In Self Defense by Susan Sloan (phonics books .TXT) 📕

King County, who had all claimed to be impartial in the matter of the People v. Clare Durant.

It was hard to know, really, how impartial they were, but Sundstrom and his staff, as well as David Johansen and his staff, had done the best they could, studying each of them carefully, reading between the lines of their responses to both general and specific questions.  And now it was time for both sides to put their choices to the ultimate test.

“Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mark Sundstrom, and I represent the people of the State of Washington,” he began.  “It will be my job, through the presentation of testimony and evidence and argument, to prove to you, beyond any reasonable doubt, that shortly after midnight on October 20th of last year, the defendant in this case, Clare Durant, did knowingly shoot her husband to death.”

It was clear that Mark Sundstrom was an upstanding man, a dedicated public servant, doing his job as well as he could, understated and attractive, without being too attractive, who spoke forcefully, but not stridently.  The jurors liked him.

“In this proceeding, Mrs. Durant will be offering an affirmative defense.  What that means is, her attorney will claim that his client was acting in self-defense when she shot her husband, because she believed she was shooting an intruder, a serial stalker.  However, the evidence and the testimony you will see and hear will not back that up.  Now, we’re not saying that someone wasn’t stalking Mrs. Durant.  Someone well may have been.  What we’re saying is that she had ample opportunity to know, before she pulled the trigger, that the man she was shooting was not an intruder, but was in fact her husband.  To prove it, we will show you some pretty gruesome crime scene photos, and I apologize to you in advance for this.  We will also be introducing crime scene evidence and show you reenactments performed by the police investigating this crime.  And you will hear testimony from witnesses who will speak to issues present in the Durant marriage.”

Having set the scene, the prosecutor then got down to the specifics of the state’s case, naming the witnesses in the order they would appear, and describing what each would be testifying to, and how it would all tie together to prove the charge of murder.  Finally, he looked at each juror.

“Do I pretend to know what motivated Mrs. Durant to kill her husband?” he asked.  “No, I don’t.  But you will hear testimony that confirms her husband was seeking a divorce.  You will hear testimony that he was making plans to marry another woman.  You will hear testimony that, when she found out about it, Mrs. Durant was so furious that she threatened to have him removed from his position as CEO of Nicolaidis Industries.  And you will hear testimony that, apparently, even this threat of dismissal did not deter Richard Durant.”

Sundstrom paused for a moment to let his words sink in.  “Was it simply a matter of her husband’s infidelity that made the defendant pull the trigger that fateful night?” he concluded.  “Was it the personal humiliation of knowing she was about to be discarded for another woman, a younger woman, a socially prominent woman?  Or was it the inevitable public embarrassment that was bound to come when others would discover that, despite all her years of good works, her marriage had gone bad?  Ladies and gentlemen, in a relatively short amount of time, you’re going to know everything we know, and then I’m going to be perfectly willing to let you make that decision.”

With a little nod, the prosecutor sat down.  His opening statement had lasted two hours and twenty-five minutes, and immediately thereafter, court was recessed for lunch.

***

“He makes me sound like such a monster,” Clare said as she sat and stared at nothing out the window of a small anteroom next to the courtroom that she and her attorney would have at their disposal for the duration of the trial.

“Don’t worry,” David told her.  “He doesn’t know what we know.”

***

At ten minutes past two o’clock that afternoon, David stood up and smiled a bit shyly at the jury.  “Ladies and gentlemen, my name is David Johansen,” he said in a soft, pleasant voice, “and I represent Clare Durant, the defendant in this case.  Which means that, until she gets up on the witness stand and speaks to you herself, I’ll be speaking for her.  I’ll do that by listening, as carefully as you will, to each and every one of the prosecution witnesses, and asking them the same questions I think you would want to ask, if you had the opportunity.  I will also be speaking for my client when I challenge every aspect of the evidence that will be presented here at trial.  Because, there’s never just one side to a story, you know, and when you’re dealing with a person’s life and liberty, as I am, and as you will be, nothing is more important than holding the prosecution to the highest possible standard of accuracy.”

If the jurors expected slick, sharp, expensive, they were disappointed.  David Johansen was not as tall as Mark Sundstrom, not as trim or as easy in his suit and tie, not even as attractive, perhaps.  But there was something nice about him, something comfortable, something that remind them of a brother, or a childhood friend, or the boy next door.  The jurors couldn’t help themselves -- they liked him, too.

              “As I think you already realize, you have an awesome responsibility ahead of you,” he continued.  “You must hear all the evidence that is going to be presented to you, you must weigh it, and finally, you must to come to a unanimous decision.  And all Clare Durant and I ask is that you keep an open mind until you’ve heard the whole story.”

              With that, he nodded to the jurors, to the judge, and sat down.

              Judge Lazarus, a sixteen-year veteran of the