Elijah Deville in Judged Worthy of Death

Acknowledgement

I'd again like to thank Adam Diestelkamp for his work on the cover. Without you, I'd never have been able to do it.

I'd like to dedicate this book to my family. Your encouragement throughout has been most needed and most appreciated.

A Note to the Reader

This is the second novel in the Elijah Deville mystery series. Even though each book is a separate story, the series follows a sequential timeline. The first novel in the series is: Coasting to Death. If you enjoyed this installment, I'd encourage you to read the rest of the series as well.

Chapter 1

I'm Sorry My Friend, But I Had To Do This

Fear. Jealousy. Rage. Hate. These are all reasons for murder, said Ontario's Attorney General, Rupert Burke.

Standing in the Robert S.K. Welsh Courthouse in St. Catharines, Ontario, the extremely tall crown attorney for this case towered over the jury box. His gradual graying hair made him look older than he was, and if he tried, his booming voice could be heard well across the room. It was time for closing arguments, Burke's favorite time of a trial.

"And what was the reason in this case? What was the reason for the accused, Simon Donovan, to senselessly, and brutally take the life of Ontario Chief Justice Dexter Cunningham? It was fear. Fear that he was about to be exposed for stealing drugs from the hospital where he worked. Fear that he was about to be exposed for selling those drugs on the black market. Fear that he was about to lose the only job that he had ever known.

"So, on August 19, 2009, Simon Donovan, in order to protect himself from exposure, decided that he would confront Dexter Cunningham. Maybe in the back of his mind he had hopes of getting him to back off, but we all know that's not how it turned out. When he arrived at Cunningham's house in Ajax, on a rainy Friday afternoon around 4:00, Justice Cunningham invited him into his study. There he showed Donovan the information about the stolen drugs. He told Donovan in no uncertain terms that he was going to the police with what he had, and that they would almost assuredly press charges. Failing in the effort of keeping his crime a secret, Donovan excused himself for a moment, went and grabbed a knife from the kitchen, and returned to the study. He then, in a moment of rage, stabbed the Justice in the back five times. Unbeknownst to the accused however, was that the stab wounds did not immediately kill the Justice, a point that we'll return to in a moment.

"So, with Justice Cunningham dying on the floor, Donovan began a frantic search for the evidence that had by now, been hidden from him. He searched the bookshelves, he searched the desk drawers, he even searched the computer, but could not find anything. Donovan was in a state of panic. He tore the room apart, but found nothing.

"Which brings us back to the Justice, who was clinging to life, face down on the floor. His now weakened fingers slowly swept through the blood stained floor writing the words, 'It was Simon Donovan', in his own blood. Soon after he finished, Justice Cunningham gave up the ghost and died.

"With the search now over, the accused, anxious to leave, glanced over to the victim and noticed that he was identified as the killer. He could not allow this, especially after he went to all the trouble of silencing the only person who could put him behind bars. So he cleaned up the blood, took the knife, and fled the room. But even this last ditch effort couldn't help him escape detection. You see, there was a witness to these events. This person heard strange noises coming from Justice Cunningham's house, and when they came to investigate, they saw what had happened, then phoned the police. We have played for you the 911 call in this courtroom to verify this. These are the facts as the crown has demonstrated to you these past two weeks.

"But Mr. Deville, would have you believe otherwise. I must ask you to disregard his assertions of innocence on behalf of Mr. Donovan. Don't get me wrong, for a man of his short stature and stocky build, he makes a great lawyer. But he presented no evidence to back up his outlandish claims, no proof that contradicted the evidence laid out by the crown. In fact, the main crux of Mr. Deville's argument was to tell you to disregard established facts. He also tried to throw a lot of smoke in the air in order to confuse you.

"What are some examples of this? First, he told you to discount the 911 call, because the anonymous caller could not be found to testify at trial. Despite Mr. Deville's assertions, anonymous 911 phone calls can be admitted, if the caller accurately describes the scene found by the police. Such was the case here.

"Mr. Deville then asked you to examine the character of the defendant. He described to you a short, stocky man in his mid–sixties, balding on top, with a love for gardening. He said that he frequently went for walks in the park, and was an avid fan of the local baseball team. You know, your basic grandfatherly type of person. He asked you to look Mr. Donovan in the eyes, and ask yourself, if they were the eyes of a killer. At first glance, Mr. Deville might be right, the accused over there doesn't look like the type of person who could commit such a heinous crime. But as they always say, looks can be deceiving. The facts don't lie, Simon Donovan committed murder.

"Even still, Mr. Deville had one more thing he wanted you to consider, and I applaud him for his bravery in this instance. He actually allowed his client to testify under oath. This is a real danger because it opens up the accused to cross examination. The story told by Mr. Donovan is quite different to the one that I told you. Mr. Donovan claims that when he arrived at Justice Cunningham's house, that the Justice was lying on the floor with a knife sticking out of his back. He said he then went over to the body, looked for a pulse, but found none. The Justice was dead. If his story is true, then what he did next was what could only be described as weird. Instead of calling for police, he removed the knife. Instead of summoning for help, he cleaned up the blood, which still had his name in it, mind you. Rather than doing anything that a normal innocent man would do, he fled the scene, and was apprehended by police on the way out. He told the police that an intruder must have committed this murder.

Do you believe Simon Donovan's story? I know I don't. Why? Because of all of the evidence already presented...and this, he said, holding up a piece of paper.

This is an email sent right before the Justice was killed. As was said at trial, he sent it to the Premier and myself, outlining a massive stock market manipulation scheme, being undertaken by the MoonCorps Investment Group. In this email, he provided us with, what was at the time, hard evidence that he had received from an anonymous whistle blower. After he deemed that this evidence was trustworthy, he was going to pass it onto the police, but before he did, he wanted to notify the government. This email was sent by him at 3:51 pm on the day of the murder, and was received by my office at 3:55 pm. Since Mr. Donovan says he arrived at the house just before 4:00, this would have left this unknown intruder less than 5 minutes to kill Justice Cunningham, ransack the study, and flee the scene without being seen by the accused.

Burke paused before continuing.

"Now I don't know about you, but that explanation just doesn't pass the smell test.

So, in contrast to Simon Donovan's unsubstantiated assertions, the facts are clear, and indisputable. He killed Justice Dexter Cunningham and is guilty of 2nd degree murder. I'm sorry my friend, Burke concluded, as he turned towards Simon, but I had to do this. Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury for your close attention.

**********

Chapter 2

The Final Address

After Burke sat down at his table, Justice Hu Yen, of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, began to address the jury. Yen had been appointed by the Justice Minister of Canada to oversee this case, due to the sensitivity of the matter, and the potential for bias among the Ontario Justices; who could be seen by the public as seeking to take revenge for their fallen chief, rather than seeking justice. Despite this, Elijah viewed Yen as a disappointment due to his constant meddling from the bench. In particular, Elijah viewed his charges to the jury throughout the case as potentially prejudicial towards the defendant, though legally he could not challenge them. It was now this final address, the most important one in the eyes of many defense attorneys, that could make the difference between freedom and life in prison for his client.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Yen began, in his distinctly Chinese accent. "I thank you for your attention and patience as this case progressed. You are about to leave this courtroom to begin discussing the case in the jury room. It is now the time for me to tell you about the law that you must follow in making your decision.

"When we started this case, and at different points during this trial, I told you about several rules of law that apply in general, or to some of the evidence as it was received. Those instructions still apply. Now, I am about to give you further instructions. They will cover a number of topics, and I would like you to consider them as a whole, rather than in parts.

"First, I will explain your duties as jurors, and tell you about the general rules of law that apply to all jury cases. Second, I will advise you on the specific rules of law that govern this case, and the evidence that you have heard. Next, I will explain to you what the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish the guilt of the accused. And last, I will explain for you what verdicts you may return, and how you should approach your discussion of the case in the jury room.

To begin, as I explained at the outset of this trial, I am the judge of the law. You are the judges of the facts. As judge of the law, it is my duty to preside over this trial. I decide what evidence you will hear, and what the procedures will be for this case. I explain to you the rules of the law that you must follow and apply to make your decisions. It is also my duty to comment on or express my opinion about the evidence, in spite of what council might think on the matter, Yen stated, referring to Elijah's displeasure of him.

"You do not have to agree with my assessment of the evidence.

"The evidence does not have to answer every question raised in this case. You only have to decide those matters that are essential for you to say whether the charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You must also accept all rules of law that apply to this case, whether you agree with them or not. It is not your task to rewrite the law, it is your duty to apply the law as it is written.

"I also must remind you that you must consider the evidence and make your decision without sympathy, prejudice or fear. You must not be influenced by public opinion. We expect and are entitled to your impartial assessment of the evidence.

"Similarly, you must disregard any radio, television, newspaper or Internet accounts that you may have heard or seen about this case, or about any persons or places involved or mentioned in it. Those reports, and any other information about the case from outside the courtroom, are not evidence.

"Your sole task in this case is to determine on the whole of the evidence, whether the accused, Simon Donovan, is guilty. Sentencing should not be a factor in determining guilt, although if guilt is determined, a sentencing recommendation would be appropriate.

"When you go into the jury room to begin deliberating, you must talk and listen to one another. Put forward your own views. Listen to what others have to say. Try to reach an agreement if you can. If you can't, you are entitled to disagree. Each of you has to decide the case for yourself. You should only do so however, after you have considered the evidence and the views of your fellow jurors, and applied the law as I have explained it to you. Remember, you swore an oath to reach a just and proper verdict, based solely on the evidence. This court expects you to be true to that oath.

"If, during your discussions, you have any questions, please put them in writing and give them to the constable who will be outside the jury room. He will bring the questions to me and I will discuss them with the lawyers. You will then be brought back into the courtroom, and I will reply to the question.

"I will now briefly review what I think are the important parts of the evidence given at this trial and relate them to the issues you must decide. I might highlight what I think is important, or diminish what I think is unimportant. I remind you that you must consider all of the evidence, not just the parts I mentioned.

"On the night of August 19, 2009, Chief Justice Dexter Cunningham was stabbed in the back while in his study. Shortly after the attack, while he lay dying on the floor, he wrote in his own blood, 'It was Simon Donovan'. The crown contends that the accused washed up the blood with water, and fled with the knife. Before he could leave the scene though, the police arrived and confronted him. After searching his car, the police retrieved a bloody knife, upon which was found only the fingerprints of the accused. These are the facts of the case as presented in court.

Now the crown contends that in a fit of rage, and out of fear of exposure as a criminal, that it was the accused, Simon Donovan who committed this murder. The defense disputes this argument stating that the accused swore in open court that the victim was already dead when he arrived. They contend that an intruder must have committed the crime due to the state of disarray found in the room. Who you believe is entirely up to you.

"Ultimately though, to return a verdict of guilty, you must not only believe the witnesses, you must also agree that the crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an essential part of the presumption of innocence that our legal system rests on.

"A reasonable doubt is not a far–fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that arises at the end of the case based not only on what the evidence tells you, but also on what the evidence does not tell you. It is not enough for you to believe that the accused is probably or likely guilty. In those circumstances you must find the accused not guilty. Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"When considering the innocence or guilt of the accused, you must also consider the charge. The charge is second degree murder. You must find Mr. Donovan not guilty of second degree murder unless the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact, it was Mr. Donovan that committed murder. Specifically, the Crown must prove each of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Number one: did Mr. Donovan commit an unlawful act? It is not always a crime to cause another person's death. It is a crime, however, to cause the death of another person by an unlawful act. The unlawful act alleged in this case is that the accused killed the victim by repeatedly stabbing him in the back. Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Donovan committed the unlawful act contained in the indictment, you must find the accused not guilty. Your deliberations would be over.

If however, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, you must go on to the next question.

Number two: Did the actions of Mr. Donovan's unlawful act, cause Mr. Cunningham's death? To prove this, the crown must have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of Mr. Donovan contributed significantly to the death of Mr. Cunningham. A person's conduct may contribute significantly to another person's death even though that conduct is not the sole or main cause of death. You must consider all the evidence concerning the cause of Mr. Cunningham's death. It is for you to decide. Unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Donovan caused Mr. Cunningham's death, you must find the accused not guilty. Your deliberations would be over.

If however, you are satisfied, you must go onto the third and final question.

Number three: did Mr. Donovan have the intent required for murder. To prove that Mr. Donovan had the required intent, the Crown must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that either Mr. Donovan meant to cause Mr. Cunningham's death, or that Mr. Donovan meant to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause Mr. Cunningham's death. The crown does not have to prove both, and you all don't need to agree on the same intent, so long as each of you is satisfied that one or the other has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Consider all of the evidence, in particular, whether this evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt whether Mr. Donovan knew that Mr. Cunningham was likely to die. It is for you to decide. Unless you are satisfied that the crown has proven this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find Mr.