“I can only ask you to do the right thing,” Sequeira concluded. “Justice for Dr. Polk and his children is now in your hands.”
Judgment day for Susan Polk was near.
On Tuesday, June 12, jurors got the case—but not before Judge Brady informed Susan that she had failed to enter many of Felix’s naval records into evidence, meaning that jurors could not consider them in their deliberations. Susan was uncharacteristically subdued. Realizing the error was hers, she barely argued with Brady over the pronouncement. She requested only that the judge greet jurors each morning. She wanted to be sure that they were properly admonished not to read or listen to the news or talk outside the jury room about the case. She also wanted them to have a plastic magnifying device that Valerie Harris had purchased for her at Staples to be able to examine crime scene photos and other evidence carefully.
The judge agreed and then directed jurors to begin deliberations in the jury assembly room on the first floor after lunch.
Chapter Twenty-nine
THE JURY’S VERDICT
Jurors had been deliberating for four days when the announcement came that they had reached a verdict on Friday, June 16.
That morning, Susan, dressed in a black, long-sleeved shirt, sat alone at the defense table awaiting their decision. Her mother and brother were in San Diego and had asked that someone phone if there was an acquittal. Eli, the only son who had supported her at trial, was still in jail serving his sentence for assaulting his girlfriend.
Outside the courtroom, there were four uniformed deputies posted to handle the crush of trial watchers anxious to hear the decision. Prosecutor Paul Sequeira and Contra Costa District Attorney Robert J. Kochly seemed in good spirits as they stood in the hallway. Sequeira entered the courtroom first, with Adam, Gabe, and the Briners in tow. Susan’s two sons were dressed casually in jeans and short-sleeve, collared shirts.
It was 11:25 AM when a hush fell over the courtroom.
Fighting back tears, Susan turned to look for her sons in the gallery. Adam and Gabe were sitting shoulder-to-shoulder in the front row, the Briners by their side. Valerie Harris was in the courtroom, but not yet in her usual chair.
“Turn off all cell phones and Blackberrys,” the bailiff instructed. “No one is permitted to leave before the jury.”
“Count one,” clerk Nancy Chertkow read aloud from the verdict sheet. “Not guilty on the charge of murder in the first degree.
“On the count of ‘use of a deadly weapon,’” the clerk said “Not guilty.”
Susan looked astonished and just a bit hopeful. Then the clerk continued.
“Lesser count one, guilty of murder in the second degree,” Chertkow announced. “Use of a knife, true.”
Susan sat expressionless as the guilty verdict resonated in the courtroom. After three months of testimony, jurors had convicted her of second-degree murder and found that the special enhancement, using the knife in the act of murder, applied.
Adam Polk let out an audible sigh when the guilty verdict was read. From his seat in the gallery, he addressed the court. “Susan had no right to take him from us,” he said, thanking jurors for enduring the lengthy trial. Gabe was silent.
Susan Polk was impassive, revealing no emotion as she sat alone with her chin resting in her hand.
Members of the media were on the edge of their chairs, gathering up their belongings as jurors were individually polled and then led from the courtroom. The jurors’ exit prompted a mad dash to the first floor for the much-awaited press conference. After four months of testimony, everyone was anxious to hear what jurors had to say.
“We didn’t think Susan was credible,” jury foreperson, Lisa Cristwell, told the media. “We didn’t believe it was self-defense in any way.”
Picking up on the language of the trial, another juror, Kathy Somesse, described Susan as “delusional,” saying that while jurors didn’t believe the murder was premeditated, they also didn’t believe Susan’s version of events. In a one-on-one interview with Court TV’s Lisa Sweetingham, Somesse said jurors first ruled out self-defense with their own reenactment of the killing as Susan claimed it occurred.
“We actually reenacted the events that Susan said happened, and after doing that, we determined it wasn’t possible for her to inflict those stab wounds the way she said she did.” she said.
During the deliberations, she continued, jurors were “split between murder one and murder two, with some strong murder ones and some strong murder twos.”
“The evidence was pretty clear,” added juror Pat Roland.
Roland noted that Susan hid her husband’s car at the commuter station and initially denied any role in the killing. But, unable to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, the panel ruled out first-degree murder.
Roland also said jurors found testimony from Susan’s middle son, Eli, unconvincing, noting there was “a lot of coaching” going on between Susan and her son. In contrast, all twelve panelists agreed that Gabriel Polk’s testimony was “pivotal” to the case. “He was the first one on the scene,” said juror, Bob Borkenhagen.
“He was fifteen at the time of the murder, and his first reaction after finding his father’s body was not to go and tell his mother, but to hide from his mother and call 911 and say ‘my mother shot my father,’” Somesse added. “That was very telling.”
Somesse admitted that jurors remain perplexed as to Susan’s motive for the killing. “I think we all speculated what the motive was and wondered about it a lot,” she said. “But we really don’t know. I think it was a controlling thing.”
Remarkably, jurors said that Susan’s provocative behavior in court did not sway their opinion of the evidence in the case—though they did find it “painful” at times. “Good or bad, I got to know who Susan Polk is, as a person, and there was a point where I looked at all the facts in the deliberation room, and I asked, ‘Could Susan Polk have killed someone?’ and because I knew her, I felt the answer was yes.”
“Oh, my God, my life is over.”
Susan’s voice rang through the empty courtroom, as she comprehended the jury’s verdict. She had waited until the last spectator had filtered out of the room before reacting, and now, with Valerie Harris at her side, the outcome hit home.
“We’re just starting another phase of the fight,” Valerie Harris assured her, but her words seemed lost on Susan.
Once she regained her composure, Susan asked that Harris talk to the jurors on her behalf. She wanted to know their responses to two questions: how they addressed her credibility as her own attorney, and what she did or said that suggested she should not be believed? Continuing to look at the situation with an element of pragmatism, she asked Judge Brady to advise her about legal options. Brady responded by informing Susan that she would need to file supporting evidence to be eligible for an appeal, prompting Susan to charge anew that county officials could not be objective in her case. “Throughout this trial, there has been fabricated and suppression of evidence by county officials,” she complained. “It would be preferable to appoint the state public defender’s office.”
Outside the courtroom, Sequeira said he was “ecstatic” with the verdict, although he admitted that facing off against Susan “wore me down.” Prosecuting her had been the most difficult task of his career, he said, adding that his courtroom opponent was “the most hateful” person he ever met. Sequeira said his only regret was that he had been unable to counter Susan’s punishing character assassination of her husband. While he had potential witnesses who would have painted a “better perspective” of Felix’s character, the district attorney’s office had chosen to center its case around Susan’s role in the killing—and not on the couple’s relationship.
Over the course of the summer, Susan’s sentencing date was postponed several times. In July, she announced her desire to be represented by counsel Charles Hoehn at her presentencing hearing, but when Judge Brady declined to grant attorney Hoehn’s request for an immediate tran
script of the trial, the lawyer stepped down, leaving Susan with no representation. To further complicate matters, the Contra Costa County Bar Association’s Conflict Panel that assigns attorneys for defendants was unable to find anyone willing to take Susan’s case. Nineteen attorneys with homicide experience refused to represent Polk, citing conflicts of interest or jam-packed schedules.
In August, Valerie Harris requested a two-day delay to allow attorney Dan Russo to confer with Susan. But when the parties returned to court on Tuesday, August 15, the judge was informed that Russo was declining the case. He told Brady that Susan was “not completely comfortable with me.”
The lawyer told Brady that Point Richmond attorney Linda Fullerton, a member of the county bar association’s conflict panel, was interested in representing Susan, and the judge scheduled another hearing date. Outside court, Harris said Russo was “fabulous,” but that Susan needed a lawyer who could be available on a full-time basis to “hit the ground running.” They must also be open to the possibility of asking for a new trial, she said. As Harris said, “I’ve got a little laundry list of items to give to the next attorney.”
Meanwhile, Prosecutor Paul Sequeira accused Susan of stalling. He noted that almost two months had passed since her conviction and still there was no sentencing date.
“I’m going to ask for a reasonable date to be set,” he said. “The victim’s family has the right to a judgment entered.”
Susan faces incarceration at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla for a period of sixteen years to life. Opened in October 1990, the facility is located on 640 acres in Northern California and is the largest women’s prison in the United States. Susan would be sixty-two years old before becoming eligible for parole in 2020.
Sequeira raised doubts as to whether authorities would ever release Susan. “The parole board will only let you out after you acknowledge your guilt, say you’re sorry, and go through some therapy in prison,” he told reporters at a press conference. “I’ll let you figure out if any of those three things are ever going to happen.”
EPILOGUE
As this book goes to press, Susan awaits her sentencing by Judge Brady. Having found an attorney, Linda Fullerton, currently willing to handle her appeal, she received a six-month extension in August to obtain a transcript and file necessary motions for a new trial. While Susan’s decision to represent herself was a disastrous misstep, it is unlikely that the trial judge will determine that this obvious “ineffective assistance of counsel” will compel a retrial. The old adage, that anyone with himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client, may be true, but this poor decision is not legal grounds for a new trial. Despite the unorthodox proceedings, there does not appear to be any glaring errors that will ensure Susan receive another shot at an acquittal.
Susan has already been behind bars for several years. Interestingly, she seems to have adapted well to her regimented environment. Despite her assertions that Felix was an oppressive, controlling spouse, it may be that years of this relationship prepared her for her time in prison. She spends her time reading and writing, often isolating herself from the other inmates. Ironically, now she has plenty of time for the contemplative life she imagined leading in the wilds of Montana.
As tragic as her circumstances may be, they do not compare with the burdens her three sons may carry throughout their lives. The long-term psychological effects of their upbringing will manifest in myriad ways in the coming years. Ironically, eldest son Adam told me that he is contemplating a career in law. He should be able to get into a good program, having excellent grades as an English major and many accolades as one time student body president and head of the university’s honor society. He held down a job while achieving all of this and, at least outwardly, seems to be creating a semblance of normalcy in his world. Professing love for his mother, he nevertheless refuses to get sucked into an ongoing family drama now that the trial has concluded. However, he is the “father figure” now, and his two younger brothers will need his guidance.
The youngest son, Gabriel, was very lucky to have the Briners enter his life. A well-adjusted couple with big hearts, this duo is determined to help Gabe survive the trauma of his childhood. Their guidance and support will be critical, as he must have a healthy blueprint for families and relationships to heal these scars. As with the other boys, he is bright and capable, and with serious work, he may succeed in processing the emotional violence of his youth.
The one most in danger, I believe, is the middle child, Eli. Throughout the trial, he seemed to have adopted his mother’s delusions of conspiracy and her rebellious actions against anything that smacked of authority. He willingly chronicled a history to conform to her world despite so much evidence pointing to another reality. His own choices since Susan’s incarceration have been consistently bad; from his relationship with the much older girlfriend that produced repeated charges of abuse, to his acting out in ways that virtually assured that authorities, especially the police, would have to step in and control his behavior. This vicious circle—paranoid beliefs about authority, acting out so that he becomes a target and the inevitable clamping down on his freedom—will not be broken unless Eli gains personal insight that, thus far, does not seem to exist.
After many years at the hands of two people well-educated in psychology, it is ironic that more counseling and therapy may be the only hope for Eli’s salvation. Some people are capable of working through emotional troubles on their own or at least compartmentalizing the past such that they appear to function well in their daily lives. I am not optimistic this will occur for Eli. Despite his physical appearance, time spent around this young man made me acutely aware of his frailties. Coupled with the detrimental impact his recent imprisonment has had, and the essentially life-time incarceration of his only living parent, I do not believe the prognosis for Eli’s future is a good one.
At present, Eli has been released from jail. His grandmother, Helen, a figure virtually unknown to him until Susan’s arrest and one who reinforces her daughter’s skewed world view, has a condominium waiting for him in San Diego, but Susan is objecting to this arrangement. She wants him to stay in the Miner Road house completely alone, despite the planned sale of that home. Sadly, Eli continues to listen to such irrational advice from his mother.
He dreamed of entering the military. Maybe the discipline would have been a good balance for him, but I believe that insubordination would have been his likely reaction to that environment. Nevertheless, his criminal record has now foreclosed this career path. Will he reconcile with Adam and Gabe such that his remaining family can form a support unit? Again, that does not seem likely in the immediate future. Can Eli manage any remaining monies from his parent’s estate as he tries to get his feet on the ground? I fervently hope that alternatives present themselves for this troubled young man, but I cannot conjure such a scenario at present. I worry that, without extraordinary intervention, the Polk story has more tragedy in store for him.
In stories such as this, I am always searching for the larger meaning. Obviously, the issue here is recognizing the enormous repercussions that flow from dysfunctional families. Both Susan and Felix were set on a path in their early years that propelled them toward pain and grief in their lives. That the two would find each other is not so unusual. Society has learned much about codependent relationships in recent decades. Yet there were many warning signals ignored along the way. Many people in positions of responsibility were aware of the improper, unethical beginnings for the Polks, yet did nothing to address this.
Even more evident were the rampant behavioral problems exhibited by the Polk sons at relatively early ages. School professionals, members of law enforcement, jurists, and psychologists—all could see that these boys were having grave troubles, but they did little to challenge the underlying conditions at home. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to criticize, but the incidents were too numerous to chalk them up to minor difficulties in an otherwise normal family.
The literature on dysfunctional families has grown astronomically in recent years. The requirements that officials at school and elsewhere report and react to such events exist for a reason. More aggressive behavior by these authorities had no assurance of success, but much more could have been done.
Ultimately, the Polk family seemed to be on a runaway train barreling toward a cliff with no way to halt the looming tragedy. If Susan had not killed Felix, I believe another catastrophe would have presented itself. I cannot fathom that a divorce between these two people would have ended their dangerous dance; nor would a legal dissolution have repaired the younger boys, Eli and Gabriel. Adam simply removed himself from the family unit, exhibiting enough inner strength to reject the poison that was still infecting his siblings. What might have occurred had the younger boys continued as players in their parent’s drama will never be known. But it is not hard to imagine that some sort of violence would have occurred—an outcome that still threatens Eli.
Our families are the most formative influence on the human psyche. For better or worse, a childhood forever shapes attitudes, outlooks, and more subtle perceptions about the world. Felix brought enormous trauma and inner turmoil to his relationship with a very troubled young woman and, instead of healing her wounds, exacerbated her serious psychological problems. The couple then projected their disastrous mix onto three helpless children.
This is the story of so many of the people who fill our prisons today. Whether rich or poor, smart or simple, this group usually has been damaged long before they act out. Society cannot simply empathize and open prison doors because of a bad childhood, but it should understand that without addressing this insidious damage, incarceration will do little to affect what makes such people dangerous to others or themselves. Prison therapy is often seen as a weak, “liberal” response to criminal behavior, but it is one of the few measures that might actually rehabilitate those who will one day walk our streets again.
Final Analysis Page 35
