Lifetime Trial Part 2

The Guilt Phase

Opening statements had impact, especially for the prosecution. The line about being safe in a father’s arms was the opening line of the prosecution’s opening statement. It was especially impactful to me, as I am a father of four children (all girls between the ages of six and twenty as the trial was beginning). I have a strong belief that fatherhood is a role of discipline, strength and protection. Being a father meant that my children were always safest when with me.

The long and short of the case, without descending into too much detail, was that the Defendant killed his five children. The first child he killed he exercised to death, according to his confession. The other four, later that night, he killed via asphyxiation, strangling them either manually or with a belt. They were between the ages of 1 and 8. He then drove around for days with their bodies in his vehicle and drove through various locations in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. He was finally stopped at a drunk checkpoint in Mississippi, and the scent of death from the car alerted law enforcement, leading to his arrest and connection to law enforcement in South Carolina (who were looking for him and the children at the time).

All eighteen of the jurors (we chose to call ourselves Team 18) in this case sat as the prosecution laid out the horror of what had been done to the children. Every day that we sat in that court room was another affront to our ears and hearts. All the same, we sat and listened intently and with undivided attention. As a jury we came from various walks of life and various professional and family situations. We were parents and teachers and students. We were from various cultural backgrounds. But all of Team 18 had one main thing in common. We were all sharing this experience that was traumatic and at the same time one of the most important things that any of us had ever been through in our lives. It was that importance that kept us together and following the rules laid out before us at the beginning of the case. If we did not finish the task set before us, it would fall to someone else. And none of us wanted to see someone else having to suffer through what we were as a shared group experience.

So we kept it together.

Though we were forbidden to discuss the case (even with the others in the room with us) we found solace in each other’s company. We exchanged life stories. We told jokes. We talked about our families and the various experiences that had shaped our lives. We talked about television shows and video games and favorite and most hated subjects in school. We talked about our jobs and the things we liked to do to relax. In all, Team 18 got to know more about each other than some of us knew about our own families.

Our security team from SLED became integral parts of the team as well. They protected us and watched out for us throughout the length of the trial, from jury selection until the last of us got home the day of sentencing. We got to know many of the agents, and developed inside jokes with those who were responsible for keeping us safe. Meals were often eaten at a local restaurant, and for many of the agents it was their first time eating in some of the places we ate as a jury. In addition, any time we felt unsafe for any reason (and there were a couple of moments where people wandered too close to us) those agents were there to sweep us away and warn off the intruder.

There were also moments of life that occurred around us. We witnessed a fight break out in the parking lot of the courthouse. We looked down from the window on the top floor as a young couple were married in the courtyard of the building. We watched traffic and people coming and going. And in our trips out to eat we often had moments of brevity as we were being escorted in and out of places by our security team, as one or several of us would harass our security about driving or traffic (though all in good fun).

The trial moved on for several weeks, and we heard the defense as they laid out a case for insanity for their client. Understand my background… I have worked for law firms for many years. In school I have studied a combination of psychology and criminal justice (my dream job would be investigative psychology). So I found that I understood the evidence better than I may have without any of my college education. This knowledge, however, paled in comparison to that of the psychological and psychiatric witnesses that presented information to the jury (from both prosecution AND defense). I found myself listening intently as various theories and points of view were expressed on the behavior of the Defendant. I also found myself filling a notebook with notes and theories (if an idea popped into my head I always wrote it down so I would hopefully be able to get an answer for it down the line). In some ways, taking notes and analyzing the facts as stated helped me to keep things clinical. I thought about it as a puzzle or an analysis that I was trying to piece together. It was no less tragic, but it allowed me to think about what was being presented and view it without the human tragedy of it being the primary motivating factor.

Eventually, the Prosecution and Defense had both rested their cases and Team 18 retreated to the jury room to begin deliberations. The first thing we had to do was say goodbye to 6 of our number, as it was time for the alternates to be separated from the pack. That was a fairly emotional moment for most of us. We had known from the beginning that there would be several of us that would not be part of deliberations, and some people in the jury had actually resigned themselves to being alternates (or maybe hoped they were is more appropriate?). Despite the loss of six members of the team (they were taken to another room while we deliberated), we still felt the presence of everyone in the room.

Deliberations were a rigorous task. Two large tables were filled with every piece of evidence that had been presented to us during the trial. We were able to actually handle that evidence. Some pieces of evidence had stronger impacts than others. There was a Woody doll that belonged to the child who was exercised to death. This doll had been shown to us on the first day of testimony. It had been physically dismembered with the arms and legs removed from it (which would have required the strength of a full-grown adult to accomplish, as handling the doll actually revealed the strength of its construction). This doll had spoken to us the day it was showed to us as a pre-recorded message had come out of its sound box while the prosecutor was handling it (which had led to the jury being removed from the room and the batteries being removed from the doll). There were books and family photos and certificates of awards that the children had earned during school, as well as homework assignments and toys and hand-drawn pictures that reflected the children’s love for each other and for their parents. Hearing the tale of these exhibits paled in comparison to actually handling them and reviewing them ourselves.

The decisions regarding the four children who were asphyxiated were unanimous and with little contention. The child who was exercised to death (the owner of the previously-mentioned Woody doll) was the one that required debate amongst us, as we attempted to determine whether his death was premeditated or a horrible accident. Each member of the team expressed their initial opinion as we went around the table and laid out our individual thoughts. After that, we went to the evidence and listened to the confessions and reviewed everything else that related to that particular death. We were into the morning after we had begun deliberations by that point, and everyone was back with a good night’s sleep (as good as any of us slept during that trial). In the end, after reviewing everything and taking the time to allow people to go to the evidence that answered their own individual questions, that decision was unanimous as well. We were moved to the courtroom for the Clerk of Court to give the verdicts.

Guilty of first-degree murder on all counts.

We all went home for a couple of days until it was time for the penalty phase to begin. Once again, despite our verdict, we still were not released from the rules against speaking about the case. And despite the extra day between, sleep was not any easier to find, knowing the weight of what we had decided and the weight of the next decision to come. We reported on the day that the penalty phase was scheduled to begin, and we were immediately thrust into the new task. We were, once again, Team 18 united, as alternates sat in with the regular jurors for the penalty phase just as they had throughout the guilt phase.