by A. Turk
They told the judge’s clerk where they were going in case the judge needed them. They didn’t even get a chance to order. The judge’s clerk showed up and informed them that the jury had three questions. Everybody rushed back to the courtroom.
Pierce and Garcia were waiting.
Judge Tanner took the bench and announced, “We’ve got three questions. The first is, can they see the videotape? Any objection? It’s an exhibit.”
No one objected, and arrangements were made to deliver the necessary equipment to the jury room.
The second question required more debate. The jury wanted a layman’s definition of the elements of second-degree murder and reckless homicide.
In the hope the jury would understand the crimes, Davis argued for the court to simplify the terms, but Pierce objected, “The law is the law.” She suggested that the judge simply direct them to the pages of the charge that defined the terms. She argued that the jury was obligated to apply that law even if it was difficult to understand.
Tanner agreed and sent a note directing the jurors to pages 11, 15, and 16.
The third question was very telling. The jury asked if the fact that the defendant was a doctor was to be considered in whether he acted recklessly. There was some debate, and Tanner ruled that the fact that he was a doctor was one of the circumstances of the case. They should consider his conduct as an ordinary person with medical training.
Davis, Sammie, and Morty returned to Mother’s, where Davis ordered steak and biscuits, French fries, and a chocolate milkshake. Sammie and Morty split a turkey club. After they ordered, there was a long silence.
Sammie broke the ice: “I can’t believe they wanted to watch that video for a third time. Do you think it was for the audio portion where he directs her to put pressure on the bleeding wound or for the sexual escapades?”
“The sex. It’s both horrifying and titillating.”
“Morty Steine, that’s disgusting!”
“Sammie, you might be right, but that doesn’t make it any less true.”
Davis agreed, and they ate lunch with no more conversation. He ate when he was nervous, and his full plate gave an indication of how he was feeling. The other two were nervous also. The afternoon dragged out; more cards and Morty kept winning. Davis drank one Fresca after another. Waiting on a jury was the hardest part of practicing law.
At three o’clock the phone rang, and Sammie picked it up. The jury had reached a verdict.
The Davis team scampered over to the courthouse. Judge Tanner was already on the bench when Pierce walked in. Escorted by a sheriff’s deputy, Garcia took his place next to Pierce.
Judge Tanner addressed the parties, “Before we hear from the jury and know the outcome of this trial, I want to commend the lawyers for the fine job they did. This was a complicated case, and they conducted themselves in an ethical and professional manner. Sure, we had our disputes and heated moments, but that’s just part of the process. We each play our parts trying to move it forward. It was an honor to preside over this case.”
The jury was brought in. Tanner wasted no time with pleasantries. He wanted to get to the verdict. “Have you reached a unanimous verdict?”
Randy Mayer, the foreman, responded, “Yes, sir.”
“As to count one, second-degree murder, how does the jury find?”
“Not guilty.”
Charlie Garcia squeezed Pierce’s hand. Harrelson, in an unusual exhibition of emotion, hugged Eddie Garcia. Charlie’s mother, Kiki, was in tears. The Davis team was visibly shaken.
“Reckless homicide, how does the jury find?”
“Guilty as charged.”
Tanner asked both sides if they wanted to poll the jurors and have them announce their verdict individually. Both sides declined.
Judge Tanner told the courtroom that if a juror wanted, and only if a juror wanted, he or she could share with the lawyers the deliberations and reasons behind the verdict. Some jurors wanted to leave the courthouse, but most were willing to talk to the lawyers.
Judge Tanner announced that Mr. Garcia would remain in the custody of the Hewes County sheriff pending sentencing, which he scheduled for Wednesday, February 28th.
Tanner adjourned court, and Pierce and the Davis team ran to engage the jury. As planned, they separated, covering three times the ground that Pierce could. They formed little pockets of one or two jurors with each lawyer.
Sammie sat with the assistant manager of Kroger and two of the housewives. Davis spoke with the foreman, Mayer, and the car salesman. Morty held court with four or five jurors. Pierce sat with the two older women. She was interested in their view of the sexual evidence. It all didn’t matter; she’d gotten Charlie off on the murder charge. She earned her fee. It was a madhouse but informative.
The jury had little debate about whether the defendant’s conduct was reckless. He was found unanimously guilty on that count on the first vote after they reviewed the exhibits and the testimony. Based upon the interviews, the Davis team learned that the jury despised Charlie Garcia. They also didn’t think much of Robyn Eden. Most jurors had no sympathy for her.
No one bought Dr. Townsend’s diagnosis or testimony. The jury thought that Dr. Limbaugh got it right, yet the jury did not convict for murder. Davis learned at one point it was eight to four to convict for murder, but the minority successfully argued that Danny Nix’s testimony created reasonable doubt as to who gave or sold her the oxycodone.
As a basis for the finding of not guilty, each juror cited Ms. Pierce’s unanswered challenge: Why would Nix lie? Davis’s explanation did not answer the question beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury also found there was reasonable doubt about what killed her. The oxycodone or the filler combined with the hydrocodone over time?
In a way a guilty verdict only on reckless homicide would be much easier to defend on appeal than a murder conviction. All of the lawyers in the courtroom and Judge Tanner knew that unless Garcia was sentenced to probation, there would be an appeal.
Morty, Sammie, and Davis left the courthouse licking their wounds.
CHAPTER SIXTY-EIGHT
SENTENCING
Wednesday, February 28, 2001
Although the verdict disappointed the Davis team, Charlie Garcia’s sentencing would be a joyous event. His recent conviction wasn’t Charlie Garcia’s only problem.
Charlie’s first problem was his conviction violated his probation in Kentucky. He no longer had protection from the retired Baxter, and DA Peter Taylor hated him. The day of the verdict Davis called DA Taylor and notified him of Garcia’s parole violation. He was a convicted felon. Taylor assured Davis that Garcia would soon be arrested, be ushered in front of a judge, and be serving his three-year sentence by April 1st.
Convicted of a Class E felony, Garcia faced a minimum sentence of one year to a maximum sentence of five years. Under Tennessee law, Judge Tanner had absolute discretion as to the term of the sentence. He heard the proof. The Court of Appeals would just affirm the length of the sentence as long as the evidence supported the jury verdict.
Under Tennessee law, there were thirteen enhancement factors that the state could argue suggested the maximum sentence should be imposed, and there were thirteen mitigating factors that indicated the minimum was appropriate. Not every factor was applicable to each case.
In the Garcia case the state had filed a brief, which argued that three of the thirteen enhancing factors applied. The state asserted that Mr. Garcia had a previous relevant criminal history, he was on probation, and his conduct violated that probation.
The defendant in briefs argued several mitigating factors were applicable. He asserted that his conduct was excused or justified; that he had no intent to violate the law; that he’d been under intense psychiatric counseling; and that jail wouldn’t rehabilitate this defendant.
The state went first and last. Davis called Valerie Daniels to the stand. She was dressed immaculately and didn’t appear nervous. She took the oath,
and Davis asked if she had a prepared statement.
She responded affirmatively and began to read, “I want to thank the jury and the court for all their effort in the prosecution of Mr. Garcia for the murder of my sister Robyn. I know we fell short on the murder charge. That was because the jury was compelled to find murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s a tough standard to prove. You heard the proof, and in sentencing you’re not bound by that high standard. For example you can, based upon Dr. Mann’s testimony concerning the linear pattern of the injection sites, find that Mr. Garcia injected Robyn in the groin during the long holiday. He was the instrument of her death. I understand you’ll be hearing Dr. Limbaugh’s testimony again. He was the most credible expert witness, I heard. The testimony of Dr. Townsend was insulting to our intelligence.
“The death of my sister cannot be reimbursed. There is no amount of jail time that would satisfy me, but that’s not the purpose of this hearing. Justice is what needs to be satisfied, not me. Justice dictates the maximum sentence of five years. Thank you for listening to my thoughts on this matter.”
Davis thought Daniels did a much better job this time in court than under Pierce’s cross-examination. The statement allowed her to speak her mind without Pierce’s interference. In fact Davis knew the words weren’t those of Daniels but of her speechwriter in Washington.
Davis called Dr. Limbaugh and conducted an abbreviated examination. Judge Tanner heard his testimony recently so Davis hit only the highlights. Dr. Limbaugh’s opinion of Charles Garcia hadn’t improved. He testified that based on the pleading filed by Ms. Pierce, it was clear that through the mitigating factors relied upon, Garcia was trying to manipulate the court. He testified that when Charles Garcia took the stand, every other word would be a lie spoken for the sole purpose of reducing his sentence. Davis thought that was probably true of every convicted defendant who testified at his or her sentencing hearing.
Davis gave a short summation, since he knew he’d have the last word. He hoped that Pierce would make the mistake of putting Dr. Townsend on the stand.
In conclusion Davis argued, “The court knows that I am not an experienced prosecutor. I promised the citizens of Tennessee to do my best. I did secure a conviction for reckless homicide. I submit the proof on that count was overwhelming. I’ve looked at the enhancement and mitigating factors that are applicable to this case, and one factor overshadows them all.
“In 1999 this man was given probation, not only for the same conduct, but also in regard to the same victim. He learned nothing from his narrow escape and just repeated his reckless conduct. This man needs to serve the maximum sentence. Thank you.”
It was the defense’s turn. As anticipated, Pierce had Charles Garcia read a statement. Like Davis, Pierce didn’t want her client cross-examined. The statement was a lot cleaner and safer. Charlie talked about how much he’d learned about himself from this tragedy. He attested his love for Robyn and the sorrow he felt without her. The loss of his child only added to his pain. He read with tremendous emotion, but his words fell on deaf ears. Dr. Limbaugh had convinced everyone in the courtroom, including the judge, that his attempt at remorse was simply self-serving lies.
Even Charlie realized his statement was falling short so he skipped the last four paragraphs and went to the conclusion: “A longer prison sentence isn’t going to rehabilitate me. Jail isn’t going to rehabilitate me. I’ve lost everything, including Robyn, who I loved with all my heart. If placed on probation, I would dedicate myself to helping others. I do have skills, even if I can’t be called Dr. Garcia.”
In summation, Pierce had a few choice words. She criticized the state for charging her client with murder. She argued that the decision to appoint Mr. Davis as a special prosecutor was politically driven and that Mr. Davis and Mr. Steine had their own agenda. She made several of the same arguments that she made in closing to the jury. After fifteen minutes she sat down, figuring she did her job when the jury acquitted Charlie on the murder charge. Charlie Garcia was about to be sentenced to whatever amount of time Judge Tanner deemed appropriate. She’d make money on the appeal.
Judge Tanner went over the elements of the crime and the enhancing and mitigating factors applicable to the case: “This defendant started life with everything. God gave him the intelligence to go to the best schools, which he was lucky his parents could afford. He was given the best training and had a good profession. He was not a kid from the streets who was born with two strikes against him.
“A young woman died as a direct and proximate result of his reckless conduct. I think he lied several times during his testimony, which clouded the murder charge. I can’t prove it, but I think he suborned perjury. I seriously question the testimony of Ms. Nix, but the state failed to sufficiently challenge that testimony. I agree with the jurors that her testimony did create reasonable doubt as to the murder count and so that count should have been dismissed.
“I agree with Mr. Davis that all of the enhancing and mitigating factors pale in comparison to the fact that the defendant was on probation for almost identical conduct involving the same victim. I use that term loosely. Ms. Eden, despite the testimony of the experts from both sides, was a willing participant in her own destruction, but there’s no question in my mind that the defendant pushed her along.
“I remind the defendant of a portion of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from seduction of any patient.’ I’ve viewed that videotape too many times, but there’s no question the defendant violated that part of his oath.
“For the reasons stated I hereby sentence the defendant to the maximum time prescribed by the statute, five years.”
He asked, “Ms. Pierce, do you have a motion?”
Pierce made a motion for a new trial, which was denied before Mr. Davis could stand up. The motion was a mere formality for the appeal.
Judge Tanner inquired about whether Ms. Pierce intended to file a notice of appeal.
“Yes, sir. I’ll file the necessary documents tomorrow. The defendant moves for the defendant to remain on bond during the pendency of the appeal.”
Before Davis could stand, Judge Tanner ruled, “Ms. Pierce, I’m going to grant that motion for fifteen days, to be reviewed after the expiration of that time period. I will also add a few additional conditions. The bond is increased from $1 to $4 million. As further security, Sheriff Buford Dudley will assign a deputy to the defendant’s leased residence, 24/7, to further guarantee that he remains there under house detention with the ankle bracelet. The defendant shall reimburse the sheriff’s office the cost of these assigned deputies. Are those conditions agreeable, Ms. Pierce?”
“Absolutely, Your Honor.”
Judge Tanner smiled and signed the prepared order relating to the continuation of the bond. Davis noticed a devilish smile on Tanner’s face. He didn’t have to wait long.
“I’d like to share a phone call I received this morning from DA Peter Taylor. He assured me that within the next two weeks he’d be extraditing Mr. Garcia to Kentucky to begin serving his three-year sentence. After that and the exhaustion of your appeal, Mr. Garcia can be a guest of the state of Tennessee.”
Without another word, Tanner left the bench.
CHAPTER SIXTY-NINE
CONFRONTATION
WITH AN EX
Monday, March 12, 2001
Until recently, Dan hadn't asked to see Carter. He wasn’t much of a father, even though Carter wanted to know him. Pierce wanted to prevent it and protect her son. She was contemplating what to do.
Other than the reappearance of Dan in Carter’s life, Pierce’s life was going pretty good. Her firm was prospering. The Garcia appeal was progressing. It would take years and would mean hundreds of thousands in fees. She deserved it; Charlie was acquitted for the murder of Robyn Eden; reckless homicide was manageable. Charlie was out on appeal under house arre
st, but unfortunately he’d simultaneously be serving twenty months or so of the three-year 1999 Derby sentence.
That was Charlie Garcia’s problem, not hers. She’d done a great job, and as a reward for herself and for Carter, she’d decided to put in a swimming pool and was looking forward to summer. The swimming pool company had dug the hole, and the plan was to install the rebar and pour the concrete tomorrow.
Carter was spending the night with Pierce’s great-aunt, the one who was the librarian at Pierce’s alma mater, Harpeth Hall, and who’d raised her.
Pierce answered the knock on the door. Dan, her ex, was standing there and gave her a hug. It was one of those awkward hugs where both parties stick their backsides out, avoiding any genital contact.
She explained that Carter was spending the night elsewhere, so they could discuss Dan’s visitation of their son openly and candidly. Pierce insisted that if he were going to begin seeing Carter on any regular basis, there had to be ground rules, and those rules would be reduced to writing. She took his jacket and hung it in the hall closet.
“You’ve got to be kidding. After everything I’ve done for you, you’re going to make me jump through hoops to see my son? You’re making a big mistake if you think you can treat me like that.”
Their discussion was going south quickly. Pierce needed to take charge of the situation. That wasn’t hard when her ex-husband was a drunk, an addict, and still madly in love with her.
Dan wanted to reenter Pierce’s life, and the first step was to negotiate visitation of Carter. He believed if he could get a foothold, he could wiggle his way back into Pierce’s life. Pierce had no such plans. Her plan was to get the drunk permanently out of their lives.
