|
This is a series of e-mails sent by
Bob Krause during Heidi's two trials. The notes went to his
relatives and friends who know the Anfinson family but do not know Heidi.
=============================================================
Subject: 9-7-1999 Trial update
Hi all.
Today was I think an easier day than expected. They called 65 potential
jurors, which is the most this judge has ever called.
This morning, all they accomplished was to get the jurors to fill out
their questionnaires. Then back at 1:30 and the County Attorney started
questioning each juror. Got to #36. What do you do for a living? How
many kids? Why did you decide to live in ...? I think tomorrow they
will start trying to get a jury of 12 + 4 alternates from the 36, but if
they can't they will go to #37-65. Each side can strike 10 jurors
without explaining, if I understand the process. They haven't been
explaining it too well to us ("spectators").
The courtroom is pretty small. During jury selection, we almost didn't
get a seat. 12 people sat in the jury stand, then the other 53 in the 3
rows of bench seats. They left 1 seat for Jane's brother Mike and there
were 2-3 seats left. A few of us stood by the doorway. There were no
"outsiders" today, just family and friends totally 8-14 depending on
time.
Those who will testify are not permitted to see anything including jury
selection. That affects Jane, Heidi's mom and one of her sisters. 3
other sisters are here from out of town for the trial as is her Dad
(local).
No media today except the DSM Register ran a page 3 piece in the 'Metro'
section and at least 1 TV station ran a short piece using file footage -
basically saying jury selection has started and reminding people of the
basic facts. I'll try to get some Web addresses of the TV & paper which
you can peek at when more info is posted.
Heidi's sister Marcia got totally fed up with the DSM Register using a
hideous picture of Heidi taken at her arraignment in jail clothes after
36 hours of no sleep, losing her baby and not being allowed to see
Mike. Of course she looks like a monster. So Marcia gave the paper a
nice photo a cruise Heidi & Mike were on. The photo editor scanned it
into their system and set it as the "preferred photo" so maybe that will
improve Heidi's image a bit.
They held a nice informal remembrance at Jacob's grave yesterday (1 day
after his birthday because people were traveling). Some had poems,
thoughts and little mementos to leave at the grave. Everyone remarked
about a cornstalk that is growing 6 inches past the gravestone and
perfectly centered. No one claimed planting it but then one sister
remembered bringing broom corn last fall and it must have sprouted from
that. But how it survived the lawn mower is puzzling. Anyway, weather
was perfect and the 3 girls got to feed the ducks (and sunfish & carp).
The media circus is sure to start. During breaks today some guys were
cabling the room. There was a control panel outside the room this
morning and another appeared at lunch. As we were leaving this
afternoon they were hauling a bunch of metal boxes up - I presume
cameras, tripods and sound equipment. We'll see.
That's it for today. More is sure to follow ...
=============================================================
Subject: 9-8 Trial Update
They empanelled the jury today. Everything was done by noon. The court
recessed until Thursday at 9:00 when opening statements will begin.
This afternoon was filled with the lawyers filing motions. None of us
including Heidi attended that.
We did get to see the defense attorney in action when he addressed the
prospective jurors. He is VERY good and really captured the people's
attention.
That's all for today. I'll have more in the coming days when evidence
starts being presented.
Small items:
* The DSM Register had a very small article today but they DID run
the new photo of Heidi
* They started hauling the TV cameras in at noon
Web sites, if interested:
* DSM Register Web site is www.desmoinesregister.com. Jane's sister
Mary has been able to find articles there.
* KCCI-TV (Ch 8, CBS): http://www.kcci.com/
* WOI-TV 5 (ABC) http://www.woi-tv.com/
* I will get Ch. 13 later
=============================================================
Subject: 9-14 Trial update
Hi. I have gotten behind on the updates. I'll try to catch you up on
things.
I have been taking voluminous notes during the trial. I had intended to
give detailed accounts as we went but it would be a lot of work to
condense the information without losing a lot of it. I have watched the
local news media hack away at the case and really hope to avoid that (no
offense intended, Don). For example, during opening arguments, the
defense attorney was about to close, then remembered his last point,
turned to the jury and all but screamed "We will introduce NO
allegations of post partum depression or mental incapacity of ANY
kind." So what does one station
report that night? "A major part of the defense will be post partum
depression." Uh, hello. The trial is at the POLK County Courthouse -
where did you guys park?
Anyway, I will go on record now:
I hope I never second guess a jury unless I too had heard all 100-200 or
more hours of testimony they heard.
I was surprised at how much information is shoveled at the jury, much
of it conflicting. And obviously even the newspapers cannot do much
more than outline some sound bites. But as the old saw goes "the devil
is in the details" and the media cannot provide that to armchair
jurists.
OK, that said, I will outline the issues being presented in the trial
and leave the explanation of details until we are face to face.
As my last note said, jury selection took Tuesday & Wed. last week.
Thursday the opening arguments started. Thursday, Friday and Tuesday
(today) were prosecution witnesses. They generally came in the order
they got involved in the case - patrolmen who first got the call to the
house when Mike & Heidi reported Jacob abducted, then detectives, moving
to the medical examiner and a New York State Police pathologist.
The defense called a few character witnesses today and will bring its
own pathologists Wednesday.
Quick review of case (per Prosecution and my knowledge from what family
has said):
1) Heidi up at 8:00 Sunday 9/20
2) Mike up at 9:00
3) Mike leaves 10:30 to go 4-wheel Jeeping
4) Mike returns 3:30. Heidi is napping. Noticed baby is gone. They
call police to report Jacob missing. (We got a call from Mike about
3:30 asking if we had Jacob - and rushed over to their house.)
5) Police question Mike & Heidi in separate police cars. Later police
go to the station where Heidi is questioned further.
6) About 9:00 2 squad cars - one with Mike & one with Heidi - drive up
to Saylorville Lake. Heidi directs police to Jacob. He is in about
12-18 inches of water with 2 rocks on his abdomen.
Heidi told several versions of how Jacob drowned but they all involved
the bath at home. During police questioning, she said he was in the
baby tub on the counter. She later told Jane and her mom differing
stories where Jacob either pooped or was too soapy and she placed him in
the sink. She told police she was distracted by the phone and smoked 2
cigarettes. Told Jane she went to sit at kitchen table (10 feet away)
and maybe dozed off. Told mom she felt light-headed and went to kitchen
table. Obviously none of this helped her defense.
The key issue is: did Jacob drown at home or at Saylorville Lake? If
at home - it's an accident, if at Saylorville, murder. (All this my
interpretations.)
There has much testimony related to lake bacteria and tiny algae called
diatoms. Apparently, when you drown, it's not the fluid in your lungs
that kills you but the fluid passes quickly into the heart blood and
congests the heart. In Jacob, they found "high levels" of lake bacteria
in his heart blood, suggesting drowning in lake water.
Also, the diatoms which are unique to each body of water matched the
Saylorville diatoms according to prosecution. The diatoms were found
in the lungs near the trachea. But - interpretation of diatoms is
controversial. Defense is arguing the diatoms migrated down the
trachea post-mortem and is also arguing they should be discounted
altogether as evidence because even expert pathologists cannot agree on
how reliable they are as evidence.
The defense explanation for the lake bacteria in the heart blood
involves some gruesome stuff. Leave now if you want to:
--------------------------------------
Jacob was in the water for 6-8 hours. There was evidence of aquatic
creatures nibbling at him, including the throat area. The defense is
arguing the lake bacteria got into the blood vessels of the neck and had
easy access to migrate into the heart blood, thereby contaminating it to
appear as if lake drowning had occurred.
Also, there were some clean cuts on his face, head and neck. The
prosecution has repeatedly discussed these, implied that Heidi must have
inflicted them but never directly said she did (i.e. no knife presented,
etc.) The defense will be arguing that the cuts were caused post-mortem
by eagles, which are quite common at Saylorville. Also, the
prosecution
admits NO blood was found at the home, in the car, on the towel she
wrapped Jacob in, or at the scene at Saylorville. Also prosecution
cannot say whether cuts were before or after death.
-----------------------------------------
I'm going to stop with this. This are several other secondary factors
that came up but they take a lot to explain. I'm not sure when next
update will be. I think defense experts will be here Wed and Thur and
maybe closing arguments on Friday? But that could change as they have
had a number of scheduling conflicts with witnesses.
=============================================================
Subject: 9-15 Trial Update
This will probably be short.
Defense witnesses continued today. Heidi's OB/Gyn doctor testified -
pretty basic stuff but showed that Heidi was a concerned & conscientious
mother - initial visit at 13 weeks pregnancy, never missed a visit, had
an amniocentesis, etc. Then their family practitioner testified - again
- normal & caring: breastfeeding baby, including while waiting in her
lobby for Jacob's 2 week checkup. Heidi asked a lot of questions at 2
week check, including if the dye on some tie-dyed sleepers were safe
(doctor said 'safe'). Baby was entirely normal, earlier jaundice had
disappeared.
There was some discussion of cigarette smoking - prosecution has been
trying to portray Heidi as being more concerned about cigs than the
baby. But I thought the OB/Gyn diffused that somewhat by saying in his
experience mothers have a hard time giving up cigs. Also pointed out
(at defense's prompting) that baby was very vigorous at birth with APGAR
scores of 9 and 9. In my opinion I don't think prosecution scored any
points on the smoking issue today but who knows.
VERY GRUESOME warning again:
----------------------------------------------
A professor from Iowa State Univ. testified. He is a biologist. The
goal of the testimony was to prove the cuts and other injuries to
Jacob's head, neck and face could have been caused by raptors (eagles,
vultures, hawks) and other aquatic animals. The most graphic photos
from the autopsy were unfortunately displayed again as the Dr. explained
how raptors feed. In his view and experience:
1) Raptors tend to feed on the head first because it has most
nutrition. No injuries to Jacob were found except on head & neck.
(Also stated raptors will often leave feet of prey behind. Prosecution
has questioned why there are no injuries to fingers & toes.)
2) Explained how raptors use beak to strip their food (makes long
cuts). He pointed out areas of the head & neck that were "consistent"
with stripping.
3) There was one area of sharp cut that I am unclear on - but I think
he said he was not sure if it was stripping or not.
4) Jacob's injuries could have been from either eagle or vulture - both
are found at Saylorville.
There was some discussion about populations of eagles. No known nesting
eagles in this county, but there could be roosting eagles. Migrations
start around August but September sounded more active. Vultures nest
from March/April to mid-late October (Jacob died 9/20).
The Dr. and raptor theory came across very plausible to my mind. But
the prosecution countered with:
1) Eagles are spooky right? (yes) And the site of Jacob's body was
near the road, near a busy parking lot, right? (yes) [However: I have
been waiting for this point to come out, and I'm surprised prosecution
did it: The place where Jacob was found is not at ALL secluded like you
would assume and like the prosecution made it look with their photos,
videos and witnesses. Anyone walking along the road or in a high 4WD
vehicle can plainly see the spot, only maybe 100 feet from the road.
Why would anyone choose a site like that to do a premeditated murder???]
Also Dr. pointed out that eagles are getting more acclimated to human
activity - are nesting in places where 15 years ago he would have
thought impossible because of proximity to humans.
2) Eagle populations are pretty low.
3) Prosecutor cross-examined with some rapid fire quick logic that I
could not completely follow or get notes on. He was trying to give the
jury the impression that all the critters the Dr. spoke of could not be
involved for one reason or another. I don't know how effective this was
on the jury - if I were a juror I would assume Prosecutor was trying to
snow me and scrutinize the Dr.'s earlier remarks.
4) Saying the cuts are caused by raptors is speculation, right?
"Yes." Could be caused by knife or sharp instrument? "Yes" (However,
same logic applies to the prosecution's pathologists - they were
reluctantly forced by defense to say the cuts could have come from an
eagle's talon.)
At least 2 jurors were in tears during the testimony. I was glad the
testimony was helpful to Heidi's cause but it was very hard to listen
to.
------------------------------------ OK to READ BELOW ---------------
We recessed until 1:30. Then there was a commotion, lawyers all went to
judge's chambers (prosecutor had his jaw set for battle), 20 minutes
later they come out and the prosecutors grab their bags & leave.
We're still not sure what happened entirely, but Mike said there is a
big controversy over the lady who was to testify at 1:30. She was to
talk about the diatoms I explained yesterday. Sounds like maybe some
tests were not done that should have been done (prosecution's error),
and maybe results were late. I'll leave it at that because we're not
sure.
Anyway - the witness is breastfeeding a baby and had to fly back to
Michigan and will come back tomorrow. Hope she is not too tired. We're
all expecting fireworks - we think the prosecution is trying to exclude
part or all of her testimony. However, the defense attorney appeared to
be in a GREAT mood and until now he has always been pretty somber around
the courtroom. We'll see what happens.
More to follow ... pray for wisdom & mercy in the courtroom.
=============================================================
Subject: 9/16 & 17 Trial Update
Thursday was the last day of defense witnesses. Friday morning closing
arguments were given and the case went to the jury about noon.
On Thursday the expert from Michigan returned. She was the witness who
was to testify Wednesday but I think the prosecution was playing games.
So she was back at 10:30 and had great information. She runs what
sounds like a consulting firm specializing in lake ecology, sediments,
algae, bacteria, etc. She was very nervous at first and spoke fast.
This was her first criminal case - I would guess she normally works with
universities, DNR's, water departments, etc.
She covered 2 topics - diatoms and bacteria. The prosecution was
objecting regularly during her testimony and was fairly contentious in
cross examination (as they were all of Thursday).
Diatoms:
1) The Polk County Medical Examiner contacted a lab to do the diatom
study (this background is from the Examiner's testimony earlier). The
slides were FINALLY sent to this Michigan expert only 2 WEEKS before the
trial!!! Nearly 1 year after the incident!!!
2) A slide was passed to jury showing dirt from the water sample taken
by the coroner's office the day after Jacob died. Dirt is visible to
naked eye.
3) The Medical Examiner testified that the lab reported finding a "few"
diatoms and under fairly intense defense questioning could not define
what "few" was (1? 100? 1000?). Well, the Michigan expert showed the
state's slide and there were only 2 diatoms, which she also pointed out
were broken and therefore dead when they entered the body. She said the
state did not do a quantity study to see how many diatoms were in a
given volume of marsh water.
This slide also showed lots of dirt (entire slide was full of dirt).
4) The Michigan expert started to say she had conferred with another
colleague in Regina, a world renowned expert. Prosecution objected,
they had a bench discussion, then left it at "The Regina expert
essentially supports my conclusions."
Extra water samples: As noted above, the state was not forthcoming in
its evidence. The Michigan lady took water samples of her own in May 99
and September 99 to compare them with Sept. 98. The prosecution
jumped all over her for this because she did not PERSONALLY take the
samples and could not say with certainty they came from the identical
spot Jacob was at. Hopefully the jurors will see through all this
flim-flam. (The judge did allow further testimony using the newer
samples.)
Based on her samples, she concluded that the lake ecology had not
changed from 9/98 and she did further studies of the algae (diatoms)
based on her samples. Some conclusions:
1) The lake water is FULL of diatoms (remember, only 2 broken ones
found on Jacob's lung sample).
2) The kidney or brains were not examined for diatoms, which she said
is standard procedure.
3) Is certain diatoms were abundant in 1998
4) She has factored the effect of changing lake levels in her
conclusions (prosecution pointed out reservoir level is 18 feet higher
now than last year - her reply: Reservoir is 18 feet higher but not at
the marsh were Jacob was.) Higher water levels would increase habitat
for diatoms and decrease sediments.
Regarding bacteria in the heart blood (technical cornerstone of
prosecution's case):
1) The bacteria species involved are good swimmers. She has seen them
swim off a slide.
2) She observed them and conservatively calculated they can travel
12-14 inches in the 6-8 hours Jacob was submerged. (Defense is arguing
that bacteria entered through injuries are the neck and traveled to the
heart, which is maybe 2-3 inches in a newborn).
3) The bacteria can multiple in blood.
4) Bacteria move directionally (Medical examiner stated they move
RANDOMLY) - they go forward, hit an obstacle, back up a bit, and try
going forward again.
5) During the autopsy, the Medical Examiner got lists of what bacteria
were found in each lung. The MI expert said if Jacob had ingested lake
water with the same mix of bacteria, she would expect to see similar
lists in each lung. In fact they were quite different, indicating to
her that a very small amount of bacteria got into each lung and
multiplied at differing rates. (Gee, the prosecution never offered THAT
information.)
FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST
A former acting State of IA Medical Examiner (also was deputy for 8-10
years) testified next. More prosecution shenanigans related to the
slides we talked about above. This guy got all the autopsy reports,
photos, etc. to review. At that time he asked for more information on
the lake water because he was not familiar with Saylorville. At his
deposition in May he said it was hard to tell if Jacob drowned in the
bath or lake but he was leaning toward the bath. He said he needed
water samples to make a better determination.
Just before his testimony Thursday, he had a chance to talk to the
Michigan expert above and see the State's slides from the 9/98 water
samples. Based on that, he testified to the question "Dr., can you tell
with a degree of medical certainty, where Jacob did NOT drown?" "He did
NOT drown in Saylorville lake!" Main reason: lake is very dirty and
lungs were clean. He defines "degree of certainty" for him is 90% or
higher. He said others will go as low as 51% for their "degree of
certainty".
Also testified:
1) Some babies can lift their head at 2 weeks (others have said they
cannot at 2 weeks).
2) Looked at tub and testified a baby could drown in it - others had
said they could not
3) Thought the fact that bacteria are in heart blood is of no
significance. Said bacteria will travel down the mouth into the lungs,
pass through the mucous membranes there and into the bloodstream.
4) Diatoms: probably "percolated" into lungs after death. Says use of
diatoms in forensics is very controversial. Since the 1920's people
have been trying to improve it as a technique.
5) Can a dead body be contaminated with diatoms? 'Easily" Sand/debris
on the body, Lab containers. Labs are compulsive about using disposable
containers to avoid contamination. Diatoms can be found almost
anywhere.
6) Wounds about the head & face: I accept (ISU raptor expert's)
testimony that wounds could be from a raptor (prosecution cross exam
got him to say wounds could also be from a knife or other sharp
instrument).
7) Any cut of scalp would bleed profusely (in support of defense's "Why
was no blood found?" theme)
8) Q: If someone inflicted knife wounds would there be knife marks?"
A: Yes, I'd expect to see them & some blood at the scene. Bruises?
I'd expect some and there were none.
9) Yellowish granular lesions in the brain: Were not recent, 10-14
days. Can be caused by transient deficiency of oxygen. Can occur in
utero
10) Thinks the reddish coloration on spinal cord is an artifact
(something occurring after death). Polk Co. Med Examiner testified it
was due to blunt trauma but Dr Stephens says there were no bruises,
scratches, abrasions on abdomen. Big rock on abdomen would not cause
scratches, etc. if placed gently on baby. If pushed might see
scratches, etc.
11) If he had suspected trauma, there are additional dissections that
can be done in the autopsy to look for bruising along the spine and
abdomen. Polk Co Med Examiner did not do these.
12) The prosecution's other pathologist disagreed with Polk Co's
conclusion of blunt trauma - he said normal settling of the blood
(libidity) caused the spinal "artifact" reddish coloring.
13) Alcohol found in body: Disagrees that this was a factor in the
death as Polk Co. Med Exam. claims. Says it's well knows to occur in
dead people - usually in well decomposed bodies but can occur shortly
after death. Low levels were detected.
14) Bacteria found in Jacob - that kind can break up red blood cells
and continue on their journey
During cross examination things moved fast and I only have partial
notes:
1) Beat him up for changing testimony from his May deposition (remember
- prosecution did not supply the critical slides of water samples until
2 week before trial)
2) Pointed out autopsy shows an occasional bronchial showing debris
3) Water would wash blood away? Probably
4 Re: baby lifting head at age 2 weeks: This contradicts defense
witness family practitioner who said baby cannot lift at 2 weeks.
5) Bantering on drowning in Mississippi: when close to shore often
have debris in lungs, out in channel usually not. But lack of debris
does not mean person did not drown in close.
6) Brain lesions again: says a twisted cord at birth could cause them
MINNESOTA PATHOLOGIST
Another pathologist from MN testified. He runs a large pathology lab at
Regina Hospital and is deputy coroner for about 1/5 of MN's population.
His findings were very similar to Dr. Stephens above and appears to be
additional corroboration for the defense's position. I'll only cover
points significantly differing from earlier testimony.
1) Discounts culturing of blood for bacteria after death because it is
"misleading". He says gut bacteria can enter the blood and you do not
know how it got there, and it does not tell you whether it got there
before or after death.
2) Discounts use of diatoms - unreliable
3) Answered same as Dr. Stephens: "Baby did NOT drown in Saylorville
Lake."
4) Under cross exam, he said medically there is no way to tell for
certain where Jacob drowned.
5) Also got beat up for changing testimony from the deposition (because
prosecution delayed getting crucial water sample slides to him)
PROSECUTION RECALLS DR. GARRITY (POLK CO MED EXAMINER)
During the day questions had come up about what Garrity had reported
finding in Jacob's lungs. They recalled him for about 10 minutes. This
was a rapid fire exchange, with defense and prosecution firing off
questions way faster than I could copy them. Here is a flavor of the
answers:
1) There are 2 kinds of "debris" in pathologist terminology - a) cells
from the body and b) sand, dirt, etc.
2) Garrity was referring to "sand, dirt" debris in his report
3) Defense: You reported lungs "remarkably clean" Garrity: "Yes" D:
"Occasional bronchial tube with debris?" G: Yes (Later in questions
Garrity says the context of "remarkably clean" was to the naked eye not
under a microscope)
4) Never submitted sample of water to lab for analysis (not clear which
sample this was - diatom count, water clarity, etc.?)
5) Agreed water contained enormous amounts of debris. Is shown slide
#13 which is the slide that caused our 2 pathologists to firmly conclude
Jacob did drown in Saylorville. "I just saw this" (Oh really? and you
have a murder one charge up on someone?)
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
I decided to not take notes for closing arguments. I figured it would
move fast and appeal someone to the emotions rather than facts.
Prosecution goes first, then defense, then prosecution has the last
word. Before & after closing arguments the judge's instructions to the
jury were read.
PROSECUTION: They went with theatrics. They put a picture of Jacob in
the water up on the TV monitor and kept it there. They put the 2 rocks
that help him in the middle of the floor - at one point slamming them
down to show how they were allegedly placed. They had 3 poster boards
showing all the points needed for a first degree conviction and stepped
though how they feel they proved their case. They reiterated some facts
but not an exhaustive listing.
The cheap part came when it was the defense's turn. The prosecutor
left everything out in front of the jury box. It's a remarkably small
area. The defense lawyer politely asked prosecutor to remove the
items. He kind of sauntered over, moved the tripods and posters, but
left the rocks, bathtub and picture displayed.
Defense started his arguments. He kept having to dance around the rocks
and eventually he was forced to move them.
However - my personal opinion is he did a masterful job. Without
getting in details, he called to mind all the holes in the prosecution's
case, including a few they seem to have introduced themselves. He also,
now that all the facts are on the table, walked though a more human
scenario of why Heidi might have reacted as she did and not just call
911 when finding Jacob. He recalled a client he once had who was
involved in a hit and run. He would not have been charged in the
accident but he speeded away, put his car in storage and tried to hide.
Of course he eventually was found out & had a big legal problem. The
lawyer stressed this is NOT intended to be an explanation of what Heidi
did but an example of how people panic in vastly different ways.
He said the question at stake is whether she is guilty of involuntary
manslaughter - saying there is a fine line between guilt or innocence
based on whether the person acted "recklessly". Then he argued Heidi
was negligent but not reckless while bathing Jacob.
He closed by saying Heidi will be a prisoner of this event in her mind
for the rest of her life. He was near tears as he said this (and I
believe it was genuine - I was in a small group speaking with him
afterwards and he commented on it.)
The judge gave the jury 10 verdict slips - they are to return one. They
range from 'Guilty of 1st degree murder', to manslaughter, to assault,
to "Not Guilty".
The jury deliberated Friday afternoon & resumes Monday.
One TV station reported they talked with the 4 alternate jurors who were
released from the case. They said they were not willing to convict
Heidi but neither were they willing to acquit her.
=============================================================
Subject: 9-20 Trial Update - no news
The jury deliberated until 4:30 without a decision. Heidi's lawyer says
it's not unusual to deliberate 3 days or so.
While we're in a lull here I need to correct an error started by the
prosecution & propagated by me. I reported that Jane's conversation
with the County Attorney's office was taped without her knowledge. They
called the night before Jane's testimony and said it was not taped, and
that the attorney who told Jane she was taped was working from someone
else's notes and got confused with Heidi's mother, who apparently was
taped (I don't know if the mom was aware or not. I need to ask).
That's all we got right now. Thanks for all your support and prayers.
=============================================================
Subject: 9-21 Trial Update - Still nothing but ...
The jury may be deadlocked.
First off, this morning's paper reported that yesterday the jury asked
for definitions of the terms malice, intent and assault. (The jury
instructions that were read before deliberations gave the legal
definition of some words used in the instructions. I don't recall if
these 3 were defined.)
At 10:30 this morning the jury sent a note to the judge saying they
could not reach a verdict. We saw on the news that Heidi, and Mike and
her dad and the lawyers were summoned to the courtroom. The judge read
the latter part of the jury's statement saying they were having problems
coming to a verdict. The first part of the note, which covers what the
problems are, won't be read until after the jury reaches a decision.
The judge sent them back to deliberations asking for a verdict. In
criminal cases the verdict must be unanimous. If there is a hung jury,
the prosecutors would have to decide whether to retry the case. I don't
know what is involved in that decision process.
The jury deliberated the rest of today and will resume Wednesday.
We have no fingernails left, we're moving to toenails...
=============================================================
Subject: 9-22 Trial Update: It's a Mistrial
The jury has deadlocked and the judge declared a mistrial at about 11:30
this morning. Heidi and Mike were called down to the court and told
their was another note passed from jury to judge. But when they got
there, the judge called the jury into the jury box and asked the foreman
if more time could break the impasse. He said no and the other jurors
agreed.
Jane saw the news on TV and called me. By the time I got to the court
(15 minutes later?) everyone was gone, and the TV guys were already
tearing out the cabling, mikes, etc., although live interviews with the
attorneys were being done on the sidewalk outside the court.
I caught up with Heidi, Mike and 1/2 the family at a restaurant. No one
really had much news. I think her Dad said the jury was 11-1 but we
don't know if that was in favor or against. The lawyers will meet with
the judge in about 2 days and decide whether to retry. I don't know how
long that decision takes.
I'll keep everyone posted. Maybe the news will get to some of the
jurors and we'll get some insight into their thinking. I think it is OK
for the defense attorney to talk with them as well so maybe something
will filter back from that.
Basically, everyone is stunned and trying to sort out what all this
means. The prospect of waiting another xx months and reliving a trial
seems mighty unappealing.
=============================================================
Subject: 9-22 Trial Update - More Info
The TV news had more information that I want to pass along today:
* The hung jury was indeed 11-1, but 11 were for 2nd degree murder & 1
for involuntary manslaughter.
* They interviewed the jury foreman. He said the first poll they took
had 6 people for 1st degree. They later got to 10-2 second degree
(yesterday??) and finally hung today at 11-1.
* The 1 holdout juror believed the drowning occurred at home while the
other 11 thought it was a lake drowning.
* TV reported the penalty for second degree is 42.5 years minimum, 50
max. Involuntary manslaughter is 5 years max with an average 22 months.
* County prosecutor was interviewed and said he plans to retry the
case.
* Defense attorney in interview said this was the toughest case he has
ever tried (he looks to be age 55-60 so there is some weight to that
statement.)
It goes without saying that the mood here has gone from guarded optimism
at lunchtime to depression . We're just starting to speculate on what
might be done differently in the second trial, what the jurors might
have believed or discounted, should they ask for a change of venue, etc.
I'll keep these updates going for a while. There will probably be some
news to report for a few days. Thanks for your support and notes.
=============================================================
Subject: 9-23 Trial Update
I have some news to report from last night's TV and this morning's
paper, but I think this might be it for a while. There was nothing on
TV at noon or 6:00 today. But the hung jury was lead story on all the
10:00 TV newscasts and was front page with color photo in the morning
paper (most articles have been in the "Metro" section).
This update may be more of a "News Analysis" than a "just the facts,
ma'am" report. I was a bit riled up after seeing last night's TV
interviews.
First off, TV-5 had a phone interview and the paper reported on the
holdout juror who held to involuntary manslaughter. She said the
pressure in the deliberation room was "tremendous, and the stress was
tremendous". She said they (jurors) "went after" the other holdout when
things were 10-2, then after the other juror switched they turned on
her. She said that after the prosecution rested and BEFORE the defense
even started she did not think the prosecution had proven the "malice"
needed for a 2nd degree conviction, only the "recklessness" criteria
used for involuntary manslaughter. She was leaning to the theory that
Jacob partially drowned in the tub but may have been alive when place in
the lake, unknown to Heidi. The paper did not report why she thought
that (though it was hinted at by the prosecution during the trial).
TV-8 reported they talked with an alternate juror. The alternates saw
every minute of the trial just like the regular jurors and were
dismissed literally 2 minutes before the jury started deliberations.
The alternate said that he would have acquitted Heidi outright.
Here's what riled me up: TV-8 had a different cut of their interview
with the jury foreman. He is a retired truck mechanic who is now a part
time mechanic (if I matched him up with my notes correctly). He was
extremely gung-ho that it should have been first degree. He said they
failed to do their job of returning a verdict, but he hopes they will
impanel another jury that will return a first degree conviction.
TV-13 carried a similar clip and then had the defense attorney's
reaction and I was surprised at what he said, because throughout the
whole trial I never heard him accuse anyone of blatant incompetence. He
said "That is a bad juror. He completely ignored the judge's
instructions to judge by the facts presented and not by emotion." There
was more but I can't remember it. But he looked upset beyond a lawyer's
professional posturing.
Here's the kicker: The jury foreman said "We didn't look much at the
scientific evidence, but more at her actions. (Here comes the line that
is literally verbatim from the prosecutor's closing argument:) If
something happens, you call 911, or the neighbor, or a relative."
So I guess the 75% of the testimony spent on forensics, water ecology
and microbiology was fluff. And if you ever panic, you better do it
"normally". At least in Polk County.
Personal opinion and prayer of thanks: If that 54 year old woman had
not been on the jury, Heidi would effectively be serving a life term
because of a runaway jury. It will be painful to redo all this but
thank God there was one voice of reason.
=============================================================
Subject: 9-27 Trial Update
Predictably, things have quieted down. I have a few news items and then
a very nice piece from the Register's Sunday opinion page. It was not
very obvious that it was an 'Anfinson' article. In fact, we mentioned
it to Mike and he had completely missed it when he read the paper that
day.
* Our jury foreman has been active. There is a rumor floating around
the family that he has been on a radio talk show in addition to the TV
clips from the first few days. But no one knows what show he was
supposedly on.
* No other jury members or alternates have spoken to the media that we
are aware of (excepting article below).
* There are family rumors that the defense lawyer may file a motion
with the Iowa Supreme Court claiming Heidi's civil rights have been
violated by the foreman's very public remarks. Also may file a motion
to remove the first degree charge since this jury deadlocked with a
maximum of second degree.
* There was a short hearing today that a few family members attended
(me included). It set a new trial date of Feb. 7. Defense went on
record as saying they would like to retry in Polk County but also stated
they will do a survey of the community to see if a change of venue is
indicated. The judge (same judge) agreed with it all and said he will
alert larger Iowa cities to keep the 2/7 date open. He said the case
will be tried 2/7 whether it is in Polk Co. or elsewhere. The
prosecution asked to retry within a month but said 2/7 would be OK.
When they asked to retry in a month, the defense attorney quite loudly
asked the prosecutor if he wanted the same foreman. The judge claimed
not to have heard Kutmus' remark, but the prosecutor sputtered some
righteous protest for the record I suppose.
--------------------------------------------
A juror of conviction says no
By Rekha Basu (published 9/26/99 Des Moines Register)
Toward the end of her first jury-duty experience, it
seemed as if Joanne Saylor was on trial along with the
defendant whose fate she was weighing.
Saylor was the lone holdout when 11 jurors voted to
convict Heidi Anfinson of Des Moines of second-degree
murder for the death of her infant son, Jacob. Because
Saylor didn't concur with the majority, the judge last
week declared a mistrial. Anfinson will be tried again.
For Saylor, a religious woman, it was a matter of
conscience. She felt the prosecution hadn't proven that
Anfinson deliberately killed her child. The evidence
pointed to involuntary manslaughter, she said.
You don't easily go up against the majority, especially in
such a closely watched, emotionally fraught case,
without paying a price.
Since Tuesday, it has been awfully chilly where Saylor
sits.
After the verdict, the jury foreman refused to shake her
hand - until she made a quip, and then he shook it
looking the other way. "Whether I shake her hand or I
shake anybody's hand is my business," the foreman,
Verne Cake, told me, when asked.
Other jurors, unable to pressure Saylor into changing her
mind, made no secret of their displeasure with her. "I
was told that I thought this was a joke," she related,
"and I just come back and said, "I want you all to know
that anybody who thinks I think that this is a joke is cruel
and insensitive."
A second juror who was also unconvinced it was
murder was "harassed" during the 20-hour deliberations,
to the point where she broke down in tears and later
changed her vote, according to Saylor. Cake admits
there was pressure on that juror to see the evidence
differently, but says she came to her decision by herself.
And if you think Saylor's independent-mindedness is
drawing her praise at work, think again.
That's no way to treat someone who took her job - and
the Constitution - seriously.
Jacob Anfinson's death was one of those shocking,
incomprehensible cases that shakes everyone's sense of
order. How does a two-week old baby start out in a
baby bathtub and end up with 25 pounds of rocks piled
on top of him in Saylorville Lake? The mother first
claimed it was a kidnapping, then led authorities to the
baby's body, and said it was an accident. The medical
testimony was contradictory. Incisions the prosecutors
said were slashes, the defense claimed came from
raptors.
A murder verdict would allow us all the comfort of
knowing someone was paying big. But, Saylor said,
"Just because a baby is dead doesn't mean somebody is
guilty of murder."
Personally, I haven't formed an opinion about whether
Anfinson is a murderer, but I do know that if jurors are
prepared to send her to prison for 50 years, they had
better be absolutely sure of it.
I've read of cases in which one juror stubbornly refused
to acknowledge the evidence, but Saylor is hardly blind
to the facts. She concluded that the baby died
accidentally in the sink after his mother had moved him
out of a baby bath he had soiled. [This was Jane's
testimony. Bob]
She believes a
panic-stricken mother, fearing prosecution, then took the
body to the lake and covered it with rocks to hide it.
It may be one juror's interpretation, but that's what we
have jurors for.
Unfortunately, some people believe we have them to
think in lockstep, to defer to majority will. Cake has
been telling the media the jury fell down on its job.
Asked about Saylor's remarks about coercion, he said
there was more to it, but declined to say what.
There's always a danger that a resistant juror will cause
a guilty person to go free. But it's the prosecution's job
to present an airtight case, not the jurors' job to convict
for anything less.
Saylor, 54, won't allow herself to be swayed by
emotionalism.
"Granted it was a baby, but I'm sorry. I can't value the
death of a baby any more than a 60-year-old man," she
said.
Where does she get her independence? Mostly from
life's lessons, including the near loss of a baby from
asthma, she said. She has learned that things are not
always what they appear to be.
"I've had bad, bad times and good, good times . . . ,"
she said. "I have learned from living that you cannot be
judgmental. You have to wait."
Of Anfinson, she said, "She was innocent until she was
proven guilty."
As the emotionally draining case progressed, the mother
of four daughters told herself "the good Lord had a
purpose in having me in there."
Last week, she found out what that was.
Most of us implicitly trust the jury system to get it right.
But talking to Saylor, you wonder how often
"consensus" is really the result of bullying and
"groupthink," with the more assertive members drowning
out the less forceful ones. And how many verdicts are
wrong because of it?
Fortunately, for all her trauma, Saylor hasn't been scared
away yet. She readily says she'd serve again.
=============================================================
Subject: Trial update 2/13/2000
I haven't been sending out detailed updates for the second trial. In
most ways it is similar to the first. Here's where things stand:
1) Trial started last Monday (2/7). We have been through jury
selection, opening arguments, prosecution's case and most of defense's
case.
2) I'm guessing defense will rest Monday and closing arguments will
occur Monday afternoon or Tuesday.
3) The trial was moved to Davenport, which is along the Mississippi
River and I-80.
4) The same witnesses and evidence have been presented, for the most
part. A few minor defense witnesses were dropped (a next door neighbor
of Heidi's from several years ago and a TV reporter that Heidi had
trained in waitressing a few years ago.)
5) The arguments seem more simplified and streamlined. Many prolonged
legal arguments about the permissibility & credibility of evidence have
been omitted or smoothed over "behind the scenes". I think the overall
picture will be clearer for the jury.
6) I have some opinions on whether things seem to be going better for
the defense or the prosecution but I will hold those for later.
=============================================================
Subject: Verdict is in (2/15/2000 8:34 p.m.)
Verdict: Guilty of Second Degree Murder. Iowa law sets a 50 year
sentence with a 42.5 year minimum.
The entire family is stunned. The feeling is somewhat akin to a sudden
death in the family, with everyone gathered around trying to console
each other.
I'm not clear on next options. Apparently we have 10 days to file an
appeal. Formal sentencing will be March 29 if I heard the judge
correctly.
Heidi was immediately taken into custody. She goes to Polk County
(ours) maybe until sentencing and then I don't know where from there.
And not a one of her parents, siblings or friends thinks she did
anything criminal. Talk about feeling helpless.
|
