Deadly Vows

by Leif M. Wright

  It was, possibly, the wrong tactic to take for a jury that was clearly enamored of the Joy they had heard the witnesses describe, but Arena was between a rock and a hard place. The prosecution’s case was devastating and Sean’s own testimony had made it worse. And Greco’s closing argument had been a virtuoso performance. Arena was trying to dig out of a very deep hole.

  “As Mr. Goff told you, she came in and swung the knife toward him,” Arena continued. “Who is to say beyond a reasonable doubt that couldn’t have happened?”

  If there are two reasonable explanations for a piece of evidence, he told the jury, you must believe the interpretation that supports the defendant, according to the law.

  Arena continued, “Then we have the controlling factor, that Mr. Goff somehow was this absolutely controlling individual. I listened to the testimony. Joy Risker didn’t seem like she was chained to the kitchen sink. She didn’t appear to be locked in the closet at night, only allowed out when Mr. Goff said she could go out. She was the one who had all of the friends. Mr. Goff didn’t have any friends come over. Was that controlling?”

  Arena then discussed the night of the stabbing. Sean had taken Joy out to dinner. “When you talk about what is reasonable and logical in support of this cold, calculated, alleged murder, you have to ask yourself why. Why would Mr. Goff take Joy to such an expensive restaurant if he had plans of killing her? Mr. Greco tells you it is a last supper. Isn’t it more logical to conclude that, along with the SUV, it was an attempt to show Joy Risker that she could have a good life, to show her that it was important to keep the family together, that she didn’t have to leave?

  “And I have heard evidence from Joy’s friends that she was unhappy, that she wanted a different life, that she got married too young, she had children too young, she really wanted to get this education so she could move on. The bottom line is, she wanted to backpack in Europe, she wanted to travel, she wanted to dance on the table tops. Does that make her a bad person? No, it doesn’t. But those were her dreams. She was hoping to get that from Mr. Goff. It just wasn’t happening.”

  Arena then set the scene in the bedroom that fatal night: “She came in and swung, she swung the knife toward him. I heard no evidence to the contrary.

  “And then the struggle. The prosecution would have you believe that he was taking this knife and just plunging it inside her over and over again. Remember, it is just a theory. They weren’t there.

  “At some point, the knife turns during the struggling back and forth. Remember, she was five foot eight, about 140 pounds and robust, athletic. She was no lightweight. She was young and she had strength.

  “And then what happens?” asked Arena. “Well, she is dead. This is where Mr. Goff’s good judgment goes south. He later tells Officer McEwen, ‘I wish I would have called right then.’ Mr. Goff, I wish you would have called, but you made a different decision. You panicked.

  “But the cover-up doesn’t change the fact that she came at him. No evidence to the contrary. That’s what we have.

  “Mr. Goff then takes the body ultimately to Arizona, where he places her,” he said. “Doesn’t bury the body, but rather he places the body on the ground and builds the rocks around it, and builds...what do you call it?”

  “Cairn,” Sean chimed in.

  “A cairn; builds a monument. Is that the act of a cold, calculated murderer? It just doesn’t make sense that he would do it that way.”

  Arena then proceeded to attack Greco’s contention that the stabbing was premeditated.

  “I told you that anyone could write a manuscript for murder. If there was a death in someone’s family, you could pick out how the sixteen-year-old said to her parents, because they wouldn’t let her hang out at a tattoo parlor, ‘I wish you were dead.’”

  “Mr. Goff is entitled to his constitutional rights. When he did that interview with the police, he made it very clear that he was willing to talk about certain things and not about others. That is everyone’s right. I’m sorry to say that Mr. Greco mocks that right when he puts before you that is indicative of his guilt. Let me tell you something—if we exercise our constitutional rights and by doing so it means we are guilty, then we are finished. Our American way of life is over.”

  Arena’s voice rose meaningfully. “This is a difficult case. Homicide always is.

  “Nobody wins in these kind of cases,” he said. “It is tragic, the loss of that young woman, but equally as tragic is the loss of our form of justice. If you are merely swayed by what happened postmortem, if you are swayed by the fact he chose to live a polygamous lifestyle in a free nation, if you are swayed by that, then the tragedy continues.”

  Sean, he said, had the right to defend himself when Joy came at him with the knife.

  “He had the right to stab her.”

  No matter what, he said, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for first-degree murder had not been satisfied.

  “Mr. Greco will be attacking most of these statements that I have had to say to you,” he said. “When you attack a defense attorney so much, you are somewhat worried about the state of the evidence you are presenting.”

  Arena took a step forward, paused and then slowly, clearly, lingered over his next words: “This is a manuscript for murder. It makes for a good book but this is real life and I’m asking you to consider that. Mr. Goff deserves that consideration from you. He deserves your review of all of the evidence.”

  Arena sat down and Greco had the opportunity to give his final rebuttal.

  “At the very beginning, you were all asked, ‘Can you spot someone blowing smoke? Are you a good judge of credibility?’” he began. “Ultimately, to find the defendant not guilty, it is all predicated on one thing and one thing alone: his word. Because all the physical evidence in this case points in another direction. The only evidence you have that he was entitled to self-defense is his word. That’s it. Did the witness admit to being untruthful? What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?

  “If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. You don’t need the law to tell you this; it makes a lot of sense because ultimately somebody who lies about something important is going to lie about a lot of things.”

  Sean, he said, was a calculating manipulator who had invented the self-defense story for the trial.

  “Did he ever tell anybody about this self-defense?” he asked. “Not the police, his friends or family. The reason is, that’s not the way it happened.”

  There was one piece of evidence that the defense hadn’t tried to skirt, he said, and that was the alleged meat cleaver that Sean had said he used to remove Joy’s fingertips.

  “They didn’t have a meat cleaver,” he said. “It was a big, calculated lie that he made on the chance that [his first wife] wouldn’t be brought back. He is playing the odds there. And second, what are the odds she would be as clear as she was: I never saw one, it wouldn’t be kept in that left drawer. Again, calculated liar. There is a very good reason he is distancing himself from that knife—that he didn’t use it to cut off the fingers—that he distances himself from the cutting board and the drop cloth and the duct tape.”

  Sean didn’t want to be associated with those items because if he had used them in the cover-up, they would have supported the prosecution’s contention that he had created a murder kit.

  “Let me stay on the defendant’s lies, because even during his testimony, initially we didn’t hear anything about this photograph,” he said about the alleged photo of the bruises Joy had inflicted on her son. “We sat through an hour of defense closing and we didn’t hear about it. Why? Because the defendant changed his testimony in the span of two days. Why? Liar, liar.”

  Greco noted that, at first, Sean testified that he had told Joy about the photo and said, ‘That is all there is to it,” and that’s why Joy had snapped. Two days later, Greco said, Sean changed the story to Joy having not seen nor he
ard about the photo when she attacked him.

  “Lies are tricky,” Greco said. “If you are patient and if you ask every question, very detailed, people slip up.”

  But the worst lies, he said, were the character assassinations about the victim in the case, Joy.

  “There have been insinuations about drugs. There have been insinuations about child abuse,” he said. “Which Sean Goff do we believe?”

  The blood, also, was troublesome for Sean’s case, because there was none of his blood.

  “There isn’t a struggle in the sense that he is bleeding and his blood is anywhere,” Greco stated quietly but definitively. “They tested thirteen [blood samples]; all hers, none of his.

  “When defense counsel says the bruises on Joy’s face were consistent with a fist fight—you have pictures of what she looked like. There are no bruises. Her face was smashed in. That is consistent with somebody using a sledgehammer. This isn’t a fist fight; this is a mauling.”

  The defense, Greco said, was loose with its definition of “reasonable doubt.”

  “You have to believe that it is not only reasonable, but it is credible,” he said. “The law tells you you should consider consciousness of guilt if they make false statements. If the defendant made false or misleading statements regarding the charged crime, knowing the statement is false or tending to mislead, that conduct may show he was aware of his guilt.

  “When counsel said ‘Is it possible that what the defendant said is true?’, that is not the standard you apply. The standard you apply is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. He did it. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt, because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.”

  There was no evidence given that Joy was violent, Greco said. There was no evidence that she had a motive to attack Sean.

  “The reasonable inference is she was a loving parent who would not leave without her kids,” he continued. “The defendant had his contingency plans. She is either dead or they are going to have it out. She is leaving, she is keeping the kids and he is like, ‘No that’s not going to happen,’ and he finishes her.”

  Greco had saved the most dramatic and compelling part of his closing argument for the end:

  “Murder cases are different. Because we don’t have our best witness, Joy Risker. We don’t have Joy to come in and talk to you.

  “If somehow someone could perform a miracle and we could have Joy walk through those doors and talk to you all for a couple of minutes and we could ask her, ‘Joy, what happened to you?’ she would say, ‘I have already told you. I have told you with my blood in the house. I have told you with my sternum that has stab wounds on it. I have told you with my ribs. And I have told you that this crime is so unspeakable with my hands and my fingers missing and with my jaw cut out and with my skull that was bashed in.’

  “Hear her. Hear her.”

  Less than two hours later, the jury returned.

  The judge announced, “Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are back in session in the case of People v. Sean Barclay Goff. All parties are present. I’m advised the jury has reached a verdict in this case.”

  The murmurs in the courtroom ceased. It was pin-drop quiet.

  He nodded toward the jury, “Who’s the foreperson? Juror Number Five, could you hand the verdict forms to the bailiff, please?”

  The bailiff boomed in a sonorous voice: “In the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego, people of the State of California, plaintiff, versus Sean Barclay Goff, defendant, we, the jury in the above entitled case, find the defendant guilty of the crime of murder, in violation of penal code section 187 (A) as charged in count one of the amended information, and fix the degree thereof as murder in the first degree. [His] victim: Joy Risker.

  “We further find that in the commission of the above offense, the said defendant did personally use a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife, within the meaning of penal code section 12022 (B) (1). Dated July 27, 2006. Foreperson, Juror Number Five.”

  The judged asked, “Does either side wish to poll the jury?”

  Greco shook his head, “No, your honor.”

  But Arena responded, “Yes, your honor.”

  The judge turned to the clerk. “Madame Clerk, would you please poll the jury?”

  The clerk nodded and said, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as I call your juror number, please answer yes or no to the following question: Was that and is that your verdict as read?”

  Methodically, each juror responded with a yes.

  The clerk then stated, “Twelve affirmative responses, your honor.”

  The judge nodded, “Thank you. Please record the verdict.”

  The clerk said, “So recorded.”

  The judge then questioned the prosecutor and defense attorney: “Counsel, do you waive the reading of the verdict as recorded?”

  “Yes, your honor,” Arena stated. Greco also said, “Yes.”

  The judge nodded. “Thank you. As to further items of business in this case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the final instructions on discharge of the jury is as follows. This is CalCrim Instruction 3950. You have now completed your jury service in this case. On behalf of the judges in the Superior Court, County of San Diego, State of California, please accept my thanks for your time and effort.

  “Now that the case is over, you may choose whether or not to discuss the case and your deliberations with anyone. I remind you, under California law, you must wait at least ninety days before negotiating or agreeing to accept any payment for information about the case.

  “Let me tell you some rules the law places in effect for your convenience and your protection. The lawyers in the case, the defendant, Mr. Goff, or their representatives may now talk to you about the case, including deliberation or your verdict. Those discussions must occur at a reasonable time and place with your consent.

  “Please immediately report to the court any unreasonable contact made by the lawyers in this case, their representatives or by the defendant. A lawyer, representative or defendant who violates these rules violates a court order and may be subject to sanctions.

  “I hereby order that the court record of personal juror identifying information, including names, addresses and telephone numbers be sealed until further order of this court. If, in the future, the court is asked to decide whether this information will be released, notice will be sent to any juror whose information is involved. You may oppose the release of this information and ask that any hearing subject to the release motion be closed to the public. The court will decide whether and under what conditions the information may be disclosed.

  “At this time, the defendant is remanded to the custody of the sheriff of San Diego without bail pending sentencing.” The judge went on, “Mr. Goff, sir, you have a right to be sentenced on a statutory date. For the convenience of court and counsel, do you agree to waive time so you can be sentenced on Friday, September 15, 9:00 A.M., this department?”

  Sean looked away. “Yes.”

  The judge then announced, “Court accepts the time waiver. Thank you for that.

  “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have an opportunity to leave at this point in time. If you wish to talk to the attorneys, you may do so. That’s entirely up to you. They will be out in the hallway. Also, you may talk to any representatives of the news media if you choose to do so. There is no obligation on your part to talk to anyone. It is frequently helpful for the attorneys to talk to jurors after a decision has been reached in a case. Many times, the attorneys like to have feedback as to their presentation of the case to the jury.

  “Again, there is absolutely no obligation on your part to talk to any members of the news media or to talk to any of the attorneys or the defendant or the people’s representatives. Any questions?”

  The jurors sat still; not one raised a hand.

  The judge nodded. “Thank you very much for your service.
You are now discharged. We will report to the jury commissioner that you have completed your service in this department. And please be sure to take your personal property with you. Have a good day. Thank you.”

  The jury filed out of the room.

  The judge turned to Arena. “Anything further on behalf of your client, Mr. Goff?”

  Arena replied, “Just the official sentencing date. I believe we haven’t done that yet.”

  The judge nodded, “Friday, September 15, 9:00.”

  “Thank you,” Arena said.

  “Mr. Greco, anything further?”

  Greco shook his head, “No, your honor.”

  The judge addressed the courtroom, “Court is adjourned. Have a good day.”

  And so, on July 27, 2006, almost three years after he killed Joy Risker, Sean Goff was found guilty of murdering the young mother of two of his children, hacking up her body, dumping it in the Arizona desert and then lying about it for weeks.

  No sooner was Sean convicted of the brutal murder and dismemberment of his junior wife than he went about the business of getting on with his life. First order: he regrew his goatee, peppered with gray, the one that he had shaved off for the trial. The absence of the goatee had significantly affected his appearance, making him seem heavier and pastier than he had ever looked.

  A couple of months later, on September 15, 2006, three years minus four days after the last day Joy Risker ever viewed the cloudless San Diego sky, the last day she breathed the ocean air, the last day she got stuck in traffic on the 405, Sean received his sentence for depriving her of all those things.

  But if Joy’s loved ones thought Sean might finally cry real tears, might beg for mercy or lose control, they were wrong. Sean, even in defeat, still had control.

  “It is said that confession is good for the soul,” Sean said before the judge sentenced him. “The trial gave me an opportunity to confess a great many personal flaws and for this I am very appreciative.”