We, the Jury

by Robert Rotstein

  MR. CRANSTON: Objection. Irrelevant.

  MS. BLAYLOCK: Goes to pattern and practice of Amanda’s abusive behavior.

  THE COURT: The objection is overruled. You may answer, Ms. Rauch.

  A. I—

  THE COURT: Just a moment, ma’am. Mr. Cranston, is there anything you want to say to the Court?

  MR. CRANSTON: No, Your Honor.

  THE COURT: Because if you have an issue with my rulings, you can take it up on appeal. But you will not scoff or make sotto voce complaints to your colleagues.

  MR. CRANSTON: Judge Quinn-Gilbert, I wasn’t—

  THE COURT: Oh, yes, you did. Proceed, Ms. Blaylock.

  Q. Did you notice anything unusual or strange about Amanda’s behavior when she was having sex with the prospective client?

  A. Amanda got dominant with the guy. Giving orders. Then she got rough with him. At one point, she bit his nipple hard, and he yelled, told her she was hurting him. She drew blood.

  Q. Ms. Rauch, did you at any time enter into a sexual relationship with David Sullinger?

  A. Yes.

  Q. How did that start?

  A. Amanda asked me to sleep with David.

  THE COURT: Everyone, calm down, or I’ll clear the room of everyone but the parties and the news media.

  THE COURT: Good. Anyone who reacts to the testimony will be removed from the courtroom by the bailiff. Proceed, Ms. Blaylock.

  By Ms. Blaylock:

  Q. How did this request come about?

  A. We were coming back from a showing of a home late one night. Sometimes, we show luxury properties late, after the prospective buyer gets off work, so … On this night, Amanda asked if I wanted to grab some dinner. I said yes. You couldn’t turn her down without her getting … Anyway, we had quite a bit of wine, and she started talking about David’s sexual problems with her, and then told me that she thought he was cheating on her.

  Q. Was this the first time she’d suggested David was having an affair?

  A. No. It had come up before. It was crazy—she’d brag about her affairs, tell me how unattractive David was, and then get really jealous when she thought David was doing the same thing.

  Q. How do you know she was jealous.

  A. She’d say things like if she caught him she’d kill him, cut off his balls … violent things like that.

  Q. And yet, she asked you to have sex with her husband?

  A. Crazy, but yeah.

  Q. Did she tell you why?

  A. She said she wanted to find out once and for all if David was cheating on her.

  Q. What was your response?

  A. I thought she was joking at first, drunk. Then it became clear she wasn’t joking and she knew exactly what she was saying. She got really adamant about the whole thing. So eventually, I said yeah, I’ll try to seduce David. It was wrong, but I …

  Q. Why ever would you agree to something so wrong?

  A. You have to understand. Amanda … She was real powerful at my office, and she especially had power over me. If I displeased her, she could’ve ruined my career. And then, we shared this kind of weird bond … I don’t know if it was because of what she and I did in Denver, but … It was exciting, you know? And there was something about trying to seduce David that was exciting. The truth is, David and Amanda would hang out a lot with my boyfriends and I, and I got to know David, and he seemed like a real nice guy. Seemed to love Amanda a lot, strangely enough. I actually thought I’d be doing them both a favor, because I didn’t think he’d cheat on her, so I’d prove to Amanda that he was faithful and get him off the hook at the same time. Stupid, I know now. Warped. Amanda could make your thinking warped.

  Q. How did—?

  THE COURT: Either stand up all the way and object or sit down, Mr. Cranston.

  MR. CRANSTON: Apologies, Your Honor. On second thought, no objection.

  By Ms. Blaylock:

  Q. Did you eventually enter into an intimate relationship with David Sullinger?

  A. Yes.

  Q. How did that come about?

  A. David is a good carpenter, good at fixing things. Amanda suggested I ask him over to my house to do some repairs, you know, to install some undercounter lights, a spice rack, replace a loose toilet seat. Stuff like that. Amanda said she’d approve it, because he’d ask her approval before doing it. So he came over to my house, and I acted sexy, was just dressed in my little silk robe. And I guess I tried to seduce him.

  Q. You say you guess. You did try to seduce David, didn’t you?

  A. Unfortunately, yes. I’m so ashamed of it.

  Q. How did he react?

  A. He resisted. He said he was married, it wasn’t right. He said it wasn’t me, that I was beautiful. He said that if we did anything and Amanda found out, things would go very bad for him. He started doing the chores he came over for, but he didn’t leave, and I knew … I was persistent, kind of aggressive. Amanda told me to be aggressive, that David was into that. So I was, and David finally gave in. And I don’t think … He hadn’t had sex in a long time, so the frustration made him let his guard down.

  Q. Did you tell Amanda about your encounter?

  A. Sort of.

  Q. What do you mean, sort of?

  A. I lied and told her David wouldn’t sleep with me, that he was totally devoted to her. It’s totally what she wanted to hear. She got tears in her eyes.

  Q. Were you and David intimate only the one time?

  A. Unfortunately, no. We started an affair that lasted three months until David ended it. He said Amanda was getting suspicious, and if she found out, she’d kill us both.

  MR. CRANSTON: Objection. Hearsay.

  THE COURT: Overruled.

  Q. Did you think David was exaggerating, like people sometimes do when they use the word “kill”?

  A. At first. But he said he totally believed Amanda would kill us or use her money to hire someone to do it.

  MS. BLAYLOCK: No further questions.

  THE COURT: Cross-examination, Mr. Cranston?

  Cross-examination of Annalise Rauch by John Cranston, attorney for the People (excerpt):

  Q. Ms. Rauch, I take it that during your romantic relationship with David Sullinger, you saw him naked?

  A. Uh … yes, of course.

  Q. Did he have any scars?

  A. Did he …? Not that I noticed. I mean, nothing ugly or anything like that.

  Q. And you found yourself attracted to David Sullinger?

  A. Yes, of course. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have—

  Q. Your relationship with David was romantic, not just sexual, true?

  A. Yeah. That’s true.

  Q. He gave you presents?

  A. He did. He brought me flowers. He made me some jewelry. He’s very artistic.

  Q. Were you in love with David?

  A. I was infatuated.

  Q. You weren’t in love with him?

  A. I wasn’t not in love with him, if that makes any sense. It was difficult. You have to understand, there was a lot of guilt on both our parts.

  Q. Well, poor you, Ms. Rauch.

  MS. BLAYLOCK: Objection.

  THE COURT: The jury will disregard Mr. Cranston’s sarcasm.

  Q. You say David feared that if Amanda found out about your affair, she’d kill you both. Were you afraid of Amanda?

  A. I was … I mean, from a work standpoint and what she could do to my career, yes, but from a physical standpoint, no.

  Q. Did you believe David when he said Amanda would kill you both?

  A. I knew he believed it.

  Q. Did you believe it?

  A. It gave me pause, yeah.

  Q. Did you believe it, Ms. Rauch?

  A. I’m not sure. I knew Amanda was cheating herself, so …

  Q. At
any time, did David tell you that Amanda was physically abusing him?

  A. He implied it.

  Q. Did he say Amanda was physically abusing him?

  A. He said she was a mean bitch, and I knew already that she verbally abused him to me. She’d call him fat, stupid, sexless, all kinds of things, so that’s abuse to me.

  Q. Are you done with your answer?

  A. Yes, sir.

  Q. Will you listen carefully to my next question?

  A. I will.

  Q. At any time, did David say Amanda was physically abusing him?

  A. No.

  JUROR NO. 1

  THE FOREPERSON

  We return to the jury room gloomy, as if we’re soldiers and someone in our platoon went missing. I think it’s my job to say something nice about the Clergyman. He was one of us, right?

  “So I’d like to say that our departed juror—”

  “He’s not dead,” says the Architect. “He’s lucky it’s over for him and he doesn’t have to make this decision. Let’s follow the judge’s advice and not speculate about why he’s gone. Right now we’ve got a deadlocked jury, four to three, and I haven’t heard anything that’s going to get me to change my vote.”

  I’m about to demolish that rude woman with words. I can be very biting when I have to. Before I do that, the Jury Consultant says in a quiet voice, “I think it would be a good idea to move on. There’s still more to talk about. I have an open mind.”

  “Me, too,” I say. “That’s what we should do. Keep an open mind. Keep open minds. We’ve done most of the important witnesses. Except Annalise Rauch.”

  “No credibility,” says the Housewife.

  “An immoral, weak-willed woman whom you couldn’t believe if she told you the sun will rise tomorrow,” says the Grandmother.

  “Ditto,” says the Architect.

  “No argument from me,” says the Jury Consultant.

  “What a sleaze,” says the Express Messenger.

  The Student nods in agreement.

  Wow. I didn’t think Rauch was that bad. Yeah, she’s a slut, but does that make her a liar? Well, she is a liar, but that doesn’t mean she committed perjury on the witness stand. The fact that she’s weak-minded makes her less likely to lie, I think, because weakness can sometimes work like a lie detector machine. Who’s more likely to cave and tell the truth: the person with a backbone, or the weakling?

  “Yeah, she’s a liar; can’t trust a word she says,” I say, because there’s been too much disagreement between us already. I glance at the Architect and can’t help myself. “You know, Rauch kind of reminded me of you a little bit.”

  “What the fuck is that supposed to mean?” says the Architect, pointing an index finger at me, real aggressive. “What the fuck is that supposed to mean?”

  “I just …”

  Oh, my God, she’s standing up. She’s tall, and she works out, and I sit in an office all day, and she’s younger than me. The Housewife puts a hand on the Architect’s arm to restrain her, and the Architect pulls away from the Housewife aggressively but, luckily, sits down. The Architect gives the Housewife a dirty look. Wow, maybe they’re not such good friends anymore.

  The Architect overreacted. I only meant that she and Rauch look alike, which is a compliment, because Rauch is attractive. Considering the violent reaction, maybe I should’ve compared the Architect to Amanda Sullinger.

  “The neighbor,” says the Housewife, saving me some more. “We haven’t talked about the neighbor. On the night of the killing, the neighbor only heard Amanda shouting threats to David and not vice versa. Which means she was the aggressor.”

  “The neighbor is of my generation, even older than I,” says the Grandmother. “He and I have something else in common. We both wear hearing aids.”

  “I remember that,” says the Express Messenger. “Good point.”

  “I wouldn’t be surprised if he suffers from low-frequency hearing loss, which would mean he couldn’t have heard David’s deeper voice on the afternoon of the murder,” says the Grandmother. “David could have been shouting and the man wouldn’t have heard it.”

  “Even if David was quiet, it doesn’t help his case,” says the Jury Consultant. “If he truly feared for his life, he would have been shouting to high heaven. Who would be quiet during an event like that except a cold-blooded killer?”

  “That’s exactly what I was thinking,” I say.

  “There’s something else I haven’t mentioned,” the Grandmother says. “Another reason why I’m voting to convict. David is a man—stronger than Amanda was.”

  “Not a large man,” says the Housewife.

  “He was strong enough to take the pickax away from her,” replies the Grandmother. “Why didn’t he take the knife away from her, too?”

  “He couldn’t, because he was holding the pickax, and she picked up the knife and was slashing at him,” says the Housewife. “The ax is bulkier; the handle is long—much easier to grab. The knife is almost all blade.”

  “I have an idea,” says the Jury Consultant. “Madame Foreperson, may we ask the bailiff to bring in the pickax and the knife?”

  “We may,” I say, and then I go to the door and press the green button.

  JUROR NO. 52

  THE EXPRESS MESSENGER / ACTOR

  The knife that Amanda Sullinger allegedly attacked her husband with has a nine-inch, layer-hammered Damascus stainless steel blade and a magnolia handle. Of Japanese origin, it cost two hundred and seventy-nine dollars on sale and was a gift from Amanda to David when he decided to enroll in culinary school. The tool that caused Amanda Sullinger’s death was a pickax with a thirty-four-and-a-quarter-inch fiberglass handle and a stout steel head that combined a pick and a cutter. David Sullinger killed Amanda with the cutting end. A sucky way to die.

  When the bailiff walks in and sets the pickax and the knife—which is sheathed in its original wooden-block holder—onto the conference table, the Architect visibly shudders, and the Student hugs herself. The Foreperson twists her mouth in a grotesque grimace, making her look like she’s wearing an albino Halloween mask and kinky-blond wig. It’s the first time I’ve seen the weapons up close—we didn’t get to hold them during trial—and they look bigger and sharper than I remember. When I catch myself biting my nails, I drop my hand onto the table with a thud that makes the Student jump. The Housewife, the Jury Consultant, and the Grandmother don’t react to the weapons or my thud—tough women, like my mother.

  When the bailiff leaves the room, the Jury Consultant places the holder containing the knife on the credenza. Next, she picks up the pickax. “I’ll play the role of David,” she says. “Who’ll play Amanda?”

  “This is absurd,” the Housewife says. “And dangerous. The Sullingers were under intense pressure when the killing occurred. Everyone agrees one or the other of them was bent on committing murder. We can’t recreate that scene.”

  “We won’t need to,” the Jury Consultant says.

  “I wish the prosecution had done something like this during trial,” the Student says.

  “The demonstration might not have been admissible,” the Jury Consultant says. “Or things could have gone wrong, like the bloody glove in the O. J. Simpson trial. Or, even if the demonstration worked, it could have looked fake. Blaylock would have torn Cranston apart for grandstanding. We’re objective.” She looks at the Student. “Would you mind playing Amanda? You’re about her size and height.”

  The Student hesitates until the Grandmother says, “I’d like to see where this takes us, so I’ll volunteer to do it.”

  The Student shakes her head and lets out an exasperated sigh. “I’ll do it.”

  I’d like to help out, but I’m a man, much bigger than Amanda. I could play David, but that wouldn’t work, because I don’t know what the Jury Consultant has in mind. Even in this room, I can’t
get an acting gig. Why doesn’t the Architect or the Housewife or the Foreperson step in and save the Student? Because the demonstration might prove that David is guilty, and they’re the not-guilty faction? Is winning more important to them than justice?

  The Jury Consultant situates the Student to the right and slightly ahead of the knife holder. The Housewife and the Architect grudgingly agree that the Student is standing in the right place. The granite countertop in the Sullingers’ home was about six inches higher than the credenza, so the Jury Consultant uses two evidence binders to raise the level of the knife holder.

  Still carrying the pickax, the Jury Consultant moves so close to the Student that the Student cowers. The Jury Consultant pats her on the shoulder. “Sorry,” she says. “I promise it will be okay.”

  The Student smiles, but it’s forced.

  “I’m having us stand only about six inches apart because David testified that he wrestled the pickax away from Amanda and that Amanda immediately drew the knife from the holder and started slashing,” the Jury Consultant explains. She hands the ax to the Student. “When you say ready, I’ll take the pickax from you. And, for heaven’s sake, please, please, please don’t resist. Then, as quickly as you can, go for the knife. It should end up in your left hand. Amanda was left-handed, and David testified that she brandished the knife in her left hand. You’ll notice that because the holder is on the right, Amanda had to either twist her body to draw the knife with her left hand, or transfer the knife from her right hand to her left. Either maneuver would have taken a bit more time than if she’d gripped the knife with her right hand. Plus, the medical examiner testified that Amanda’s left cheek was bruised because of a blow to the face. David testified that he hit her so he could take the pickax from her. The punch would have slowed Amanda down even more.”

  “Or made her more murderous,” the Housewife says.

  “On your signal,” the Jury Consultant says to the Student.

  The Student bends her knees in a warlike pose and raises the pickax. The Jury Consultant steps forward, but then the Student cries, “Wait!” and lowers the weapon.

  The Jury Consultant reaches out and pats the Student’s arm. “Look, if you’re not up for this, maybe Madame Foreperson—”