by Burl Barer
“One of the things you are going to have to do in this case,” he explained, “and it really is the crux of the case, is to determine the credibility of Andrew Webb, who you saw here earlier today and [who] refused to testify.”
Experienced attorneys followed the Achord trial with intense interest, not only because the alleged crimes and the court rulings were controversial and unusual, but because the courtroom combatants—Hultman, Murdach, and Ladenburg—were all of exceptional skill and excellent reputation.
John Ladenburg’s opening statement was exemplary in structure, and perfectly pitched to capture and maintain the interest of his primary audience: the twelve jurors, who held his client’s life in their hands. When Ladenburg announced the names of his first two witnesses on behalf of Christopher St. Pierre, jurors and spectators looked at each other in sincere surprise. Ladenburg’s witnesses for the defense included attorney David Murdach and Deputy Prosecutor Carl Hultman.
It is quite unusual, admitted Ladenburg, to have a witness testify when that witness is also one of the attorneys on the case. “The reason we’re going to have to do that is because Mr. Webb refuses to testify. I’m going to have to put Mr. Murdach on the stand because back in November or December of last year, Mr. David Murdach met with Andrew Webb. He asked him questions about the statement—the one you heard Detective Yerbury read aloud at the end of Mr. Hultman’s presentation.”
Ladenburg zeroed in on what could be the most crucial evidence that his client was innocent of first-degree aggravated murder in the death of John Achord. The prosecution continually asserted that Chris St. Pierre, seeing that Achord was still alive, urged, commanded, convinced, and/or encouraged his brother to kill Achord on the spot to further cover up the murder of Damon Wells. Andrew Webb told David Murdach that those remarks were not made while John Achord was bleeding on the dining room floor. In truth, those remarks were not made until the next day.
If this forthcoming testimony raised reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds, Christopher St. Pierre could be spared a possible death sentence. “That is going to be crucial evidence in this case. If you believe Mr. Murdach that Webb said that, then there are no aggravating circumstances of this murder.”
Ladenburg explained that Carl Hultman was going to testify as a defense witness. During an interview similar to that of David Murdach’s, Webb told Hultman that his statement, “Paul and Chris stabbed Wells in the back,” was not true at all, and that he put the blame on the St. Pierres “out of vengeance.”
The bizarre assault by Andrew Webb and Randy Nolan on the school-age kids and their hysterical mother became courtroom knowledge, as did the possible twenty-year sentence faced by Webb if Damon Wells complained to the cops about the Salmon Beach beatings. “There was only one gentleman,” said Ladenburg, “who had prison hanging over his head the very next month if that fact came to light—Andrew Webb. It was Andrew Webb who chased down Damon Wells and slit his throat to keep him from talking.”
Webb wasn’t sentenced the following month as originally scheduled, Ladenburg explained. He was still facing a possible twenty-year prison sentence when he walked into Paul St. Pierre’s house and saw John Achord in a pool of blood.
“We also expect to show,” the defense continued, “that the reason Chris St. Pierre didn’t know that Mr. Achord was then stabbed in the back was because he was out of the room when it happened.”
Mark Perez, Ladenburg said, would confirm that Chris, appalled by his brother’s deadly behavior, left the scene and went into Mark Perez’s bedroom. While Chris was expressing his dismay to Perez, Paul repeatedly stabbed John Achord.
“Christopher St. Pierre may take the stand in his own defense later this afternoon,” said John Ladenburg. “It may be a horrible thing to say, that Chris was afraid of his own brother, but Chris will have to admit it to you. He was afraid of Paul and afraid of Andrew Webb, and he was convinced that if he told the police anything, then eventually they would kill him.”
“Chris will tell you the bad things along with the good things. He will tell you everything just as he did to the police department. ‘I came to tell you to clear it up, to prove I wasn’t involved in these two murders.’ He was, however, involved in the kidnapping and assault that resulted in murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. He will tell you that,” said Ladenburg.
“I think when you have heard the testimony of the two attorneys, when you have heard the testimony of Christopher St. Pierre, you will be convinced that Christopher St. Pierre has already been found guilty of what he was guilty of. He is already being punished. But in the second murder,” Ladenburg said dramatically, “Christopher St. Pierre was not guilty of murder, not guilty of covering up the first murder, not guilty of doing anything in this case. If you listen carefully to the testimony, you should vote not guilty as to Christopher St. Pierre.”
His opening remarks closed, the court thanked him, and John Ladenburg called David Murdach to testify about his December 18, 1984, interview with Andrew Webb. “Did Mr. Webb give you any statements that contradict in any way the statement that was read for the jury today as to the Wells killing?”
“Yes,” Murdach said, “he admitted he didn’t actually see a knife in Paul St. Pierre’s hand, and he did not see Paul St. Pierre stabbing Damon Wells. He further stated that Damon Wells was not forced or kidnapped or threatened to go for a ride.”
Ladenburg then pursued similar questions regarding any comments Andrew Webb made about the Achord case that contradicted what the jury heard in court. “Maybe I can just state the whole scenario as we went along—I had my tape recorder with me during the whole interview because I went to the jail to see him to discuss his possible future testimony.”
Carl Hultman interrupted Murdach and Ladenburg with an objection. “It’s not fair,” he complained to the judge. “What’s happening here is the two defense attorneys are allowed to pick or choose what one or both of them perceive to be contradicting statements. I have no way of knowing if there are other contradictory statements that may in fact hurt their clients.”
Steiner agreed, and advised Ladenburg to rephrase his question so Murdach would not be subjectively determining what was contradictory. This posed no problem for Ladenburg. He simply posed the question inversely. “Mr. Murdach, during your conversation with Mr. Webb, did he confirm the statement made today in the courtroom that Chris St. Pierre on the night of the Achord killing said that we should bury the body because if we don’t, they’ll find out about Damon Wells? Did he confirm that was true?”
“No, and this is from my notes, that the comment or discussion amongst them did not take place on the night of Mr. Achord’s death, but the following day.”
To make sure the jury got the point, Ladenburg asked the same question in different form. “From what Mr. Webb said to you, is it true that on the night of the Achord killing there was no comment as to covering up the prior homicide of Damon Wells?”
“That conversation took place the following day,” Murdach replied, “not on the night of the homicide.” The witness managed to repeat that information three times in his one response.
Having made that fact perfectly clear, Ladenburg had no further questions; Hultman had only one in cross-examination; then Judge Steiner asked, “Mr. Murdach, because you’re a witness, do you wish Mr. Ladenburg to ask you your questions, or do you wish to ask yourself any questions?”
“I would like to ask myself a couple more questions that are pertinent to Paul St. Pierre,” said Murdach. Hultman objected, was overruled, and Murdach read aloud from his notes. “ ‘Mr. Webb said that Paul and Cory were high on acid, that there was an eight-foot circle of blood on the floor, that Paul showed him a piece of metal, and it looked like self-defense. He said that you don’t see things right when you are high on acid. Paul sees the metal and it scared him. Paul misunderstood and shot him.’ That’s all I have,” said Murdach. Ladenburg said that he didn’t have any other questions, and Carl Hultman had no further qu
estions, either. Murdach left the witness stand and returned to the defense table. Carl Hultman sighed with resignation. He knew what was coming.
“I call Mr. Carl Hultman to the stand,” said Ladenburg. He retained his serious decorum despite deriving a measure of professional pleasure in the irony of the prosecuting attorney testifying for the defense. Hultman didn’t bother objecting. He walked over, sat down, was duly sworn, and prepared to answer honestly the questions posed by John Ladenburg on behalf of Christopher St. Pierre.
Ladenburg asked, “Is it correct that Mr. Webb told you that there were inaccuracies in his statement given to the police in July of 1984?” Hultman agreed, and when asked for a sample inaccuracy, he acknowledged that Andrew Webb said that Chris and Paul St. Pierre really didn’t stab Damon Wells. Webb took full responsibility for the knife wounds. That was all Ladenburg wanted from Hultman, and the prosecutor had no questions for himself.
Christopher St. Pierre was not obligated to say a word. To differentiate his client from the uncooperative Mr. Webb, and to demonstrate Chris St. Pierre’s attitude of full disclosure, John Ladenburg called him to the witness stand. Glancing nervously at the twelve people who could send him to the gallows, Christopher St. Pierre swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
“I was really drunk,” admitted Chris St. Pierre about the night Damon Wells was murdered. “Me and Andrew had been drinking at the tavern even before we got to the house. We had four cases of beer and we had been drinking for a period of maybe a half hour. I found Paul and Damon in the bathroom, arguing. Paul started hitting Damon. I was drunk and being rowdy; I started hitting him, too. Then Andrew came in and started hitting Damon, really beating him up bad. He was hitting and kicking him.”
Ladenburg’s questions led Christopher St. Pierre through the evening’s events in chronological order, faithfully following the precise structure and content of his sworn statement to the Tacoma Police. He told the jury how Andrew Webb chased Wells at Salmon Beach, tackled him, and slit his throat. When Damon Wells stopped breathing, Webb threw the knife into Damon Wells’s back, removed it, and threw it again.
Questioned about discovering John Achord on the dining room floor, Paul St. Pierre standing over the bloody body, brandishing his .45, Christopher answered in clear detail. “I went into shock. I started saying to Paul, ‘What the hell are you doing? What the hell is going on?’ I just asked him that over and over again. I was shouting it at him,” added Chris, explaining that the Rambo movie First Blood was blaring loudly from the television. Andrew Webb was shouting as well, said Chris St. Pierre. “ ‘Goddamn it, Paul. I can’t believe this,’ ” yelled Andrew Webb. “ ‘I’m already facing twenty years. I killed one guy, and now you kill this guy. I can’t believe this.’ ”
“When you saw Mr. Achord,” asked Ladenburg, “did it appear to you that he was alive?” The witness answered in the negative. “Did he make any breathing sounds or did he make any movements?” Again, St. Pierre said he heard and saw no signs of life from John Achord. “When you asked Paul what he was doing, what did he say?” Chris testified that Paul said that Achord had come at him with a knife, or threatened him in some manner. “Paul pulled out his gun and told him to cool out, but the guy wouldn’t. The guy just came at him or something and then Paul shot him.”
Ladenburg asked if Chris St. Pierre saw any knife in the room, or anything that Achord could have had as a weapon. “Yes, on the floor was a single-bladed folding pocketknife, brown handle, about eight inches long, opened.”
“Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!” The jury’s attention quickly shifted from the witness stand to the spectator gallery. Larry Achord, the victim’s brother, stood spewing a torrent of outrage and insults toward Chris St. Pierre. Achord’s outburst was accompanied by additional derisive remarks and insults spontaneously offered by Achord’s friends and relatives.
“Officer Dillon,” said the judge sternly, “take the gentleman out, please.” The upset sibling of the deceased was immediately escorted from the Pierce County courtroom by uniformed security.
Aggravated, Judge Gary Steiner requested the jury to step out for a minute. This incident resonated with import and implications far beyond merely altering the courtroom’s staid and officious atmosphere. There are laws, precedents, and policies regarding outburst in the courtroom. Steiner knew those laws, precedents, and policies. So did John Ladenburg. “We move for a mistrial on the basis of misconduct of a spectator in the courtroom,” said Ladenburg. Judge Steiner wasn’t surprised.
“The jury heard all of this,” said Ladenburg. “All of the jurors looked in the direction of the spectators. It was a direct comment on Mr. St. Pierre’s testimony by people whom we are not allowed to cross-examine, and who are not participants in the case, and who are not witnesses to the crime scene or anything else.”
“I think it obviously directly influences the jury’s opinion of Mr. St. Pierre’s testimony. It’s a very unfortunate incident, but one we can do nothing about at this point, and it’s certainly going to influence the jury’s opinion.”
Steiner’s exemplary courtroom courtesy and decorum now began to show aggravation and displeasure leading to dramatically expressed anger from the bench. “I’m going to have to invoke powers of contempt to put people in jail if this conduct continues! Aside from the jury question,” snapped Steiner, aiming his justifiable ire at spectators who augmented Larry Achord’s outburst with impolite remarks of their own. “You’re destroying the efficacy of this trial, and all the money associated with it! The gallery is instructed not to make any kind of commotion, not to demonstrate emotion, not to say anything during the progress of the trial!”
Ladenburg demanding a mistrial because one spectator yelled “Bullshit” was not an extreme response. In truth, he was no more eager to start the trial all over again than Hultman or Steiner. Had he not moved for a mistrial, however, he could have been open to charges of ineffective counsel. “I don’t want to try this case over again, but I don’t want my client convicted on the basis of statements made by spectators. This isn’t a three-ring circus. I think the court has no choice now but to grant a mistrial.”
David Murdach spoke up, saying, “We would join in the motion and simply repeat that at the beginning of this case there were obviously problems with the spectator gallery with respect to certain comments being made.”
Carl Hultman acknowledged the sensitivity of the situation, and asked the court to not declare a mistrial. “The court can cure this problem, and it is a problem. I think the individual that was escorted out of the courtroom is one of the deceased’s brothers. It’s understandable, it’s human, and it’s regrettable, but I think the court can cure it by an instruction.” Hultman proposed that the judge simply tell the jurors to disregard the outburst.
“The motion for a mistrial is denied,” said Judge Steiner. A new instruction for the present jury, he decided, was preferable to a future trial with a new jury.
John Ladenburg discerned something peculiar about Achord’s sudden outpouring of disruptive anger. Upon reflection, he realized that there was nothing new, unexpected, or surprising about Chris St. Pierre’s testimony that could spark spontaneous, unrehearsed outrage.
“I think the comments just made in the courtroom were intentional,” admitted Ladenburg, the idea becoming more solidified as he spoke. “In fact, I can see no other way around. The evidence that Mr. St. Pierre said he ‘saw a knife’ has been in his statement, in the police report, and has been referred to in this courtroom in numerous hearings a number of times over this last year. This isn’t anything that just suddenly surprised everyone. The Achords and all of their family have been involved in every hearing that I can remember since the start of this case. What happened was an intentional attempt to influence the jury and to make comment on Mr. St. Pierre’s testimony.”
David Murdach silently considered whether or not he should make the court aware of another troublesome attempt to influence pro
ceedings—threats against his own life.
Eighteen
“They have been mumbling in the background that they are going to get me,” David Murdach revealed to Judge Gary Steiner the following morning. “I would like some testimony taken from these people as to what has been going on... .”
Judge Steiner had no intention of taking testimony from the spectators, but every intention of taking the spectators to task. “If there is any outbursts, whether it be vocal or it be visual, [it] will result in personal penalty from the court to the person who is doing so,” he dramatically announced. “There should be no discussion in the audience, no veiled threats, no gestures, no facial expressions. The conduct of this trial is one the administration of which is justice, and I won’t permit it. If anybody violates the order, they will first be excused from the court for the balance of the trial. The other option is to clear the courtroom entirely. The third thing is personal penalty, including contempt and jail.
“If there is a mistrial resulting, the cost of the mistrial will be directed to the person causing the mistrial,” he said, echoing the words of Judge Thomas Sauriol. “The cost of this trial is well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Bring on the jury so I can instruct them.
“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,” Steiner said. “The outburst by the spectator had nothing to do with the trial. You should not allow any outside influence to interfere with your decision. It is your duty to try the case solely upon the evidence heard from the witness stand and the exhibits admitted into evidence and under the law as given to you by the court.”
John Ladenburg resumed his direct examination of Christopher St. Pierre exactly where he had left off. “When you entered the house, what did you see?” The witness recounted the same essential testimony as he did prior to the previous day’s outburst. Ladenburg then asked for details about his interaction with Mark Perez.
