A Hole In One

by Paul Weininger

  “Your Honor,” D.A Stanford said turning to the judge, “the prosecution requests a few minutes to set up equipment for a visual presentation of the evidence against the defendant.”

  “Granted,” said the judge.

  While the prosecution team shuffled around setting up AV equipment, the D.A. continued her closing summary. “So now that we have clearly established Mr. Straub’s motive, let’s review the evidence that he committed this heinous crime. The prosecution has set up a visual presentation to show the highlights of this evidence. Most of this evidence is circumstantial; so before we get into it, let me take a few moments to explain what circumstantial evidence means. Many people seem to think it means coincidental and inadmissible, but this is a mistaken assumption.”

  “Circumstantial evidence, as defined by the courts, is given the same credence as witnesses that may have actually seen the crime take place. When the preponderance of circumstantial evidence allows for no other interpretation, as is the case here, it must result in a determination of guilt. Let’s look at the highlights of the evidence that Mr. Straub committed this crime.” The D.A. signaled her team to start the Power Point presentation. “Remember, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that Straub took the shot, just convince you, the jury, that the preponderance of evidence shows Richard Straub is guilty of this murder beyond a reasonable doubt.”

  The D.A. had prepared her review by having the summarized key points projected onto a pull-down screen in the courtroom, which she would then comment on, one by one, after reading each heading.

  The victim and the perpetrator were twins. “According to Mr. Straub and Lorraine Anderson, the Rabbi’s aunt, both knew of an identical twin brother, but the Rabbi himself did not. According to the testimony of Joe Rung, Straub’s boss, Straub showed him a picture of the Rabbi in the paper and asked him to confirm their likeness, which he did. This was apparently when Mr. Straub began hatching his plan to take the Rabbi’s place.”

  Witnesses placed Mr. Straub at the scene of the crime. “The Rabbi’s neighbors, Frank and Colleen Weissman, identified Straub, believing him to be the Rabbi, as the person hauling a large bundle into the Rabbi’s backyard, obviously containing the body, and placing it on a pile of leaves and setting it on fire. The Weissmans also noticed that the Rabbi’s body language was distinctly different. In addition, the green pickup truck that Straub drove for work was seen in the vicinity of two of the shootings.”

  DNA analysis showed the victim and the perpetrator were extremely similar. “Dr. Collier, the forensics expert, found some minor differences in the DNA results of the brothers, but verified that the victim and Mr. Straub were almost certainly identical twins.”

  Dental analysis further confirmed the victim’s identity. “According to Dr. Stern, comparison with his x-ray records proved teeth found in the jaw of the burned cadaver’s skull most closely matched Rabbi Bloom’s teeth. Even the defense’s own expert witness was unable to refute this.”

  Fingerprints of the victim and Mr. Straub were similar but clearly different. “Our forensics team identified niney-eight percent of the fingerprints in the house as having belonged to the Rabbi, and two percent of the others belonged to Richard Straub and not any other individual, thus proving that Mr. Straub had spent time in the house.”

  The defendant carefully studied Rabbi Bloom’s appearance and mannerisms.“Straub’s cell phone had numerous pictures, videos, and audio recordings of Rabbi Bloom during his services at the synagogue. This clearly indicated planning on Straub’s part.”

  The defendant took Hebrew lessons so he could pose as the Rabbi. “We heard from retired Rabbi Isaac who testified that he gave Straub Hebrew lessons months before the murder, suggesting a long-range plan to take the Rabbi Bloom’s place.”

  Mistakes made by Mr. Straub while posing as the Rabbi. “You heard Dr. Stern’s testimony that Straub, while acting as the Rabbi, made numerous mistakes during ceremonies at the synagogue regarding the wording of prayers in Hebrew, mistakes that Rabbi Bloom would never have made. He also gave incorrect answers as to how long he had been Dr. Stern’s friend and served as Rabbi to the Sedona congregation.”

  The birthmark that Mr. Straub has but the Rabbi didn’t. “Dr. Stern also noticed this apparent difference and pointed it out to the detectives. The defendant had to show his birthmark in court; yet the real Rabbi did not have such a mark, as proven by videos of his past Sabbath ceremonies and the testimony of his aunt.”

  The defendant attended a gun show. “You, the jurors, were shown videotaped evidence that Straub entered a local gun show and exited with a carefully wrapped package. Mr. Straub denied having attended such a show, which was a lie, so any claim that the package did not contain a gun—in other words the murder weapon—is probably a lie, too.”

  The defendant admitted to desecrating the victim’s body. “Finally, ladies and gentlemen, Straub has admitted to desecrating and burning the Rabbi’s body, which is a felony, because he was afraid he would be accused of murder. He allegedly found the Rabbi’s body lying in the front door of his house but did not report it to the police. Instead, he burned it in the backyard so that the police wouldn’t suspect him of murder. But if he didn’t kill his twin, why hide anything? What he tried to do was eliminate the evidence of his crime!”

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” she concluded, “the great preponderance of the evidence presented to you cannot possibly lead to any other conclusion than Richard Straub is guilty of cold-blooded, first-degree murder in the case of Rabbi Bloom. Your Honor, the prosecution rests.”

  Thirty-Seven

  Defense attorney Jaxson approached the jury and began his closing arguments:

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Richard Straub is a liar. He lied to you, the police, the detectives, the D.A., and he lied to me, and then perjured himself here in court. He is guilty of illegally disposing of a dead body, cremating and desecrating it. What he did not lie about was that he did not kill the Rabbi. He confessed to everything else here in court but not to murder. Had Mr. Straub’s brother, the Rabbi, accepted his calls and learned that he had a twin, none of this might have happened. But he did not, and that was why Mr. Straub went to his home that day to prove it to him face to face.”

  “After he found Bloom dead at his front door and disposed of the body, he replaced the Rabbi at his synagogue, hoping that no one would notice the difference between the two. And why did he do all of this? For money! To get rich! You heard him tell you how he came out of poverty, foster families that abused him as he grew up. Here was his one and only chance at fame and fortune. People would now believe that he was Rabbi Bloom, and he would acquire all the benefits of the Rabbi’s status.”

  “Should Richard Straub pay a price for having committed these crimes? I can assure you that he will be punished severely; even if you find him not guilty of murder, he is still guilty of these other felonious crimes.”

  “Now, let me explain to you why the prosecution has not proven its case that Mr. Straub committed the murder of Rabbi Bloom, beyond a reasonable doubt.”

  “First of all, and most importantly, no one saw him shoot the victim. The prosecution has brought up one witness after another who was able to identify Richard Straub as the person posing as the Rabbi, but none who saw him with a gun or saw him shoot at anybody. They have also failed to prove that he was the one who shot at the other three golfers.”

  “Furthermore, the expert forensic testimony presented did not prove that Mr. Straub killed the Rabbi. Dental experts could not confirm to a certainty that the teeth found in the cranium were those of Rabbi Bloom’s. Crime scene experts found no fingerprints on the gun and none on the bullets or the casings that were retrieved to tie Mr. Straub to the weapon found at the scene.”

  “In other words, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution has failed to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Straub killed Rabbi Bloom or fired gun shots at anyone.”

  “My c
lient, Mr. Straub, has testified that when he went to the Rabbi’s front door to reunite with him, the Rabbi was already lying next to the door in a pool of blood with a bullet hole in his head. So why did he remove the Rabbi’s body and attempt to get rid of it permanently? Because of greed-—pure unadulterated greed—that we will concede. Mr. Straub assumed that no one but him knew they were identical twins, and that if he destroyed the body, he was well prepared to take the Rabbi’s place and no one would be the wiser. He also assumed with an estate as large as the Rabbi’s three acres, he would not be seen, even though he burned the body in broad daylight. And he assumed that if the remains of an unidentifiable dead body were somehow discovered in the backyard, no one would think that the Rabbi was the perpetrator, just that someone wanted to get rid of a dead body, and for some reason chose the Rabbi’s yard to dispose of it. He was mistaken in all these assumptions, and admittedly guilty of desecrating the body, but that does not make him the murderer.”

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am asking you to do the right thing. Surely not all of you who have listened to the testimony and seen the evidence have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Straub is guilty of murder, and therefore you must return from your deliberations with a verdict of not guilty.”

  “Thank you for all the time you have taken out of your busy lives to attend this lengthy trial. The defense rests and requests a ten-minute recess.”

  “Granted,” said the judge. He sent the jury to the deliberation room and told them they would be notified to return in approximately ten minutes.

  Albert Jaxson approached the prosecution’s desk and asked to meet with District Attorney Stanford along with Judge Garnett in his chambers to discuss a plea-bargain. District Attorney Stanford was not interested in the idea, but felt obligated to listen.

  The three of them retired to the judge’s chamber.

  “Your Honor, I asked for this hearing to plea bargain for my client,” said Jaxson.

  “You know, don’t you, that the court will convict him of perjury and desecration of a dead body regardless of the jury’s decision?” asked the judge.

  “Yes, Your Honor, I don’t see any way around that.”

  “What is your offer?” asked the D.A. of Jaxson.

  “Straub will plead guilty to manslaughter, claiming that when the Rabbi opened the door he attacked my client in fear of his life and my client fought back, accidentally killing his brother. This plea would call for a penalty of thirty-five years, no probation, and no death penalty,” answered Jaxson.

  D.A. Stanford was insulted by the offer. “You can’t be serious. No death penalty for murder one and only thirty-five years? I will discuss your offer with Detectives Pratt and Sommerville and the Rabbi’s only next of kin, his aunt Lorraine, and return with a reply. I strongly doubt that they’ll accept the plea, but I’ll present it to them.”

  After a short conference about the defense’s offer with the other three people concerned, she returned to the judge’s chamber with her counteroffer, which she said was final:

  “In lieu of the death penalty, we are prepared to accept a plea of guilty to first degree premeditated murder, life in prison with no possibility of parole. In addition, he gets five years for each assault of the other three shooting victims. Take it or leave it,” concluded D.A. Stanford.

  “I will discuss the offer with Richard and let the court know before the jury is set to deliberate,” said Jaxson.

  After a recess of two hours so he could confer with his client, Defense Attorney Jaxson told D.A. Stanford and Judge Garnett that “Mr. Straub believes he will be exonerated of the murder and refuses to accept the people’s counter. He wishes to continue with the trial.”

  Judge Garnett turned toward the jury and stated, “It is my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in deciding this case. After I’ve completed these instructions, you will go to the jury room and begin your deliberations. You must decide if the specific facts necessary to find the defendant guilty of the crime of premeditated murder in the first degree convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt. Your decision must be based solely on the evidence presented here.”

  “The law presumes that every defendant is innocent. The defendant does not have to prove his or her innocence or produce any evidence at all. The prosecution must prove guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ and if it fails to do so, you must find the defendant not guilty.”

  “What exactly is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? It is proof so convincing that you would be willing to rely and act on it, without hesitation. If you are convinced that the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then find the defendant guilty. If you are not convinced, then find him not guilty.”

  “Let’s review once again the rules of evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts that he or she has actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances tending to prove, or disprove, a fact. An example of direct evidence would be when you go outside and notice it is raining. You get a little wet and so you open your umbrella to walk to your car. An example of circumstantial evidence is when you are in your home and hear thunder and lightning outside and hear raindrops hit your windows; you look outside and see that it is raining, though you don’t necessarily get wet. There is no legal difference in the weight you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence.”

  “Under the Fifth Amendment, the defendant had a right not to testify. However, since the defendant voluntarily testified in this case, you must decide whether you believe the defendant’s testimony in the same way you evaluated the credibility of all other witnesses.”

  “You are now discharged and must go to the jury room to deliberate the testimony, exhibits and defense that were presented before you. Do not return until you have unanimously agreed to a verdict.”

  Thirty-Eight

  The deliberations began. The jury was comprised of twelve jurors and three alternates. The three alternates did not enter the jury room but would only participate should a regular juror drop out or be dismissed by the court. They were not permitted to listen to the jury’s deliberations so as not to be prematurely influenced. If they did become a juror, they had to learn the truth for themselves or ask questions of the other jurors.

  The jurors, referred to by number since their names in this matter were irrelevant. Juror One was assigned by the court to be the foreperson.

  As the jury entered the deliberation room, each grabbed a sandwich from a choice of a several different types on a large platter placed on a credenza. They also had choices of cold drinks, regular or diet, hot coffee, or tea, along with muffins, Danishes or bagels with butter or cream cheese. They each chose a seat at a long oval conference table and assumed that this would become their regular seat if deliberations continued into the next day.

  Before deliberations began, the forelady handed out eleven index cards to the jurors, keeping a twelfth for herself, and told them to write one word on their card: guilty or innocent regarding murder and nothing else. “Make sure to include your assigned juror number on your card,” she added. Since it was already decided that Straub was guilty of all other infractions, it was only the murder charge that they had to decide, and whether or not it included premeditation.

  After the jurors wrote guilty or innocent on their cards, she instructed them to fold the cards in half and return them to her in the basket. “This will be the only secret vote. Do not address each other by name, nor identify your card by name. Use the number you were assigned.”

  When the cards were returned to her, she asked juror number two, who sat next to her, to “Please tabulate the votes on the lined pad in front of you. Include all of the ballots, plus your own, and include mine as number one.”

  After the votes were counted, Juror One began the conversation: “Since we have seven votes for guilty and five for innocent, why don’t we start with those of y
ou who voted innocent and have you explain to the rest of us why you believe the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt? I will announce my decision last so as not influence anyone due to my being in charge in this room. Juror Four, I see by the card that you voted innocent, so why don’t you start us off?”

  Number Four was a woman in her early fifties, a retired schoolteacher and now a part-time librarian, according to the vois dire process.

  “I am just not convinced that he murdered anyone. I do believe however, there is something wrong with a man who will do the things he did, but I’m just not convinced he killed the Rabbi, his own twin brother, in cold blood,” she responded.

  Number Six addressed Juror Four incredulously, “You mean to tell me that on the video in the D.A.’s exhibit P-3, you didn’t recognize Straub walking into the gun show and leaving the gun show?”

  Juror Four replied, “No, I couldn’t say for sure if it was Straub or the Rabbi. You see, his collar was too high on his neck and therefore a birthmark was not visible. In the courtroom, when they zoomed in on his face, it was as if I had been standing next to him, and I still couldn’t tell if he was the Rabbi or Straub. I also couldn’t tell for sure if the man left with a gun in that package.”

  Juror Six immediately challenged Four. “It was a gun show, for heaven’s sake. What else would he have left with, a Subway sandwich or a McDonald’s hamburger wrapped up in newspaper?” he asked sarcastically.

  “I don’t think you need to get nasty about it. I was just giving you my opinion.”

  “I wasn’t trying to get nasty about it,” replied Juror Six. “I apologize if I came across that way, but we are dealing with a murder case here, and based on what you said, I just thought that you hadn’t put any thought into it.”