by Burl Barer
“First of all,” he elaborated, “you have to assume Mr. Webb’s statement is accurate—that he was a reliable witness—then you have to assume that Chris knew John Achord was still alive. What’s the next thing we better assume? You’ve got to assume Chris said, ‘Let’s cover up the killing of Damon Wells,’ although Webb was the one who actually slit the throat, and the only one with reason to fear Damon going to the police.”
Jurors must also assume, Ladenburg advised them, that Chris meant “Let’s kill him” when he said, “Let’s bury him.” And lastly, Ladenburg told the jury that they must assume that Paul stabbed Achord to death only because Chris made that remark, “and not on any other motive such as his own paranoid delusions.
“When Mr. Hultman gets another chance to stand up and shoot down everything I said, or attempts to, I will be very interested to see him tell you why you have to assume all those things. I don’t think he’s talked to you about the facts. He tried to say that if you can convict Paul, you can convict Chris. That’s not the law; that’s not the case. He would have you believe that Andrew Webb can be relied upon as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and that you can’t believe Chris St. Pierre.”
Ladenburg then offered a unique approach to the Webb and St. Pierre statements, asking the jury to imagine “the tables were turned, and that I was defending Andrew Webb and Chris St. Pierre was the main prosecution witness. I think Mr. Hultman would be jumping up and down about the consistency of Chris St. Pierre—from day one, he told the same story. He never deviated. He told the same story on the stand as he told all along, but my client Andrew Webb has told different stories and changed his mind and lied. Imagine the shoe on the other foot.”
Chris St. Pierre potentially faced being found guilty of any of four charges in Achord’s death: aggravated murder, premeditated murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter. “Chris is not guilty,” said Ladenburg, “because the only way he can be involved in any one of those is if he’s an accomplice. I’m convinced you will come back with a verdict of not guilty for Chris St. Pierre. I threw so much at you for your consideration in such a short time,” concluded the defense, “I know you are going to take time during deliberations to do an honest and good job.”
That was John Ladenburg’s last word. For Chris St. Pierre, it was now up to twelve King County residents bused down daily to Pierce County. “We’ll take a fifteen-minute recess,” said Judge Steiner. “We will then hear from Mr. Murdach.”
David Murdach—the only qualified attorney with a window of opportunity to defend Paul St. Pierre, the lawyer who respectfully requested that he not be assigned the case, the defender whose client didn’t want him—would argue on behalf of Paul St. Pierre.
“It’s difficult,” David Murdach acknowledged. “I have a client who admits to taking a person’s life. I’ve got a client who’s suspicious of me, of the psychiatrists, and globally suspicious of everybody.”
“Suspicious enough to kill,” Wesley Webb later commented. “I think the way Paul was suspicious of everyone, and the sense of power he got from killing, I bet he would have just kept killing one person after another as long as he could. And the whole time he’d be thinking that he was protecting himself.”
Paul St. Pierre’s only protection from being hanged by the neck until dead was the final argument on his behalf by someone that he never trusted to begin with—David Murdach.
“My client is a demented individual,” stated Murdach. “Dr. Tappin said that Paul St. Pierre suffers from what we call a paranoid personality illness. I admit it has been difficult trying to fit Mr. St. Pierre into the diagnostic manual for psychiatric illness. He is borderline schizophrenic, psychotic ... There can be a lot of intellectual discussion amongst psychiatrists as to how to classify him, but they all agree that he suffers from a rather severe mental illness.
“This is important,” said Murdach, “a paranoid individual is an individual who has difficulty interpreting what is happening around him. In most instances, the interpretation is fear of being persecuted.” Paul St. Pierre’s perception of the world, explained Murdach, “is one in which he feels there is hostility constantly surrounding him.” Indeed, a primary symptom of St. Pierre’s mental condition was “a readiness to counterattack at any threat that is perceived.”
“I’m up here acting on behalf of my client, and he even distrusts me. He distrusts everyone. He distrusted the psychiatrists. Dr. Tappin said that Paul St. Pierre sees everyone as a threat—he even thought Dr. Tappin was part of a conspiracy against him. Dr. Tappin said, ‘I feel that he comes frighteningly close to the edge—given enough stressful situations, Mr. Paul St. Pierre can become psychotic.’
“Quite frankly,” Murdach said, “this case cries out for the sickness which my client is affected with. It cries out for an extreme analysis of what disorder was going through my client’s brain at that time. Here is a man who is so paranoid that he goes out and he decapitates a dead man’s head! Can you imagine anyone in their right mind doing something like that?
“I have a client who cut off the head of a dead man so they wouldn’t find the bullet,” acknowledged Murdach. “I have a client who is sick. He’s been sick since before the case started. He is sick now. He’s on medication. He’s been sick throughout these proceedings. He was sick and out at Western State Hospital until the psychiatrist that was treating him was dismissed by the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office. They took the treating psychiatrist, Dr. Lloyd, off the case for no reason and put on Dr. Allison. They put on the retired Dr. Allison to find the man competent. Then take this man from the hospital to the courtroom for trial.”
David Murdach’s final argument was long, detailed, tiring, and required two fifteen-minute stretch breaks. The length and detail were not due to excessive or needless prolixity. Jurors needed to understand how Paul St. Pierre could be “not guilty” of murder or manslaughter despite having undeniably killed John Achord. The reason, Murdach explained, was that Paul St. Pierre was incapable of forming purposeful intent. Suffering from undeniable mental illness, St. Pierre was further deranged by the mind-altering effects of alcohol and LSD.
“The state is required to prove,” said Murdach, “that the defendant acted with premeditated intent, intentionally or knowingly or recklessly—the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have a mental disorder that was interfering with his ability to form the requisite intent.”
No acts committed by a person in a voluntary state of intoxication are less criminal simply because the person is intoxicated. “A drunk is equally culpable as a person that’s not drunk,” Murdach acknowledged, “but so far we have talked about mental disorder, mental defect, intoxication, and drug use—all of these are present in this case. It’s not as if we are selecting one from a multiple-choice list. All of these are present in this case. All of them apply.”
The issue of self-defense also came under close examination. If jurors didn’t believe Paul St. Pierre suffered from diminished capacity, there was still the burden on the state to convince them that there was no self-defense. “The state must prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt,” he reminded the jurors. “Put yourself in the shoes of Paul St. Pierre in this circumstance. Imagine a person operating under the influence of LSD, intoxicated, and [who] also has a mental disorder. It’s difficult for us to imagine exactly what was going through his mind. All the objective facts in this case say that Mr. Achord had some sort of weapon and was coming toward Mr. St. Pierre.
“We have to deal with both issues in this case,” explained Murdach accurately, “diminished capacity and self-defense. The provision that the state must prove the absence of self-defense applicable to first-degree manslaughter, second-degree murder, first-degree murder, and aggravated first-degree murder—it is in all four. It’s a complete defense to all the crimes charged.”
As the old courtroom saying goes: “The evidence was uncomfortable, and so were the seats.” By 2:45 P.M., ju
rors were dripping with perspiration, clock-watching with anticipation, and nearly fainting from the heat.
“It’s hot in here,” said Murdach, and no one objected. “It’s stuffy in here,” he added. Carl Hultman didn’t interrupt. “Because of the largeness of the spectator gathering, and ourselves, it’s very uncomfortable in here.” Judge Steiner seemed to momentarily meditate upon “ourselves” and “largeness.” His Honor was very hot under his black robe and was valiantly fighting the torpor created by the oppressive courtroom atmosphere.
Although David Murdach represented Paul St. Pierre, he took time to speak on behalf of Paul’s younger brother. “There was a statement by my client that he felt that Chris was in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you look at all the facts here, the truth of that statement is borne out. We have a brother—Chris St. Pierre—who is on trial for a murder he didn’t commit. He walked into a room in which a body was laying on the floor. That killing was done by a man who had a severe personality disorder—a mental illness by everyone’s admission. The truth in this case is that my client was a severely disturbed individual then, and now. There is no getting around the fact that my client was mentally ill and sick. He did not have the prerequisite intent in each one of these crimes. That’s the law—follow the law whether you agree or disagree with that concept.
“We don’t punish people out of retribution,” concluded Murdach, “we look at each case individually. We don’t treat a mentally ill person by sending them to the gallows.”
“Thank you, Mr. Murdach,” said Judge Steiner. “Mr. Hultman, I’m going to give the jury about five minutes to stretch their legs before we go into rebuttal argument.”
Carl Hultman spent the stretch break reviewing his notes, mentally rehearsing the elements of evidence and emotion most favorable to the prosecution. In this final address to the jurors, who desperately wanted to go home, Hultman would verbally assault the combined arguments of Ladenburg and Murdach.
Court reconvened with Judge Steiner saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, rebuttal argument on behalf of the state; Carl Hultman.” The prosecutor stood and approached the jury.
“I’m going to be brief,” he began. “You ought to retire and bring back the verdict that the evidence commands. Bring back guilty as charged.” Obligated to refute the defense’s arguments, and do so beyond a reasonable doubt, Hultman took them on one at a time. “With respect to the issue of diminished capacity—just keep this in mind: there isn’t any evidence at all that Paul St. Pierre satisfied any test of insanity or not guilty by reason of insanity.”
Having a “paranoid personality” wasn’t sufficient to free St. Pierre from intent and responsibility, reasoned Hultman. “Dr. Tappin testified that anybody that would do these things, probably all of them that were involved in this, have some of the same sorts of problems. Use your own common sense. People who go around burying bodies and cutting off heads are bound to be bizarre people, but that doesn’t diminish their responsibility for the crime.”
Hultman continued his point-by-point rebuttal, attacking Murdach’s argument that Paul St. Pierre’s mental problems precluded him from forming intent. “What did Dr. Tappin say about Paul St. Pierre? He said he intentionally shot John Achord. What did Paul St. Pierre tell Dr. Tappin the reason was for stabbing John Achord? It was to kill him! That’s not diminished capacity. That’s not even close. Paul St. Pierre killed John Achord on purpose. He intended to shoot him. When Mr. Achord wasn’t dead, he stabbed him until he was dead.”
Ladenburg’s admonitions against regarding assumptions as evidence were countered by reading aloud from Instruction #8: “ ‘Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which, according to common experience, permit a reasonable inference that other facts existed or exist.’ ”
“You’re entitled to examine the evidence as a whole,” said Hultman, “the way these defendants lived, what they did to Damon Wells—they are totally lacking in conscience. Another pervasive factor common to both murders is an obsessive concern with concealing evidence. They didn’t just kill Damon Wells and throw him off in the bushes—they burned their clothes; they cleaned other clothes; they washed the carpet; then they went back the next day and hauled the body off into the woods. They are obsessed with secrecy; that’s a fact from which you are entitled to start making inferences.”
The first inference Hultman wanted them to make concerned the reliability and veracity of Andrew Webb. “Start making inferences that tell you that there is credibility to what Andrew Webb says,” he suggested. What Webb said and Hultman endorsed was that John Achord was killed to further conceal the murder of Damon Wells. “When they tell you that there is nothing to corroborate Andrew Webb’s testimony, remember that Paul’s own words to his psychiatrist corroborate what Andrew Webb said. Paul admitted that he thought this man was still alive. He was breathing. Paul thought he was alive and stabbed him. He said so, and Andrew Webb said the same thing. This person was still alive.”
As he did earlier, Carl Hultman portrayed the stabbing death of John Achord as a concerted action of the St. Pierre brothers. While Achord was “laying there gurgling away on the floor,” explained the prosecutor, “Chris St. Pierre said, ‘We are going to have to bury him.’ Andrew Webb says, ‘But he’s still alive.’ Paul says, ‘I know how to take care of that.’ That’s a concert of action between Paul and Chris. They knew what they wanted to do. They knew what they had to do.
“The defense tells you Andrew Webb is not a believable guy,” said Hultman mockingly. “I suggest to you it’s a smoke screen. The evidence has cleared the way. There’s no fog anymore. You don’t need Andrew Webb alone because you’ve got Paul St. Pierre speaking to Dr. Tappin. Dr. Tappin said—”
Ladenburg interrupted Hultman midsentence with a strenuous objection. “Your Honor, I object! Counsel is aware that statements made by Paul St. Pierre have been directed as ‘no evidence.’ He’s trying to lead the jury to believe that they can use that against Chris St. Pierre—”
It was Hultman’s turn to interrupt. “I haven’t gotten there, and I’m not going there.”
Judge Steiner sighed and simply said, “All right.” Hultman, whatever his original intent, only mentioned that there was a “discussion” before Paul St. Pierre stabbed John Achord. “Isn’t that what Andrew Webb told you? Isn’t that exactly what he told you?
“Ladies and gentlemen,” said Hultman with dramatic finality, “the evidence is overwhelming. There is only one verdict you can bring. We live in a civilized society. The rules that we are supposed to live by in this society apply to everyone. They apply to Paul St. Pierre even if he does have a distorted mind. They apply to Chris St. Pierre even if he’s too afraid to do the right thing. Ladies and gentlemen, bring back that verdict of guilty.”
Judge Steiner gave the obligatory “Thank you very much, counsel” before turning his attention to the alternate jurors. “You are discharged with this instruction: You cannot discuss this matter with anyone until the case is totally and completely finished. You can have no contact with this jury.
“I’m advising the people and spectators,” continued the judge, “that they are to have no contact with the alternate jurors or with the jury. Please do not hang around the outside of the courtroom or the County-City Building or in a place of proximity to where the jury is likely to appear, or anyplace where they are eating. Try to avoid all contact.”
The jury would now begin a period of complete sequestration. “You cannot have any contact with the outside world,” explained Judge Steiner, “no radio, no television, no newspaper. Your deliberations should take place only in the deliberation room. You’re not to discuss the case in your hotel rooms or anywhere else. You are to have no contact with anybody from outside. You are not,” he again emphasized, “to discuss this case with anyone else nor discuss it amongst yourselves except in the jury deliberation room.”
Having endured all day Wednesday, July 31, 1985, listening to closing arguments,
the jury of nine women and three men deliberated one hour before retiring to the solitude of their hotel rooms. With no foreknowledge of when deliberations would conclude, the families of victims and defendants, attorneys, court personnel, and representatives of the press kept an anticipatory vigil throughout Thursday, August 1.
“The jurors reached their decision,” recalled Detective Yerbury, “and we were all informed that the verdicts would be announced Friday afternoon, August 2, in the courtroom of Pierce County Superior Court Judge D. Gary Steiner.”
The crowded courtroom’s principal players and the onlookers waited in high anxiety. The forthcoming legal determinations, the culmination of over a year’s worth of continuances and court proceedings, could be condemnations, absolutions, or a combination of both.
Paul and Christopher St. Pierre’s parents and siblings were noticeable in their absence, but two female friends arrived to show emotional support. When Judge Steiner read the verdicts aloud, the two women broke into uncontrollable sobs and ran from the courtroom. The Achord family held hands, some weeping quietly; a family friend gave Carl Hultman the thumbs-up sign.
Both brothers were found guilty of first-degree aggravated murder. Paul St. Pierre’s only reaction was to glance up at the ceiling; Chris St. Pierre sat bolt upright, then whispered frantically to his attorney. For the second time in twelve months, the St. Pierre brothers faced the distinct possibility of death by hanging.
“I’m so happy it’s over,” said Opal Bitney, mother of John Achord. “I’m sad for all of us, including [the St. Pierre family], but I’m happy at the verdict.” Damon Wells’s great-grandmother, Ann Robertson, sat with the Achord family throughout the trial. “At least I know where Damon is, and he won’t be hurt anymore,” she said. “He is resting in peace.”
