately, the police don’t know: They simply charged the person who was easiest to find. We can guess about who might have done so. Was Jim perhaps involved in cocaine to the point that he sold some to support his habit? If so, he was entering into a very hazardous occupation, with a low life expectancy, especially if he started to edge into another dealer’s market. That is one of the frustrating things about being wrongly accused: You don’t know what happened, you can’t tell who committed the crime. But then, that is also one of the glories of our system of justice: The defendant does not have to prove someone else did it, because the burden of proving who killed Jim Larkin is on the prosecution. We have no idea who murdered Jim Larkin, or why. But one thing is perfectly clear: The prosecution has certainly failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robert Ransom is guilty; in fact, the whole case against Robert is a tragic tissue of happenstance. Robert should never have been charged with this terrible crime; but I am confident, that as you consider the facts carefully and impartially, you will end his awful nightmare with a verdict of not guilty.
Judge Schwebel’s Summation and Charge to the Jury
ladies and gentlemen of the jury:
Soon you will retire to the jury room to consider your verdict. All the evidence has been presented. It is now your duty to decide from the evidence what the facts are. You must then apply the law to those facts. It is essential that you understand and apply the law as it is, and not as you think it is, and not as you might like it to be. This is important, because justice requires that everyone tried for the same crime be tried under the same law.
The defendant has entered a plea of “not guilty.” The fact that he has been indicted is no evidence of guilt. Under our system of justice, when a defendant pleads “not guilty,” he is not required to prove his innocence; he is presumed to be innocent. The State must prove to you that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant in this case has not testified. The law of New Virginia gives him this privilege. This same law also assures him that his decision not to testify creates no presumption against him. Therefore, his silence is not to influence your decision in any way.
The defendant is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Jim Larkin. It is alleged that the defendant fatally shot Jim Larkin in the early morning hours of September 10. Under the law of New Virginia, a person is guilty of first-degree murder if he purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being. If you find—beyond a reasonable doubt—that the defendant, Robert Ransom, did purposely or knowingly cause the death of Jim Larkin, then you must return a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. If, however, you have a reasonable doubt that Robert Ransom purposely or knowingly caused the death of Jim Larkin, then you must return a verdict of not guilty. It is your exclusive province to find the true facts of the case and to render a verdict reflecting the truth as you find it.
I instruct you that a verdict is not a verdict until all 12 jurors agree unanimously as to what your decision shall be. You may not render a verdict by majority vote.
Now, members of the jury, you may retire to your deliberations and consider your verdict.1
