After Karly’s death, Mindy Brill, Sarah’s former sister-in-law and close friend, told investigators that Sarah lacked a bond with Karly.
“Are you saying the nurturing mechanism was absent?” asked Detective Stauder.
“Yes,” Mindy said. “But Carol and Sarah aren’t very close. I think that has something to do with her relationship with Karly. And she gave Hillary up for adoption. I think that’s affected her with Karly a lot. I think she’s tried, but Sarah needs to get past that self-centeredness she has.”
A former childcare provider for Karly said, “Sarah was a party mom. Everybody knew David was there to pick up the pieces.”
Chapter Thirty-Six
Scott Heiser asked a deputy district attorney who had turned in her resignation the week prior to take on the case. It was an unusual move. District attorneys typically handle the high-profile stuff themselves, for obvious political reasons. But it had been a hectic couple of years for Heiser and the Corvallis Police Department.
Heiser felt Joan Demarest would be the best woman for the job. He makes no bones about the fact that he appointed a woman attorney as the lead prosecutor for tactical reasons. He knew having a woman prosecutor would earn some favor with the jury in a child murder case.
Demarest grew up in Corvallis and earned her law degree from the University of Oregon. The victimization of women was a common topic of discussion in her childhood home. Joan Demarest’s mother, Merry Demarest, has been a longtime member of the National Organization for Women, and has served on the organization’s national board.
Demarest’s father, Harry, is the former chair of the Benton County Democratic Party. The family continues to be politically active. They campaigned heavily for Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election. Demarest’s parents celebrated their thirty-sixth wedding anniversary by testifying before the Benton County Commissioners in support of same-sex marriage.
Demarest began her career in Corvallis as a law intern, and continued working for as a deputy district attorney for Benton County after passing the bar in 1998. But tensions around the courthouse and the birth of her first child had her rethinking her career choice. She’d already given her two-weeks notice when she stopped by Heiser’s office one afternoon.
“It’s too bad you’re leaving,” Heiser said. “I was going to assign you the Field case.”
Because Demarest had been off on maternity leave in the three months prior she wasn’t familiar with Shawn Field. Heiser took the next few hours to explain the case to her. Demarest asked for the weekend to consider it.
Before she could accept the job, Demarest had to come to terms with her own position on the death penalty. She had previously been an opponent. Shawn Field changed her thoughts about that.
After consulting with her husband and her parents, Demarest took the job on a contract basis.
“This was a case where I knew I could make a difference,” Demarest said. “Shawn Field was a monster who needed justice and I was determined to not let Sarah Sheehan jeopardize his shot at life in prison or the death penalty.”
When Demarest and I met a few times at a coffee house in Corvallis, she brought along her children. Demarest is a hands-on, attentive mom.
Our meetings were scheduled to accommodate nap times and play dates.
There’s no question the lady lawyer felt she was defending Sarah as much as she was prosecuting Shawn Field. “I’m convinced Sarah had nothing to do with Karly’s abuse or death, aside from picking Shawn Field as a mate,” Demarest said.
It was Heiser who irrevocably determined that Sarah would be a victim in a murder trial and not a co-defendant when he subpoenaed her to testify at the grand jury hearing. The Fifth Amendment ensured that Sarah would never face charges in her daughter’s death.
Demarest was left to deal with the fallout of that. Under Oregon Law, Sarah was by definition a victim as the mother of a murdered child.
“Most people vilify Sarah without understanding the circumstances she was in, and without looking further,” the attorney said. “I know that some of Sarah’s personality traits and choices make it easy to do that.
Through my work on this case I learned that emotional abuse is more effective than physical abuse at controlling other people.”
But it was physical abuse that caused Karly’s death.
Demarest asked the jury to weigh the evidence against Shawn and overlook any wrongdoing on Sarah’s behalf. If the jurors had begun to divvy up the blame for Karly’s death between Shawn and Sarah, it could have derailed the entire criminal case. The prosecution needed to keep the focus on Shawn.
“It wasn’t until after I had spent hours with experts that I was able to see Sarah with a more sympathetic eye,” Demarest said. “Shawn Field undermined whatever self-confidence she may have had, convinced her she knew nothing about parenting and that she was a bad mother.”
Sarah said Shawn trained her to not question him. So she didn’t.
Except that one time, when she confronted him about the gay pornography she found on his computer. Certainly, that took some steely-eyed gumption. So why did Sarah leave Karly with Shawn after seeing her daughter in such physical distress Friday morning? Instead of leaving Karly alone with Shawn, breaking a repeated promise to David and DHS, why didn’t Sarah take Karly to daycare? David had already paid for it. If she had to go to work, why not take Karly to Delynn’s on her way?
Perhaps Sarah knew Delynn would take one look at Karly’s ruptured eyeball, those swollen and bruised feet, and do the thing Sarah had failed to do that morning: take Karly to the ER immediately. Sarah did not take Karly to Delynn’s because she was covering for Shawn. Sarah knew Delynn was on to her and Shawn; he didn’t want the state poking around anymore.
Demarest knew this, of course, which is why she had to build a case to explain away Sarah’s actions. “I tried to find a way to make sense of what Sarah did and everything that happened,” Demarest said. “The abuse and control made the most sense, even though it didn’t explain everything.”
I wondered if Demarest’s upbringing didn’t predispose her to see Sarah as a victim, rather than someone complicit in her daughter’s death. Demarest became visibly annoyed when I told her that some community members had suggested as much. Her cheeks flushed hot, and she sat back rigidly in her chair.
“Who said that?” she asked. “Clark Willes? Did he say it?” Clark Willes was one of Shawn’s defense attorneys, although not the lead lawyer on the case. Dan Koenig, who has cultivated a reputation for getting the bad guy off, had that honor. But the contention between Demarest and Willes stretches back to the early 1800s and a religious leader by the name of Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church.
At the time of Shawn Field’s trial, Willes was an active Mormon bishop. Demarest told me her parents had, at their own request, been excommunicated from the Mormon Church. She said it was their way of protesting the church’s stand regarding minorities in the priesthood.
Clark Willes likes to wear long-sleeve white shirts, which he rolls up on his thick forearms. His bushy dark eyebrows are prominent over his thin-framed glasses. He’s a bit rumpled around the edges.
Willes is a study in contrasts. He is a Mormon bishop who helped defend a child killer, an attorney who often finds himself on the wrong side of the law. He’s been brought before the Oregon Bar on disciplinary charges, and most recently was arraigned on charges of tampering with a witness.
I told Willes and Koenig I wasn’t out to retry this case, that I trusted the jury had found the right person guilty. So what compelled Willes to turn over his case files on Shawn Field’s defense to me? I asked Willes why he gave me access to the files during one of the several times we met. I’m not sure I ever got a satisfactory answer from him. It’s an unusual move for an attorney to grant complete access to every bit of evidentiary material he amassed during the course of a trial. I was as surprised by it as anyone.
I understood why professionals like Heiser a
nd Demarest might not like Clark Willes. As a former court reporter, I’d had intense arguments with Dennis Hachler, one of Oregon’s best defense attorneys, about why he would defend some of the state’s worst criminal offenders.
Hachler and I got upset with each other after he had me removed from court once to keep me from reporting on a school counselor who had sexually abused a child. Hachler told the judge he was going to call me as a witness because I had interviewed the child, and because I knew the counselor personally. Afterward, Hachler sent me flowers with an apology note and signed it, “From the Devil.”
I was not amused. I sent the flowers back to the florist and told Hachler that he had overstepped his bounds. Despite the sparring, we respected each other. It was Hachler who told Willes I could be trusted—and I believe that if it had it not been for Dennis Hachler, I would never had gained access to hundreds of pages of police reports, recorded interviews, evidentiary material, photos and pretrial evidence that were critically important to this story.
District Attorney Heiser had concerns of his own about Clark Willes, but Heiser had the utmost confidence in Joan Demarest.
“Joan had considerable success with the less-than-honorable methods employed by Clark Willes,” Heiser said. “And she was capable of dealing with what was often less than a level playing field in Judge Holcomb’s courtroom.”
It was a well-circulated rumor around the courthouse that there was no love lost between Heiser and Judge Holcomb. The two had come up through the ranks in the district attorney’s office. There are some in Holcomb’s camp who believe Heiser resented her success. Not so, said Heiser. It was the judge’s unprofessional approach he resented.
The Gazette-Times, the local paper, reported that Heiser went so far as to file a motion imploring Judge Holcomb to recuse herself from the trial:
Benton County Circuit Court Judge Janet Holcomb won’t step aside in the trial of Shawn Wesley Field. Holcomb is presiding over the trial of Field, who is charged with murder in the June 3, 2005, death of three-year-old Karla “Karly” Sheehan. Karly was the daughter of his then-girlfriend Sarah Brill Sheehan.
District Attorney Scott Heiser filed a motion Friday asking Holcomb to recuse herself because of evident bias against Deputy District Attorney Joan Demarest. Heiser included in his motion nine statements from the victim’s family, friends and a sheriff ’s deputy, citing Holcomb’s courtroom demeanor and expressions during pretrial hearings.
“The motion is without merit,” Holcomb ruled Tuesday. “It is denied.” She said firmly that the case would be tried on its merits. “It’s not about the judge or lawyers,” she said. “It’s about Karly.” The case will be tried without prejudice, fairly and impartially and in the highest judicial tradition, Holcomb promised.
She did not address complaints from Karly’s father and grandparents, among others, that she did not maintain the decorum they expected in the courtroom, decorum they feel is appropriate in a case concerning the death of a three-year-old child.
Holcomb also did not address any of the specific charges in Heiser’s motion. All parties declined to comment on Holcomb’s ruling. Present Tuesday were Sarah Sheehan and David Sheehan, Karly’s parents. Gene and Carol Brill, Karly’s grandparents, were also present.
“It’s tough,” Gene Brill said, his voice full of emotion. “It’s been a painful, painful year.”
Although Judge Holcomb was dismayed by Heiser’s complaint, she remained steadfast in her resolve to conduct the trial professionally and responsibly. “I didn’t feel there was a legitimate reason for Heiser to make his request,” Holcomb told me later. “Whatever controversy was there was his.”
But Holcomb and Heiser did have a history together, and not all of it had been pleasant. Heiser had not supported Holcomb’s bid for judge; he had, in fact, asked her not to enter the race. “He was upset about that, and I was surprised by how much that carried over during his tenure as district attorney,” Judge Holcomb said.
The trial was difficult enough, given the trauma surrounding the murder of a three-year-old. Heiser’s actions were disconcerting.
“Heiser added an extra layer of difficulty to a trial that was already difficult enough in terms of severity of emotions,” Holcomb said. “It wasn’t about the judge, or the lawyers. It was about Karly’s murder.”
Her goal as judge was to conduct the trial fairly and without prejudice.
“My rulings were meant to avoid a successful appeal later, so we didn’t run the risk of trying the case all over again,” Judge Holcomb said. “I believe I conducted myself with the highest degree of judicial integrity and I believe justice was served.”
Chapter Thirty-Seven
Nearly two weeks of trial testimony passed before ten-year-old Kate Field climbed into the witness box to testify against her father. She turned her shoulders so she was facing the jurors, not the defense table and the man sitting behind it: her daddy.
Kate’s wide grin and expressive eyes were shrouded by her dark hair and an even darker mood. It’s hard for a girl to testify against her father. It doesn’t matter whether what he’s done is right or wrong; what matters is that what you say may send your father to prison. Kate understood that above all else.
In those early days following Karly’s death, Detective Stauder had interviewed Kate. Elisabeth Castillo from The Department of Human Services Child Welfare was there, along with Kate’s mom, Eileen Field. Eileen had not yet told her young daughter that Karly was dead or that Shawn had been arrested.
“Can you remember what happened the last two days that you were in school last week, when you were at home?” Eileen Field had prompted her daughter.
Kate didn’t answer.
“Can you tell me about what your dad told you about Karly’s black eye or her red eye?” asked Detective Stauder.
Again, no answer.
“Are you scared? Do you want to write it down?” Eileen Field asked. Kate asked her mom what she wanted her to say.
“Just say what’s true, okay? What you saw and heard.”
Then Kate asked about Karly.
“Oh, Kate, I have to tell you something, okay? Karly got hurt and she’s in Heaven now. Do you know what that means?”
“She got hurt and she went to Heaven?” Kate repeated, questioning.
“When people are in Heaven, will you see them anymore at home?” Detective Stauder asked.
“No,” Kate said.
Detective Stauder left the room, leaving Eileen to question Kate.
“If you can remember, you need to tell us what you saw and what you heard those days,” Eileen said.
“Ask me a question,” Kate replied. “Not a hard one.”
“Tell me what happened when you got home on Thursday after school.”
“My dad had told me that Karly had a bruised eye,” Kate said. “He showed me Karly’s bruised eye. She didn’t look good.”
When Detective Stauder came back to the room, she remarked that Kate looked worried.
“I’m not worried,” Kate said.
“Do you know what jail is?” Detective Stauder asked.
“Yeah,” Kate said. “It’s where people go when they’re bad.”
“Or when they get in trouble,” Detective Stauder said.
“For doing what?” Kate asked.
“Well, we have laws, and sometimes people break laws, and when they break laws they have to go to jail. And I need to tell you right now, your daddy’s in jail. He’s in jail for hurting Karly, and I want you to know you can’t be hurt at all, that you’re safe.”
Kate misunderstood.
“Is Karly’s dad really in jail?” Kate asked.
“No,” said Detective Stauder. “Your dad is in jail.”
“Why?” Kate asked.
“He’s in jail for hurting Karly,” Detective Stauder said. “I want you to know you are safe here and that whatever you tell us, you’re not going to get in trouble from us or your dad for telling what you saw or what you h
eard Thursday when you came home from school and Friday when you went to school.”
“Is my dad really in jail?” Kate asked.
“He really is in jail. I would never lie to you about that,” Stauder answered.
Kate began crying.
Joan Demarest had urged Judge Holcomb to make some exceptions for Kate in the courtroom. She requested that Kate be allowed to testify by closed-circuit TV, or that Kate be allowed to come into the courtroom incognito, with a mask or a wig, and sunglasses. Kate was understandably scared about testifying. In typical girlhood fashion, she wanted a disguise. Demarest promised Kate she would ask the judge for permission. “I was trying to keep Kate comfortable and keep a promise I made to her,” Demarest said. But defense attorneys argued that allowing Kate to wear such a get-up would make a mockery of the court.
The judge denied both of Demarest’s requests.
Kate had to face her father in court. The law left Judge Holcomb little other choice. It used to be that a videotaped interview of a child victim could be introduced in court instead of live testimony in a courtroom. This was particularly helpful in cases that involved sex abuse. But in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Washington, overturned a previous 1980 ruling that allowed hearsay evidence if a judge ruled such evidence was reliable and trustworthy.
The Crawford ruling bars states from using statements against a criminal defendant unless the person making the allegations is available to testify at trial. No hearsay evidence is allowed, even if the judge considers it reliable. The Crawford ruling, which wasn’t drafted with child abuses cases in mind, is a terrible blow to those who work on behalf of abused children.
In California, a man previously convicted of several child sexual abuse charges involving two sisters, ages four and eight, had those charges dropped on appeal once Crawford was put into effect. It was ruled that the videotaped testimony of the oldest girl was inadmissible because it violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
A Silence of Mockingbirds Page 18