Killers in the Family

by Robert L. Snow

  There were no redirect questions.

  There was one more witness the State wished they could call: James Larry Reese, Paul Sr.’s older brother, who’d told police officers that his brother had confessed to him about having raped and murdered Dawn Marie Stuard. According to the probable cause affidavit in the case against Paul Reese Sr., James told police in 1986 that his brother had confessed to him that he’d “killed Dawn Stuard, had sex with Dawn, and he needed to get it off his chest.” However, in 2012, James himself sat in an Arizona prison, serving a twenty-year sentence for child molesting. The prosecution knew that if they put James on the stand, the defense attorney, because of James’s record, would vigorously attack his credibility. And so, reluctantly, the prosecution decided not to call James to testify. Therefore, following the cross-examination of Detective West, prosecutor Denise Robinson told the court that the State rested its case.

  After the jury had left the courtroom, Judge Altice then had the defense and prosecution approach the bench. The judge asked defense attorney Michelle Wall if Paul Reese Sr. had made a decision regarding whether or not he would testify. The defense attorney said that Paul Reese Sr. would not be testifying.

  Defense attorneys, like prosecutors, put a lot of work into murder cases and want a favorable outcome. A defense attorney must weigh what kind of damage could be done by putting his or her client on the stand, and whether the State had proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, there had been no eyewitnesses to the crime, and a lot of people in and out of the house on North Bosart Street that day. Defense attorney Michelle Wall apparently felt that more harm than good could come from putting Paul Reese Sr. on the stand, so she rested her case without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence.

  She did this because proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt rests solely on the prosecution. It’s the defense attorneys’ job to show reasonable uncertainty of their client’s guilt. This is often accomplished by trying to give a different spin on the evidence, by trying to raise doubt in the jurors’ minds about the credibility of prosecution witnesses, or by suggesting alternative scenarios for what might have happened. All defense attorneys need to do is plant the seed of doubt in the jurors’ minds and have them question the credibility of the State’s case.

  If even one juror won’t vote for a guilty verdict in a murder trial, then the case ends in a hung jury, meaning that the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. The State must then decide if it wants to face the time and expense of pursuing a new trial against the accused or simply drop the charges.

  Following Wall’s statement that the defense rested, the judge then instructed the prosecution to begin its closing argument. In this case, the State decided that it would divide its closing argument, giving one part before the defense’s closing argument, and then the second part following the defense’s closing argument. The judge allotted each side sixty minutes.

  Deputy prosecutor Mark Hollingsworth gave the first part of the prosecution’s closing argument. He took the jury back through the case, pointing out all of the evidence its witnesses had presented. He ended his portion of the closing argument by saying, “I ask you to do justice after all of these years. Twenty-five to twenty-six years later is justice delayed. Please do not let it be justice denied. Please convict him of murder. Thank you.”

  Defense attorney Michelle Wall then stood up and began her closing argument. She agreed with most of the evidence presented by the State, and said what a tragedy it was, the way Dawn Marie Stuard had died. “But by whom?” she asked. “By whom is the main question in this case. I think that there are other people who could have done it. Most mainly, Junior or Barbara Reese.”

  Wall then went over the testimony of the trial and said that almost anyone could have overpowered Dawn. After all, she was only five feet two and 119 pounds. She also touched on DeAngelo Gaines’s testimony. “I submit to you,” she told the jury, “that you cannot believe anything he says. There is nothing about DeAngelo Gaines that I believe you can find credible and I think you should give it the weight it deserves, which is none.”

  During her closing argument, Wall conceded to the jury that Paul Reese Sr. had helped Barbara and Paul Jr. carry Dawn out in the carpet and dump her, but insisted that this does not prove he was the one who killed her. “But that is what the State has proven,” she told the jury, “is that after the fact, Barbara, Paul, and Junior carried out Dawn’s body and most likely dumped her in the road. But it does not say that Paul Sr. is the one who held an object similar to a stick or pool cue to her throat.”

  Following this, the defense discussed the timeline of that day and how Barbara or Paul Jr. would have had opportunities to kill Dawn. “Don’t put that on Paul Sr.,” Wall said in closing, “saying that he was the one who did this murder when it could have been someone else. Thank you.”

  Deputy prosecutor Denise Robinson then stood up to give the second part of the State’s closing argument. She talked for several minutes about the case and all of the evidence and testimony. She stressed that all of the evidence the State had presented—the blood, the carpet samples, the witnesses—all pointed to one man as the killer: Paul Reese Sr. She also told the jury, “Indiana law says that flight is evidence of consciousness of guilt. The minute the Stuards came to the house, when the heat was on, he’s out the back door.”

  She went on to say, “The truth of the matter is . . . that Dawn stayed too long and she paid for it with her life . . . We ask you to make a clear statement that this man is guilty of murder.” Denise Robinson also told the jury to “hold Dawn’s killer accountable. He is guilty and you know it.” Robinson then quoted Aristotle to the jury: “The sum of the coincidences equals certainty.”

  Following closing arguments, the judge gave the jury its instructions about various points of the law that applied to the case they were deciding on. During the prosecution phase of the trial, the State had asked that “accomplice liability” be included in the jurors’ instructions. This, according to Indiana law, states:

  A person who knowingly aids another person to commit an offense commits that offense even if the other person:

  Has not been prosecuted for the offense.

  Has not been convicted for the offense.

  Has been acquitted of the offense.

  The prosecution wanted this included in the jury instructions in order to counter the defense attorney’s claim that others in the house could have committed the murder. The defense attorney made no objection to this. Once Judge Altice had given the jurors their instructions, the twelve people retired to the jury room to deliberate.

  It didn’t take them long. After only ninety minutes, the jury came back with a finding of guilty.

  Paul Reese Sr. remained stoic during the reading of the verdict; observers couldn’t tell if he was surprised or not by the jury’s quick decision.

  Dawn Marie Stuard’s father, Ted, was thrilled. “I had lived with the depression of Dawn’s death for so long that after the verdict I felt lighter. I felt like a huge weight had been lifted off of my heart when I heard the verdict. Like a cloud had just suddenly disappeared over my head and the sun hit me. Finally there was vindication.”

  “I talked to the jury afterward,” he added, “and I said you guys made an awful quick decision, less than two hours. They said that it didn’t take long because on the first vote it was unanimous.”

  Prosecutor Denise Robinson commented that it was one of the fastest verdicts she’d seen in a murder trial during her twenty years as a prosecutor.

  “Perry Mason has nothing on Denise Robinson,” Ted said about her performance during the trial. “Also kudos to Roy West and Mark Albert.”

  Robinson gave the credit for the victory to Detective Roy West. “The Paul Reese Sr. verdict was particularly gratifying for me given the dedication that Detective West gave to the case,” Robinson said. “It was his first ho
micide and he never let it go. In the end, he prevailed.” When asked what she thought won the case, she said, “I don’t know that any one piece of evidence wins a cold case—however, the DNA results certainly helped. But still, the real credit has to go to Detective West, who kept bringing this case to my attention. Without his dedication, the case would have been shelved years ago and no one held accountable for Dawn’s death. I may have been the conduit to present the case to the jury, but it was Detective West’s case.”

  Marion County prosecutor Terry Curry concurred. In a press release, he said, “The murder of Dawn Stuard twenty-six years ago is no longer a ‘cold case.’ While the State’s charge of murder against Paul Reese Sr. was brought last year based on new DNA evidence, it was the dogged and persistent police work of former Indianapolis Police Department Sergeant Roy West which has led to today’s conviction. Sergeant West, who is now an investigator with the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, was assigned to this homicide in 1986 and refused to ever give it up, ultimately bringing it to a close. We hope that today’s guilty verdict delivered by the jury brings peace to Dawn Stuard’s family.”

  As for Detective Sergeant Roy West’s feelings once the case had been closed, he told the Indianapolis Star on June 22, 2012, “I have carried this case around with me since March 17, 1986. It has never been about Reese. It has always been about Dawn and her family. All I could think about was that child.”

  —

  On July 18, 2012, the court held the sentencing hearing for Paul Reese Sr., a time when the victim’s family was allowed to speak. Ted Stuard went first. He told the court, addressing Paul Sr., “On March 16, 1986, you raped, you beat, you murdered a thirteen-year-old blond-haired, blue-eyed little girl, Dawn Marie Stuard, my daughter. For twenty-six years, four months, and two days, justice has been a long time coming and today it’s here . . . You started a nightmare that still persists to this day . . . Finally I can stop pursuing justice for my daughter; it’s been a long journey that’s going to end today . . . At the end of your life, I think justice will be well served,” Ted said, looking directly at Paul Sr. “That Satan himself will come to clutch your soul and drag you off to that special place in hell that’s reserved for baby killers like yourself.”

  Dawn’s mother, Sandy Stuard (now Sandy Harrington), was too overcome with emotion to testify. Her husband, Marlin Kirk Harrington, read a statement Sandy had written. In it she said, “How do you measure this, losing your only daughter? Sleepless nights, nightmares, watching my nieces grow, marry, have children . . . [Paul Reese Sr.], his wife, and son should not breathe another breath in this world. That would only start to be justice.”

  Paul Reese Sr. declined to say anything on the advice of his attorney. At this hearing, deputy prosecutor Denise Robinson also reviewed Paul Reese Sr.’s criminal record and the crime he had just been convicted of to show why he deserved the maximum sentence. The defense attorney, Michelle Wall, talked about Paul Sr.’s failing health and his remorse.

  Following all of the testimony, Judge Altice said, “The court believes that the appropriate sentence in this case, for what the court in the last twelve years has seen as one of the worst, is sixty years in the Department of Corrections. The case will run consecutive to the twenty-year sentence he [already] received.” The audience in the courtroom erupted in applause when they realized that the judge had given Paul Sr. the maximum sentence possible. When added to the twenty-year sentence he was already serving, this new sentence meant that Paul Reese Sr. would most likely die in prison.

  Following the sentencing, Paul Reese Sr. asked the court to appoint a pauper attorney for him so that he could appeal the guilty verdict. The court approved his request, and attorney Patricia Caress McMath eventually filed his appeal. Paul Sr. based his appeal on two issues that his attorney felt were critical to his case. The first point was whether the court erred when it instructed the jury on accomplice liability, where the evidence during the trial did not support such an instruction. She said that the only evidence at the trial to support the involvement of more than one person was the effort to conceal the crime, and aid after the fact does not support a conviction for murder. The crime had already been committed.

  The second point of Paul Sr.’s appeal was whether the court erred in sentencing him. He claimed in his appeal that the court imposed an enhanced sentence based on aggravating factors not found by the jury.

  The court of appeals, however, on the first point of the appeal about the jury instruction, stated that Paul Sr. had waived his right to appellate review on this issue because his attorney did not object to this instruction at the trial. Even that aside, the court said, “There was some evidence that more than one person may have been involved in the crime . . . There is sufficient evidence of Barbara’s possible involvement in the crime to warrant an instruction on accomplice liability in this case.”

  As to Paul Sr.’s second point of appeal, that he had been inappropriately sentenced, the court again didn’t agree with him. They said, “We conclude that [Reese’s] extensive criminal history supports the trial court’s imposition of an enhanced sentence. The trial court did not err in sentencing Reese.”

  Consequently, the appeals court turned down Paul Sr.’s appeal. “Based on the foregoing,” they said, “we conclude that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury or in sentencing Reese.”

  This ended the legal saga of Dawn Marie Stuard’s murder. After over twenty-six years, she finally saw justice. As for the Reese family, their long legacy of crime resulted in having two members who will never see the outside of prison walls—which will perhaps save other innocent lives.

  AFTERWORD

  Where are all of the Reeses today?

  Paul Reese Sr. remains confined at the Pendleton Correctional Facility in Pendleton, Indiana. According to his Department of Corrections fact sheet, his earliest possible release date is February 1, 2047, when he will be well past one hundred years old. At last report, Barbara Reese served her six-month sentence for the Officer Jason Fishburn incident and was released. She still lives in Indianapolis. Paul Reese Jr. and John Reese are both out of prison as of this writing, as is Jeremy Reese, who was released from the New Castle Correctional Facility the last of May 2013. Their uncle, James L. Reese, remains in prison in Arizona. He is scheduled to be released in April 2017. Brian Reese is serving his sentences at Indiana’s maximum security prison in Michigan City, Indiana. His earliest possible release date is July 6, 2132.

  —

  In July 2010, the American Legion named Officer Jason Fishburn the Indiana American Legion Officer of the Year. As another honor, organizers selected Fishburn to serve as grand marshal for the 2010 CarmelFest, whose theme was “Celebrating Indiana Heroes.”

  However, in early 2011, Jason Fishburn decided that, because of the disabilities he had suffered, and how much they interfered with his work environment, he needed to retire from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. He finally accepted that he would never be able to realize his dream of returning to being a full-time police officer. But even that decision was fraught with difficulties. After he submitted his application for a medical disability pension, Fishburn received a shocking reply—the state pension board offered him a disability pension of only 69 percent of an officer’s salary (the maximum they could have offered was 90 percent).

  Naturally, this controversial decision raised a firestorm of criticism. Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, and Greg Ballard, the mayor of Indianapolis, both promised to do what they could to see that Fishburn received a full medical pension. “Jason had the city’s back when he was chasing that murder suspect,” the mayor said in a press release. “The city is going to have his back as he’s fighting for his pension.” The mayor promised that he would have attorneys from the city’s legal division assist Fishburn in his appeal. Eventually, the state pension board increased their offer to 79.85 percent. It still wasn’t a fu
ll pension, but better than their original offer.

  Today, Jason Fishburn still walks with a brace and cannot use his right arm. Although certainly not in the same physical condition he was before the shooting, just being alive, to say nothing of his ability to speak, write, read, and get around on his own, flies in the face of what the doctors who saw him when he first arrived at Wishard Memorial Hospital had predicted.

  “Jason had been a very active person, and he loved his job,” said his wife, Tonya. “He didn’t want to go in and be a detective or anything. He wanted to be out working on the street. And for him not to be able to do that any longer, it’s kind of depressing for him at times. Jason seems more emotional now than he had been. He’s quieter. It’s more difficult for him to learn anything new, to take on a new task. It can be frustrating for him.”

  However, on August 6, 2013, Jason and Tonya Fishburn found a happy ending to their troubles. Tonya delivered a baby boy, their first child. That day became a new beginning for a life that almost ended. Out of tragedy came a new hope.

  Dawn Marie Stuard was thirteen years old when she was murdered on March 16, 1986.

  (Courtesy of Ted Stuard)

  Uniformed police officers and detectives at the site on East 23rd Street where Dawn Marie Stuard’s body was found on March 17, 1986.

  (© The Indianapolis Star)

  Police chaplain (wearing the hat), stands with Dawn’s parents, Ted and Sandy Stuard, at the crime scene on East 23rd Street.