Friday, March 12, 2010
Free Ryan Widmer Creator Mike Mayleben    joomGO! Web Media Services - Cincinnati, OH
Home Defense Closing & Prosecution Rebuttal
Login
Register
Defense Closing Arguments & Prosecutor Rebuttal
Written by Mike Mayleben   
Saturday, 12 September 2009 19:35

DEFENSE CLOSING ARGUMENTS -- Wednesday April 1, 2009


10:20 a.m.

Lead defense attorney Charlie Rittgers tells a 12 member jury that the State wants you to believe that no water on the body or floor means murder.  

He refers to EMT witness Stephens' testimony that patient's hair was wet and had no obvious trauma.  

"Do you remember his partner, Teague?", he asks. "He came in here and in my cross exam, admitted that her body was not overly wet.  

"Not dry", he said but, "not overly wet."

"Not any EMS workers or ER doc or coroner's investigator has said rigor mortis was present. Believe me, that's one of the first things they would have said. That's out of the mouth of the prosecutor"

Rittgers says Ryan gave consent to search his home at 12:35 a.m. Both 911 calls were made at 10:43 p.m.  

He starts with the carpet found in the Widmer’s home. Police officer Elliott said the carpet under Sarah was dry. After investigators photographed evidence, scene, then they felt carpet to see if it was dry and examined evidence, including magazines on bathroom floor.   

But one of the prosecution’s crime lab techs testified that the items that were found in the home were indeed wet when they were packaged.

“So much for the dry carpet.” Rittgers says.

Next he talks about Ryan’s response to the 9-1-1 call.

Rittgers reminds jurors that 911 call was 6 1/2 minutes long, but prosecution keeps referring to 2 minutes elapsed.

Rittgers says the first responder made it upstairs six and a half minutes after Ryan made the call.

Rittgers then shows the jury a transcript of the 9-1-1 call with certain questions highlighted.

Reads from 9-1-1 call transcript, says water drained but Sarah still in bathtub.

911 Dispatcher: Have you taken her out of the water yet?

“Yes, she’s lying here unconscious,” Ryan says.

911 Dispatcher: How long was she in there?

"At least 15 minutes to half hour. I was downstairs watching TV."  Ryan says.

"Do you remember one of our first witnesses, a friend since kindergarten, said Sarah fell asleep in tub all the time."  Rittgers says.  

He then asks the dispatcher if someone was coming.

911 Dispatcher: “Yeah, they're already on their way, is there anyway you can get her out of the bathtub?”

Ryan says he can try and he puts the phone down.

Rittgers says Ryan's reaction to pull drain and then call 911 was natural, reasonable, something any one of us would do.

Prosecutors object, but Bronson overrules.

Prosecutors said Sarah's body was never in the tub, but Rittgers says he would have had to move her body while on phone. If Ryan had placed Sarah's head in toilet ("not mentioned in opening arguments"), sink ("which they're not suggesting anymore") or tub, why not place her entire body into tub?

Rittgers then talks about the magazines.

He says magazines could have been wet, wrinkled, but dry 2 1/2 hours later, when police began to examine them.

“The magazines, look at the magazines, they are wrinkled. They weren’t picked up until two and a half hours later,” Rittgers say.

Rittgers continues with an observation of the bathtub. He says the tub was white, so you can't see anything.

He asks the jury to look at the tub and notice the marks on it, which are now only visible because they were wiped with fingerprint dust.

Rittgers says one of the prosecution’s witnesses said he can’t age those marks, he can’t even determine when the marks were made.

Prosecution thinks that it's absurd to fall asleep in the tub. Police think Ryan is lying, but what is he supposed to think? She goes up to take bath, but he finds her later floating in the tub. Is he supposed to think she had a seizure, cardiac event, sudden death syndrome? No, he thinks she fell asleep in the tub.  

“Pruning, pruning , pruning. I don’t know how many times we heard of that. No one knows how long she was in that tub. We don’t know if she was doing her nails, we don’t know if she was on the computer,” Rittgers tells the jury. There’s no evidence that shows how long she was in the tub.

Rittgers talks about the fact that the Bengals game was on in the upstairs bedroom.

"what’s so strange about Ryan walking in the bedroom, turning on the TV and then heading to the bathroom?"
"How many of us haven't flipped channels? I think the Olympics were on around that time."

No one believes Ryan that night, but there was no evidence of trauma found that night.

“What theory do they (the prosecution) have as to how this happened? We haven’t heard it,” Rittgers says. “If there was a violent struggle, we don’t have any theory to how this happened.”

Rittgers begins to act out what he’s saying to the jury.

“Well he could have put her head in the toilet, well, where is the water around the toilet, where is the bruising on her knees, where is the bruising on her nose, her cheeks?” Rittgers asks the jury.

Rittgers negates the prosecution’s theory that Ryan placed her head in the sink.

“Where’s the water on the sink? Where’s the evidence of a struggle around the sink? Where’s the damage to the cabinets?” Rittgers asks.

Rittgers say if there was a violent struggle then wouldn’t Sarah had fought for her life?

"if there was a violent struggle there would’ve been marks on Ryan and Sarah. There would’ve been defensive wounds."

“What about those finely manicured nails; there wasn’t one scratch on them,” Rittgers says.

Rittgers tells the jury if Sarah was strangled she would be fighting for her life, she would’ve been grabbing him, she would’ve been breaking fingernails.

Rittgers brings up the bruise found on the back of Sarah’s neck and tells the jury all the other pathologists who testified agreed and said it was minor.

“No marks on the shoulders, no marks on the buttocks. Lacerations on her lip, result from intubation efforts,” Rittgers says.

Next, Rittgers discuss the contusions on her head.

Rittgers tells the jury that Dr. Uptegrove said they are minor and they would not render unconsciousness and Rogers, another witness agreed.

“There’s no evidence at all, it makes no sense, their theory, none,” Rittgers says.

Rittgers tells the jury there were no signs of struggle anywhere in the house and no marks on Ryan or Sarah.

Rittgers tells the jury the prosecution did everything they did to try to convict Ryan.

Rittgers says Lt. Jeff Braley and coroner investigator Doyle Burke might have influenced Dr. Russell Uptegrove's autopsy findings. Rittgers reminds jurors that all three forensic pathologists called by defense were board certified, but Uptegrove is not.

Bronson sustains objection about prosecutor's comments about Ryan during press conference about Ryan's arrest the day after Sarah's death.

Rittgers reminds jurors that they heard four days of testimony before prosecutors presented their theory as to how Sarah might have died. Rittgers lists some of the witnesses who did not testify about this.  

They interviewed all his friends, co-workers. They went through business records, personal records, everything, because they were looking for what? .....MOTIVE....they don’t have a motive. Where’s the range, where are all the marks and stuff, where’s the hair missing?” Rittgers asks.

Rittgers reminds jurors that he finally asked the last prosecution witness to present a theory, and characterizes Dr. Lee's reaction as similar to a deer in the headlights.

Rittgers reminds jury how he asked Lee about injuries, signs of struggle, but witness did not specify, he says.

Where's the water on sink, mirror? Lee didn't even know there wasn't any, Rittgers says. Where's the evidence of struggle on sinks, and Lee finally suggested a comb, he says.

Rittgers sarcastically recalls Lee's testimony that Sarah might not have struggled or defended herself. Where were marks on Ryan's face, arms, hands? He was nearly naked when police arrived? What about defense wounds? What about Sarah's finely manicured nails?

Fingernail swab finds only DNA of an unknown female, and that's it, Rittgers says.

Dr. Lee suggested that maybe Ryan put Sarah over the tub, either backward or forward, but where's the water? If that's the theory, she'd be flailing around, there'd be water splashed around...

"She'd be fighting for her life," Rittgers says, emphatically.

Lee says drowning takes 3 to 4 minutes to drown, but Rittgers says it takes only about a minute. But he tells jurors to go back to jury room, time out one minute and consider what might happen during a minute-long struggle. He asks them to think about injuries, damage to fingernails, etc.

Uptegrove found superficial bruises to nape of neck, reminds jurors that defense went into detailed questions about this. ER Dr. Rogers said he noted deep bruise there, but Rogers then said pathologist would be better qualified to speak about that. Rittgers says he asked that question on purpose because he knew Rogers would say that.

Uptegrove says he'd never seen such injuries from intubation efforts, but Rogers and Lee agreed they could have come from intubation.

Uptegrove said scalp bruising minor, would not render Sarah unconscious. Rogers agreed, and so did three board-certified pathologists agreed. Why am I emphasizing this?  

Lee, when finally pressed to offer theory, said those bruises could have knocked her unconscious. Rittgers says Lee did this because he could not otherwise explain why Sarah wouldn't have fought back from an attempt to choke and drown her.

If Dr. Lee correct in his theory that Ryan dunked her over tub, you almost certainly would have seen bruising to back, defensive wounds. You're not going to have clean fingernails, you're going to have water everywhere.  
The prosecutor makes a lot of to do about a bruise on side of neck and suggests that it came from being strangled. Three board-certified experts who have had lots of experience said that bruise could be result of Sellick maneuver, manipulating head during intubation.

Experts said intubation efforts difficult in the field with drowning victim, with vomit present.  

That's the reasonable explanation, but I haven't heard them yet come down to a theory. They're just throwing everything against the board.  

If this result of Ryan strangling (he grasps his own throat) it would have been from front, there would have been evidence of a struggle. "It makes no sense, their theory," he says. "None"

The state knows that they've got a big problem in this case and they've known it from the beginning. They know they've got no evidence of a struggle. They know they did everything they could after he was charged, to investigate Ryan and Sarah's personal life. They interviewed all of her friends, sometimes twice, in the  months after Ryan was charged.

No insurance. Combed through financial records, computers, witnesses looking for something. What? Motive! They don't have one!

Ryan places wedding rings neatly on sink, waits for her to undress, then pounces on her? Where's the rage?   

During their testimony, police said Ryan was cool, calm, collected, but Rittgers asked during cross exam if they put that into police notes. They admitted that maybe he was upset, and Rittgers says they didn't note that because it didn't fit their theory.

Prosecutors didn't call the EMS worker who drove the ambulance and Ryan was riding with him, because he didn't fit their theory. We called Max Smith because he testified that Ryan called his and Sarah's mom and was upset and crying the entire way to hospital.  

Rittgers then says let’s talk about the evidence or lack thereof.

A power point slide is shown to the jury with the following listed:


No signs of struggle
No defensive wounds on Sarah
No marks on Ryan
No scratches, cracks, or chips on nails
No DNA under Sarah’s nails
Wet Hair
Body “not overly wet”
No wet towels, clothes, etc.  Police said dryer not warm, no evidence used to dry items used in cleanup.  
According to the EMS workers, her body was warm/hot to the touch.
No hair loss.
No crushed hair
No injury to skull
No injury to brain
No injury to hyroid bone
No injuries to the knees, toes


Rittgers discusses the CPR efforts. He says that EMS crews continued to do resuscitation efforts when they got to the hospital.

Rittgers reminds jurors of extensive bruise on inside of arm that was result of needle stick. To suggest that blood dilution only a theory just ridiculous!

Prosecutor wants us to believe that sticking laryngescope, intubation tube down throat won't cause much damage. (Rittgers grabs the tools used to try to save Sarah)

Not only are injuries to Sarah consistent with resuscitation efforts, but ER doctor testified that he'd expect to find more injuries.  

Rittgers says in any of the prosecution's five or six theories, injuries or signs of struggle would be present.

Did we hear one negative thing about Ryan from Sarah's own friends? It just doesn't add up.   

He tells the jury to use their common sense because the prosecution team has no motive. There wasn’t one negative thing said about Ryan based on testimonies Rittgers says.

“They have to put on their case, beyond a reasonable doubt,” Rittgers says.

We didn't have to put on evidence, you know that. They have the burden of proof, we don't. We put on evidence, but we didn't have to. I don't want you to weigh whether our evidence was better than theirs. We didn't have to put on one witness, I didn't have to cross examine anyone.

Our expert witnesses, all board certified and sometimes prosecution witnesses, presented evidence.  

Can't rule out seizure, can't rule out sudden death. We don't know what happened. Remember Dr. Smile's statistics on sudden, unexpected death?

Smile said 2/3 of those deaths can be explained, but about 1/3 cannot be. About 2 or 3 deaths per month, per state fall into this category. Is this what happened? We don't know, Rittgers says.

"I know one thing; Ryan Widmer had nothing to do with his wife’s death"  

Let's talk about reasonable doubt.

If you find prosecution has only proven the case by preponderance of evidence, you must return a verdict of not guilty.

If you think Ryan "probably" did this, you must return not guilty.

State must prove case beyond a reasonable doubt, he says.  

“If you think that the state proved their case by clear and convincing evidence, you still have to rule not-guilty. It has to be met by clear and unreasonable doubt,” Rittgers says.

Rittgers places instructions of determining beyond reasonable doubt on the projector.

Rittgers says if he were getting a blood transfusion and knew one sample among many was HIV positive, that would be a reasonable doubt. Not what I expected.

"Prosecutor talked a lot about disproving our case, but he didn't talk much about proving his own. Let's pretend we have a box, and into that box we have a cat and mouse. Put a lid on it and walk away for an hour, come back and mouse is gone. It's reasonable that the cat ate mouse.

Let's perform same experiment, but come back and find mouse gone and hole in box. Could believe mouse ate hole and escaped, cat ate hole and mouse escaped, or cat ate mouse and then created the hole. That is reasonable doubt.

"They have no motive, 45 minutes of resuscitation, no signs of struggle, no defensive wounds, no marks on Ryan, no damage to Sarah's fingernails, no DNA under fingernails except an unidentified woman's, possibility of seizure, possibility of sudden death syndrome, possibility of cardiac event."

I've been living with this case for seven months, and it has been a privilege to represent Ryan. I hope you agree that Ryan Widmer is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Thank you very much.


Time:  11:22 a.m.

=====================================================
=====================================================


11:23 a.m.     Prosecutor Arnold on final REBUTTAL:


Rittgers said things we do no agree with. (He's speaking very loudly.)

Jeff King testified and said the body was dry, the carpet was dry.  (He mis-spoke, should be Jeff Teague.)   

I don't know where he gets 6 1/2 minutes from his tape, but you'll have to judge for yourself. Says bathtub wiped down of fingerprints.  

Two concepts to consider: Reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence.  

Reasonable doubt is not near-possible doubt, he says. Everything open to some possible or imaginary doubt.   

Arnold brings up the bathtub marks again. He tells the jury circumstantial evidence tells us to use our reason and allows us to determine instances from that. It's about accepting what's reasonable and rejecting what's unreasonable.

Case will come down to your ability to use common sense and make reasonable conclusions. Says Spitz not as helpful for defense as should have been. For $5,000, if this isn't a homicide he should come in here and say so.  

Even Spitz's own book contradicts with some of his testimony.

Says autopsy not only thing to consider in investigation, must also consider scene and other evidence. Can be few or relatively minor external injuries in manual strangulation. This could also render someone unconscious. Says Spitz testified that this or that was possible, but his own definition of possible means that theory cannot defy laws of nature.

Spitz said possible has low threshold for evidentiary purposes. "His words, not mine," he says.  

Why did healthy 24-year-old woman drown in bathtub? he asks

Jury will have chance to listen to 911 tape, which he again refers to. Says Rittgers correct when he says no one believes Ryan Widmer about what happened.

Brings up sleep expert's testimony that water would likely wake up sleeping person. Tells jury they've been attentive, but asks if they've ever fallen asleep and then jerked awake.  

“Even if there was a sleep disorder, Sarah would’ve woken up,” Arnold says. He also mentions the fact there was no forced entry.

No other defendant in house that night that could be attributed to DNA sample under Sarah's fingernails.

Says undiagnosed health problems not a reasonable theory, refers to medical exam about six weeks before death. "She had regular physical examinations," Arnold says

Discounts defense witnesses who did not examine Sarah's medical records.

This (metaphorical) bolt of lightning struck Sarah and left no trace? Arnold asks.

Arnold dismisses Smile's statistics about sudden death syndrome among healthy young people. "Vanishingly small, nonexistent," he says.

Says Sarah's body would have to slump over in just the right way. Brings up story of Goldilocks. Not too hard, or Sarah would have survived. Not too soft, or she would not have drowned. It had to be just right, but Goldilocks is an imaginary story.  

“The hard question is, was she in that tub when she was killed and was her entire body in the tub or just her head?” Arnold asks. Her body was dry. No pulse, her hair was wet, no pruning. The carpet was dry, the floor was dry, the magazines weren’t wet, the towels weren’t wet.”

Says state focused on tub because Ryan brought it up, and says Rittgers brought up toilet. Says Sherlock Holmes most associated with circumstancial evidence, reads excerpt from Holmes novel to illustrate.

Ryan claims to have called 911 as soon as he found her body. Head near faucet, water full to overflow. Says we know that deputy arrived two minutes later.  

Says you hear sirens in background, dog barking on 911 call then Bishop arrives. What does Bishop do? Touches Sarah's hair, checks pulse. Leans over for signs of breath. Hair damp, body dry.  

Body was dry, carpet was dry.  

Paramedics would have checked because they needed body to be dry for defibrulator pads.

Police said bedroom carpet not wet to touch, despite Sarah's body being dragged across. Floor dry, carpet dry, magazines, towels, clothes all dry.  

That means only one thing: Head held under water. "She was drowned," Arnold says, "by Ryan Widmer."  

Sarah petite woman, about 5'1, and only takes a few seconds when someone's hands placed on throat to lose ability to resist. She doesn't have opportuntity to reach back and fight after she's been grabbed and held under water.  

It's the holding of Sarah's head underwater for length of time needed to drown her that shows calculated effort to kill her.

Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? Who knows what lurks behind closed doors?

Not even our best frends know sometimes what happens behind closed doors of a marriage. No motive, but no question about purpose when holding someone's head under water until drowning.

If you believe Sarah's body not wet, that means she was intentionally held under water. That's murder.  

We don't know that Ryan Widmer killed Sarah, but we know Sarah died of drowning. We know her body was dry but her hair was wet. We know injuries consistent with compression and being held over hard surface. We know that only Ryan Widmer home at the time.

Arnold apologizes for not having photo of Sarah on projector when he started to point to it.  

Arnold wraps up his argument with the quote, “accept what is reasonable and object what is unreasonable.”
We are confident you will return a just verdict."

Time  11:48 a.m.


===========================================================
===========================================================

After Arnold is finished, Judge Bronson: reads the jury instructions for determining the verdict.

Explanation of indictment, reasonable doubt, etc.  

Reasonable doubt is present when jurors cannot say they are firmly convinced of truth of charge. Not based on common sense, not based on all possibilities. An ordinary person would be willing to act on reasonable doubt in his own affairs.  

Jurors are allowed to judge for themselves the credibility of individual witnesses. Not supposed to consider number of witnesses called by one side versus the other.

Judge reminds jurors that defendant's decision not to testify must not be considered for any purposes.

Prosecutors are not required to prove motive, and jurors are not supposed to consider this in their deliberations.

Prior calculation and design means that homicide was planned, he says.

Jurors may consider lesser charges than murder.  

If you find that state proved beyond reasonable doubt on charge of aggravated murder, must find guilty as charged. If not, not guilty. Then must continue deliberations on lesser charges.  

Murder is distinguished from aggravated murder by prior consideration (not premeditated). Jurors may consider that charge in addition to aggravated murder.  

He dismisses the jury just after Noon.



======================================================

Courtroom activity after dismissal:

The defense is listening to the 911 call at their table with Travis Vieux. They're debating the 6 minutes point. Can't hear the arguments clearly enough to tell you what they're saying, but Vieux is calmly explaining why prosecutors characterized the call's length as they did.

There is a folder with numerous dispatch files in it. The 911 call is broken into separate files because each time the input level drops below a certain threshold, the recording stops and then resumes. This is standard at dispatch centers. Everyone just wants to make sure jurors are able find the information they want while they're deliberating.

Not arguing. Just talking. Now they're making sure the jurors have the right audio file to listen to. The younger Rittgers seems to know the most about the technical issues. That seems to have been his role on this case. (He's in law school, so not an attorney yet.)

Judge Bronson came out and talked to them and sort of mediated, but he was just wearing a regular suit. The robe gives them special powers.

Ryan sitting at the defense table still. Just listening to his attorney make sure the jury has access to the unedited 911 call. It's an MP3 file, and I think there might be an improperly saved file floating around.

His mom and dad have come back into the courtroom.

Sarah's family left right after the jury was given the case.