A Hole In One

by Paul Weininger

  Juror One tried to calm things down. “All right, I can see that tempers are flaring quickly, and so early in the deliberations! That will get us nowhere in our discussions. We won’t be able to reach an agreement on any verdict. Please try and control your emotions.” She then said that she would ask to review the video again later.

  Juror Eight chimed, “If Straub’s intention was just to go and talk to his brother at his home to prove that he was his twin, then why burn the body after he found his brother dead?”

  Juror Four tried to clarify her position. “All I could see was that it was either Straub or the Rabbi on the video, but I did not see a gun wrapped up. For all I know, it could have been some fishing gear. I’m still not convinced.”

  This pissed off Six again. “Allow me to remind you, Four, of one piece of evidence that may convince you that he did not buy fishing gear. If you go back to the video of his entering and exiting the gun show, Straub completely denies it was him on the video or that he was even at the show. If he had been at the show just buying fishing gear and not a .45 caliber Glock with a silencer, he would have had no reason to deny having been there. Plus, they don’t sell fishing gear at gun shows, for heaven’s sake. We have good reason to believe that it was not the Rabbi at the show because of all the evidence that it was Bloom who was cremated.”

  “Now I understand. I forgot his testimony about the video at the gun show. I’ll think about what you just explained,” replied Juror Four to Juror Six.

  Juror Eleven still had doubts. “Well, Number Six, you make a viable argument, but maybe Straub felt that he was just going to incriminate himself more by admitting that he was at a gun show, so decided to take his chances that perhaps some of us wouldn’t recognize him on the video. I for one didn’t recognize him, and I’m still not convinced that he committed the murder.”

  “I understand, Eleven, but he had already perjured himself by his own admission and still refused to concede that he was on the video and left it to us to decide if we recognized him on the tape. He just lied and lied and lied. Now, I agree that doesn’t make him a killer, but as the old adage goes, “If you lie about one thing, how do I know you didn’t lie about everything?” Madam foreperson, why don’t we take another vote and tally it up?” asked Juror Six.

  Juror One called for a hand vote. She asked everyone to raise their hands if they are now voting guilty and ten raised their hands; only two raised their hands for innocent.

  It was now 11:45 a.m., and the foreperson took lunch orders from everyone, walked out of the jury room, and handed them to the bailiff. They waited for about twenty minutes before lunch was delivered. They all ate together in the room and discussed the case among each other. About 12:30 they notified the bailiff that lunch was over, and both the bailiff and a court janitor came in and cleaned up the room and refreshed the cold drinks and coffee/tea. The jury remained silent while the two men were cleaning the room.

  Once the room was clean, jury deliberations continued.

  Number One said, “Alright, Number Five, you voted innocent, why don’t you try and convince the rest of us why you believe Straub did not kill the Rabbi.”

  Juror Five was a man in his late twenties, a factory laborer newly married to a saleswoman at a department store cosmetics counter, as revealed from the vois dire.

  “All that the D.A. has proven to me are the things that Straub himself admitted to. Everything the D.A. accused him of is based completely on…what do you call it…?”

  Juror Nine spoke up, “Conjecture.”

  “That’s right, Number Nine, thank you. It’s conjecture and coincidence, because nobody actually saw Straub kill the Rabbi,” said Juror Five. “For me, the only proof I can accept is an eyewitness, fingerprints, and maybe what some of this new-fangled DNA stuff indicates, if they can get me to understand it, that is. Nothing else will do.”

  “So, without a witness, fingerprints, or matching DNA, you will not change your mind from innocent, is that correct, Number Five?” asked Juror One.

  “I believe that’s exactly what I said, Number one. I don’t recollect any testimony in which any of the three things I mentioned were brought up by the prosecution.”

  Juror Seven was a stately older woman most likely in her late sixties and very smart. She remembered the prosecution having shown that their forensics team found two sets of fingerprints at the Rabbi’s home. “I was taking notes,” she said. “They mentioned that ninety-eight percent of the prints were from the Rabbi and the rest belonged to Richard Straub. Straub never once admitted to having entered the Rabbi’s home, yet his fingerprints were all over it. This should be enough to change your vote to guilty.”

  “Nice try, Number Seven, but that still doesn’t prove anything to me as to who killed the Rabbi. Straub admitted he took the body of the Rabbi and disposed of it illegally in the backyard and then, after moving into the home, went through his closet to look for clothes he could wear for the religious services he intended to conduct. I agree that Straub is a scumbag, but finding his fingerprints in the house does not make him a killer. My vote remains innocent,” replied Number Five.

  By 3:30 p.m. the foreperson notified the judge in writing: “We’ve made some progress after much back and forth bickering, but that’s it for today regarding any further progress.” She requested an overnight recess, which the judge granted, ordering the jury to return at 9:00 a.m. the next morning.

  The next day the foreperson called on Juror Ten to start the discussion by asking, “Do you have anything you would like to add to the conversation, Number Ten?”

  Juror Ten was a middle-aged gentleman in his late forties, an accountant by profession. “Yes, I do. This has been a tough decision for me to reach. I’ve gone from guilty to innocent and back and forth quite a few times. I’m too confused right now. I need clarification,” replied Juror Ten.

  “What clarification do you need?” asked the foreperson.

  “Can we ask to have the transcript read to us? Specifically, when Straub asked his boss if he thought that he resembled the photo of the Rabbi in the newspaper?” He then added, “And can they show us the video of the gun show again, please?”

  “Absolutely,” said Number One. She got up and called for the bailiff and handed him a note to give to Judge Garnett. The note asked for the court reporter to come into the jury room and read from the transcript about the time when Straub asked his landscaping boss if he thought that he resembled the photo of Rabbi Bloom in the paper. She also asked for the court clerk to come in with the television monitor and show the video of the gun show to the jury again.

  The judge called for a thirty-minute recess and told the court stenographer to bring her transcription machine with her so that she could read the requested testimony to the jury. The judge then called the court clerk to the bench and told him, “Bring the video taken at the gun show along with the monitor for the jury to review again.”

  “Yes, Your Honor,” the clerk responded. The media types quickly ran out of the court to report to their producers and editors that the jury requested to review a portion of the transcript in addition to the video taken at the gun show.

  Thirty-Nine

  The court reporter entered the jury room and read from her transcript in reply to their question. Judge Garnett followed the stenographer into the jury room just in case there were any other questions that he might need to address. This was an unusual move for a judge, but it had happened before in other cases to assure that nothing out of permissible order was taking place. The court clerk followed behind them with the monitor and the video.

  The stenographer began to read the transcript of the district attorney’s questioning of Mr. Rung.

  D.A.: “Mr. Rung, you have an employee by the name of Richard Straub, don’t you?”

  Rung: “I did, until he quit a few months back. I haven’t heard from him since.”

  D.A.: “Did Mr. Straub ever mention Rabbi Bloom to you?”

  Rung: “Kind of,
but not by name, and only once. He showed me a picture of the Rabbi some months ago, which appeared in the Sedona Times Herald; it was of the Rabbi being, I think they used the word ‘feted,’ at some event. He asked me to look at the picture and see whether I saw a resemblance between the Rabbi and him.”

  D.A.: “And what was your answer?”

  Rung: “Considering that Richard had a lot of facial hair and a thinning crop of hair on his head, he looked more like a gangster biker than a Rabbi. I didn’t notice a resemblance, but not to get him upset, I said yes, he looks a little like you.”

  D.A.: “What was his reaction to your response?”

  Rung: “He seemed pleased.”

  Juror One asked, “Does that answer your question, Number Ten?”

  “Yes, it does, thank you,” Juror Ten answered.

  “Would the clerk please set up the video and play it back to us in slow motion so that we don’t miss any details?” requested the foreperson. The D.A. mentioned the numbers on the video she wanted to have shown.

  At this point the court reporter left the jury room and returned to the courtroom.

  The clerk stopped the video each time a jury member asked him to, for closer inspection.

  The judge remained in the jury room while the clerk was showing the video as slowly as he could on the VCR. At one point the clerk was asked to pause the video when Straub entered the show. The jury could see that his shirt collar was high up on his neck and didn’t allow any mark to be visible.

  “Thank you, Your Honor, I believe that’s all we needed,” said Juror One.

  The judge and the clerk left the jury room. Judge Garnett returned to his chamber until he was notified that the jury was ready to return.

  In the jury room, the foreperson asked Juror Ten if the transcript and video had changed her thinking.

  “Yes, it did. We were made aware that Straub already researched his background and learned the date, hospital, and time of his birth. He shared the same biological mother as the Rabbi and was the Rabbi’s twin. He had no reason to ask his boss if he thought that the man in the newspaper photograph looked like him unless he had an ulterior motive for the question. I also remember testimony that Straub was taking unauthorized pictures and videos of Rabbi Bloom during his services, which left me with the impression that he was planning how to replace him, by copying his look and mannerisms. That’s probably also why he took Hebrew lessons from Rabbi Isaac. Although I still didn’t see a birthmark on the video, it seems pretty clear that Straub had a plan to replace the Rabbi, so my vote now is guilty.”

  Next, the foreperson called on Juror Nine, a young woman in her early thirties and unemployed. Her prior job was as an administrative assistant to a married corporate executive, with whom it was whispered that she had an affair. “Can you add to this conversation and either convince us that Straub is innocent, or have you changed your mind to guilty?” asked number.

  “What disturbs me the most is the lack of explanation for finding the .45 caliber Glock gun with a silencer attached laying under the Rabbi’s incinerated corpse. This appeared as if they had been placed there before his body had been laid down on top of them. Surely, he knew the weapons were there when he placed the dead body on top of them. I can understand finding the head above the ashes especially if Straub was in a hurry to leave the backyard during the fire and didn’t notice the head sticking up. But the gun inside the ashes has now convinced me that he must be guilty, because he never mentioned a gun and silencer when he confessed to placing the body into the backyard. I’m changing my vote to guilty,” explained Juror Nine.

  After three days of such discussion, the foreperson again asked for a show of hands. This time eleven hands were raised for guilty and only one for innocent.

  Juror One turned to the lone holdout and asked, “Number Five, haven’t you heard anything in all the evidence we’ve discussed that might change your opinion”

  “I don’t think there is anything that any of you can point to that can change my mind. Despite all the fingerprints and DNA and witnesses, there is absolutely no proof that Straub pulled the trigger.”

  Number One looked at him sternly and asked, “So, Number Five, you are saying there is no chance you will change your decision?”

  “None!”

  “Well then,” the foreperson said with a sigh, “that leaves us with eleven guilty and one innocent. I guess we’ll have to notify the judge that we have a deadlocked jury.”

  The jury continued to deliberate for three more days, trying to convince Juror Five to change his vote, before they sent a message to the judge’s chamber that they were ready to return. The judge notified all concerned parties that the jury was ready to come back and that they should return to the court. The prosecution, the defense attorney, and Straub reappeared, and all the media rushed back in, along with the gallery observers.

  The judge told the bailiff, “Direct the jury back into the courtroom.”

  As the jury came back in, all eyes in the courtroom stared at them. The judge asked the foreperson, “Has the jury reached a decision?”

  With tremendous case of nerves, the foreperson faced the judge and told him, “Your Honor, we are not able to agree on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. We are deadlocked.”

  Facing the jury, Garnett incredulously confronted the people on the jury panel and sternly scolded them. “This is not acceptable. You have deliberated for seven days. There was enough testimony presented for you to come to a decision. I am directing you to return to the jury room and continue deliberations until you reach a verdict.”

  Two days later, the judge called everyone back to the courtroom as the jury entered again. “Madam Foreperson, has the jury reached a verdict after the additional two days of deliberations?”

  “Your Honor, we have not reached a verdict and believe that we are hopelessly deadlocked.”

  “How far apart are you?” he asked her.

  “At last count, it was eleven to one.” She would not, of course, say which way the jurors voted or who the holdout was.

  “Well,” the judge responded, “that tells me that you have not fully completed your duties as a jury. I will give you another chance to continue your deliberations. Take as long as is needed until you can all come in and tell the court that you have a unanimous verdict.”

  After an additional three days, and tremendous pressure applied to Juror Five by the other jury members, who wanted very much to be done with this and go home, the court clerk advised the judge that the jury was ready to return to the courtroom.

  The judge addressed the jury. “I have sent you back twice, in addition to the first time you went in, and you have spent a total of eleven days of continuing deliberation. Has the jury finally been able to agree on a verdict?”

  He did not tell them that if their answer were “no” for the fourth time, he would call a mistrial and send all the parties home.

  The foreperson stood in place, raising her voice so all in the courtroom could hear it and staring at Straub, she said, “We have, Your Honor!”

  “Before you read it out loud, please hand the written verdict to the court clerk and he will bring it to me for review.” said Judge Garnett.

  The judge took the slip of paper from the court clerk, read it to himself with the slight hint of a smile, and handed it back to the court clerk to return to the foreperson.

  Judge Garnett looked at her and said, “Madam Foreperson, would you please read the verdict.”

  Forty

  “The defendant is to rise and face the jury,” said Judge Garnett.

  Both Straub and his attorney Albert Jaxson rose and faced the jury as directed. The judge turned to the foreperson and asked her to read the verdict.

  The foreperson faced Straub and said, “We the jury find the defendant Richard Straub guilty of premeditated murder in the first degree.”

  Cheers broke out in the courtroom as reporters noisily bolted for the exits, causing such a commotion that th
e judge had to gavel the proceedings back to order.

  The judge asked if all twelve jurors agreed with the verdict and called on each juror individually by their assigned number to affirm the decision. After he heard from each juror, he asked the foreperson if the jury had a recommendation as to the sentence.

  “We have, Your Honor,” she replied. “For the egregious crime of murdering his twin brother, along with desecrating his body, the jury recommends a sentence that would be the highest the court can impose, including the death penalty.”

  Immediately, a clatter of cheering voices broke out again, creating such a ruckus both inside and outside the courtroom the din almost drowned out Garnett’s pounding gavel, demanding order.

  The entire media, press and video, ran out of the courthouse to contact their producers and editors and dictate their reports, each hoping to be the first ones with bylines in the afternoon news. As the courtroom quieted down, the judge indicated he would decide the sentence within three months and Richard Straub would remain in prison until such time as the court was prepared to announce his sentence.

  Two and a half months later, all concerned parties were notified by the court clerk to return immediately to the courthouse. The judge was ready to pronounce judgment as to the penalty. At the appointed hour, the court was called to order. All available seats were occupied, leaving standing room only on both sides of the courtroom and in the hallway outside.

  Judge Garnett began the proceeding. “The defendant shall rise and stand at your place.” Defense attorney Jaxson also rose on behalf of his client, with traditional respect for the court.

  “After considerable thought about the evidence presented and the jury’s verdict of guilty by twelve of your peers, it is clear to this court that you, Mr. Straub, committed one of the most immoral and heinous of all sins, murdering your own brother strictly to obtain his money. You spent months planning how you would commit the murder, replace him in the synagogue, and gain control of his estate. You, sir, are an odious person, lower than scum at the bottom of a muddy pond.”