Accused

by Brittany Ducker

  The media tried its best to address the sociopathic tendencies of Gouker, whom it portrayed as a violent ex-con with the apparent ability to charm and puppeteer those around him. Among the TV programs featuring the case were the Nancy Grace show and Jane Velez Mitchell’s nightly news program on CNN. They dubbed Gouker “Monster Dad” and asked if Little Josh was a “Baby Faced Killer.”4 As coverage of the trial progressed, viewers and reporters alike asked the same question: Was Josh Young a cold-blooded murderer like his demonic dad or just another victim of a sadistic psychopath?

  The media could not get enough of the story and relatives from both sides of the family were quick to grant interviews to various media outlets. Even those closest to Gouker, like his mother Ruby, spoke out supporting Little Josh’s innocence while blaming Big Josh for the crime. Sadly, shortly after speaking with the media on behalf of Josh Young, Ruby would succumb to her own demons. She died in 2013 of a prescription drug overdose.

  With the amount of press coverage the case received, it was surprising that the parties were able to find jurors who had not seen reports about the case on various media outlets. The coverage on HLN focused on the fact that Josh Gouker appeared to be a psychopath and repeatedly replayed coverage of his media interviews.5 It was hard to fathom how a person could seem so cold and calculating. Those reporting on the case in the national arena appeared to view Little Josh as a secondary victim of his biological father’s crime spree.

  It was shocking to the average viewer that Gouker, a virtual stranger to his son, was awarded custody of the boy so quickly after his release from prison, given his violent rap sheet and lack of connection to Little Josh over the preceding nine years. It was also surprising that although Gouker admittedly used drugs and alcohol daily, he was never given a drug test by Child Protective Services that showed a positive result or seemed to warrant removal from the household.

  It appeared that the national media was sympathetic to Little Josh and his was the main story on many news outlets each evening as the trial progressed. In contrast, the local media in Louisville seemed to air more footage of the people who claimed that Josh was guilty of killing Trey. When he appeared, Trey’s father was straightforward, passionate and unrelenting in his belief that Little Josh was involved in the crime. Local media did not show as much footage of Josh’s supporters, in contrast to their national counterparts.

  The social media firestorm that swirled around the story was even more damning than the news media. Josh’s supporters created a webpage dedicated to freeing him from custody. Its members clearly believed that Little Josh was innocent. However, several pages also sprang up that sought justice for Trey and that justice, in their minds, included a murder conviction against Joshua Young.

  The personal social media pages for several of the people involved in the matter, both integrally and peripherally, showcased commentary that threatened Little Josh’s life. Some people commented that they hoped he would be killed if acquitted and that they would ensure he never had a normal life. Other people commented that they hoped he would be beaten to death or that someone would take the law into their own hands and kill the boy. Where some people were concerned, they felt there was no need for a trial. Little Josh was already guilty in their minds and they wanted him to suffer physically for what they believed he did to Trey.

  As versions of the story proliferated, emotions raged out of control for friends and family members on both sides of the case which involved the savage murder of a child. Audiences across America turned to the media each night for updates on the story. Unfortunately, neither side appeared to feel that their entire side of the story was ever told. This was perhaps one of the most polarizing trials in recent history. To supporters on each side of the case, there was no gray area. The people who believed that Little Josh was a killer could not be swayed and the people who believed in his innocence did not waiver in their support.

  It became evident as the trial moved forward that the jurors would have a difficult task deciding the guilt or innocence of Little Josh. Those twelve men and women would need to look at all the evidence from an analytical and objective perspective. It was daunting, given the fact that emotions ran so high on both sides of the case. Trial watchers everywhere collectively held their breath as they wondered what verdict the jury would return.

  Chapter 16

  Closing Arguments

  After several long sessions of testimony, the time for closing arguments finally arrived. In the previous days of the trial, each side had presented its case through a parade of witnesses. Many of those witnesses appeared fiercely loyal to Josh Young and an equal number sought justice for Trey. Prosecutors had introduced countless pictures of the crime scene; jury members and viewers had endured cries of shock from Trey’s brokenhearted family as they were forced to view the photos of his battered body. The jurors had asked many questions, often revealing doubts about the testimony of witnesses, especially Josh Gouker. On the afternoon that closing arguments began, no one seemed to know what the jury would decide.

  Most experienced attorneys refrain from predicting verdicts. An attorney need only try one criminal case to learn the hard way that juries are unpredictable; submitting a case to a jury can be akin to playing the lottery or rolling dice. The jury in the Joshua Young case appeared competent and attentive throughout the trial. They obviously took their jobs seriously and were prepared to consider all the evidence and make a very difficult decision. They held the future of seventeen-year-old Josh Young in their hands.

  News outlets streamed live coverage of the trial and the days of testimony exposed jurors and television viewers to violence and family dysfunction in an unfathomable form.

  In the state of Kentucky, murder is a capital offense. Josh was a juvenile and, if convicted of murder, he faced a sentence of twenty years to life in prison. The jury could conceivably sentence Josh Young to spend the rest of his life behind bars if they believed him guilty of the most serious charge. He also faced a charge of tampering with physical evidence, a Class D felony. That charge held a penalty range of one to five years in prison. The defense team hoped for a complete acquittal in the case.

  Josh Young’s attorneys wanted jurors to retire to the jury room feeling sympathy for Little Josh. They needed to portray him as yet another unfortunate victim of Gouker, not a villain perpetrating Trey’s death. Throughout the trial, attorney Leslie Smith appeared especially attentive to Young; she often leaned toward him whispering explanations and guiding him through the trial process. He was only a teenager, yet he found himself in a very adult situation and Smith remained exceedingly helpful in ensuring that he understood the proceedings. Little Josh appeared especially young and vulnerable as the time for closing arguments approached.

  The courtroom was pin-drop quiet as the defense gave its closing statement first. Wearing a plum-colored suit, Leslie Smith rose and made her way slowly to the podium facing the jurors. Smith was the picture of professionalism as she began delivering her passionate pleas.

  “An Amber Alert was issued on June 16, 2011, because people were scared that Joshua Young was dead. Because nobody could find him,” Smith said, detailing the moment family members realized that both Big Josh and Little Josh were missing.1 Terrified that Little Josh was his father’s latest victim, they immediately notified police and a nationwide search for the pair began. She highlighted Jahaira Friend’s testimony. Jahaira contended that she was kidnapped by Big Josh and forced to drive Big Josh and his son to Alabama. Later Erin Specth testified that after Big Josh kidnapped her and prior to her release, Big Josh forced her to look into Little Josh’s terrified eyes and promise that she would not call police because his life literally depended on it.

  Smith moved to Gouker and his testimony, urging the jurors to disregard everything he had said. Characterizing him as a master manipulator, she blamed him completely for Trey’s murder. Her voice touched by strong emotion, Smith said that the only reason Little Josh was charged in the matte
r was due to statements made by his father. If police had not listened to Gouker, none of them would be in the courtroom. That was literally the only reason police even began to suspect Little Josh. She urged the jurors not to make the same mistake. They should not believe a word Gouker had uttered. After his chilling testimony, it was obvious that he enjoyed the attention and relished manipulating people. Her certainty was evident as she addressed each juror, “This guy is not a mastermind. He is a puppet master. He duped everybody…that’s why you don’t listen to him.”2

  Highlighting Gouker’s manipulation and his lack of remorse, she exclaimed, “The crime was horrible and that’s how you know who did it.” Waving her hands in the air and staring deep into the eyes of each juror, she questioned, “Do you really think he didn’t kill Trey?”

  Smith emphasized Gouker’s chilling testimony, his admission that as he sat in prison for years, he fantasized about killing someone upon his release. She characterized Gouker as a cold-hearted individual, a methodical planner who thrived on making others scared of him.

  She opined that this was actually a classic, clear-cut case of domestic violence. When Trey’s mother allowed Gouker into her home after his release from prison, the brutality and control started almost immediately. Gouker thrived on it and he was good at it. He was skilled in manipulating those around him. Within months of his arrival, he forced Amanda to quit the job she’d held for seventeen years. He terrorized her and her children and he fooled people outside of the family, because on the surface he appeared to be a jovial and friendly guy. Shaking her head, she continued, “This is not a difficult case at all. This is a really typical, horrible case of domestic violence and let me stop right there.”

  Pausing, Smith took a deep breath, “This is not about demonizing anybody. Amanda was being abused. Let’s get past that. It’s not about putting her down or anything like that. This was a house of domestic violence. This crazy guy who was home from prison…he walks right out and right to her,” she said referring to Amanda, “And that’s where he began manipulating everybody and duping them.”3

  Smith told the jurors not to feel badly if they had laughed during Gouker’s testimony. The counselor commented that Gouker appeared at first as a likable guy, a funny guy. He could turn on the charm if he wanted something from someone. He was able to fool so many people, people who were trained to spot manipulators like him. He convinced Child Protective Services that he should receive custody of his son despite his violent past and spotty track record. He persuaded his parole officer to allow him more freedoms and to believe that he was in compliance with his supervision plan when he was violating its conditions daily. When Amanda finally realized the true nature of Gouker, she terminated her pregnancy because she clearly saw the relationship’s direction and she did not like where it was going. He viewed that child, like he did all people, as his possession and anyone who took something from him should be punished. In the aftermath of the abortion, the situation in the home slowly began to escalate until it combusted in Trey’s murder.

  Leslie Smith next urged the jury to come to terms with the fact that they might never know exactly what happened to Trey the night of his death. She implored them, “Do not convict this boy because you don’t know,” as she gestured toward her young client. There were questions in this case that might never receive an answer.

  She proceeded to tell the jurors that Gouker had planned an alibi by making a sex tape with Amanda. However, she emphasized that this video had never been substantiated. There was never any proof that it actually existed. Gouker knew exactly what had happened to Trey and yet he continued to go about his life the next day.

  Once Trey’s body was discovered, his grief-stricken father, Terry Zwicker, was given the grave task of identifying the body and within five minutes he told Detective Russ that he believed Gouker was capable of the crime. But no one had listened. Gouker repeatedly asked to see the body as if he wanted to view what he had done in the light of day. Gouker convinced Detective Maroni that Amanda should remain with him during his police interview, even though that was against police protocol. These actions, Smith argued, were indicative that Gouker was a successful manipulator, a natural-born liar.

  Leslie Smith asserted that the case against Josh Young only existed because of his father’s statements. Gouker implicated his son to several people and Smith argued that all of his statements were a matter of transference, that the actions he attributed to his son were actually his own. He made statements that he felt no guilt; he disposed of the bloody clothes and murder weapon; he beat Trey to death. He was a violent man who had been previously convicted of sneaking up behind a seventy-one-year-old man, punching him in the face and choking him with his own belt. Smith contended that he did the same sort of thing to Trey; he snuck up from behind and hit the boy.

  Then she reviewed the forensic testimony. The expert had testified that an old wooden baseball bat did not cause Trey’s injuries. This was especially important, because the witnesses who claimed Little Josh confessed said he told them he used an antique bat. Per the medical testimony, that was impossible. The expert also testified that he firmly believed that Trey’s injuries were caused by a single perpetrator who inflicted all the injuries while standing in the same position.

  Smith was quick to inform the jury that they could review any testimony and any prerecorded statements introduced during the trial. She urged them to review Little Josh’s initial interview with Detective Maroni at the crime scene. In the tape, “He was crying in shock like people who feel things,” she emphasized, unlike his father who doesn’t “feel anything, ever.”

  She advised the jury that Josh Young was an impressionable boy living in a house of chaos and horrors. During the trial, the prosecutors emphasized that Josh Young wanted to live with his father, even despite his history and the dysfunction in the home. Smith claimed that that “jerk of a dad” was all Little Josh had in the world after his mother’s death and that wanting to be with his father was a natural feeling. It did not make him evil like his father. He was a child who wanted a family and wanted to feel loved. She asked the jury, “Why aren’t all the kids in this situation victims?” Clearly they were all controlled and mistreated by Gouker. The answer, she claimed, was simply “because Gouker said so.”4

  Throughout the trial, the prosecution had argued that Josh Gouker was trying to protect his son from prosecution. Smith went to work dispelling this belief, arguing that Gouker’s testimony had “nothing to do with saving his son.” There was something “not wired right” in Gouker and he was incapable of feeling anything. Smith opined that “he took great pleasure in killing that poor boy” and that any benefit to Little Josh given by his testimony was only collateral. Gouker loved no one but himself.

  As her argument wound to a close, Smith reminded jurors of the presumption of innocence and urged them to free Little Josh. With great conviction, Smith clutched the podium and, with her voice raised, she ended her statement by pleading, “The abuse continues for Joshua Young, who has been in jail for over two years for this with false allegations…This is a kid who was sleeping or watching a movie or something by a location where a boy was brutally murdered by someone who really, really enjoyed himself and that is disgusting; it’s wrong; it’s heartbreaking.” She glanced back at Josh sitting at the defense table and then promptly directed her attention back toward the jury. “There is a little bit of brainwashing stuff going on here.” She argued that even Josh Young initially believed that his father “…didn’t do it. The only person who told the truth throughout this whole thing has been [Josh Young]. Young is the only person who told the truth. Why are we here? Why are we here? Send this kid home, wherever that may be…It’s not a ‘not guilty’ thing. He’s innocent and you know it. I can’t believe that we are here. Send him home.”5

  At the conclusion of Smith’s passionate argument, the court called on the prosecution to present its closing. Elizabeth Jones Brown began by re-reading the jury instr
uctions to the jurors.

  Young was charged with murder by complicity and Jones Brown explained to the jury that to convict him, they did not necessarily need to believe that he physically killed Trey. It was enough if he helped his father plan the murder and then helped him after the killing. She then attempted to dispel statements made by Gouker. She doubted that Gouker would become so outraged that Trey had used his cheap lighter. She emphasized that Trey had no recent marijuana in his system. Gouker had maintained that he and Trey went to the creek and smoked marijuana together. Jones Brown doubted that Trey would go alone at night to a creek with his abusive stepfather and she argued that the blood tests confirmed that Trey did not smoke marijuana that evening. She clearly believed that it was Little Josh who lured him there. She addressed the jury: “Nothing in Gouker’s demeanor in court or anything else you heard in this case gave credence to the fact that, in the middle of the night, Trey would leave the house and go down to the creek bed to hang out with his mother’s abusive husband.”6

  Elizabeth Jones Brown made some valid points during her closing argument. She noted Gouker’s perceived inability to testify about the details of the murder, stating that he could not fill in the blanks. She even pointed out that at one point during his testimony, he said “we” when referring to his actions on the night of the murder. One of her most persuasive points was that Gouker testified that he was covered in blood after the attack. However, the convenience store surveillance tape from earlier that night showed him in the same outfit he wore at the scene of the body’s discovery the next day, a University of Louisville jersey with the number “34” emblazoned on the back.