Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Next the D.A. called the lead detective, Dan Iverson to testify. Iverson testified that he arrived on scene after uniformed officers had secured the crime scene and placed the defendant, Mr. Reasoner, in handcuffs and read him his Miranda rights. He said the defendant's stepfather and his attorney had arrived before him and advised the defendant not to answer questions at that time.

Iverson went on to add that he had interviewed the witness, the defendant's wife, Mrs. Reasoner. She stated that she had invited the victim to dinner and were going to spend the remainder of the evening in her home watching a movie on television. She claimed she was unaware nor did she expect her husband to be at home. She said that Mr. Rumson had entered ahead of her as she was getting some snacks out of the car when she heard noises from inside her home.

She said she ran inside the utility room as the shots were fired. Following the shots her husband emerged asking her if she was okay. She said that her husband knew of Mr. Rumson's interest in her from a company picnic when he had Mr. Rumson's supervisor Sam Lenard to threaten his job if he continued to pursue Mrs. Reasoner. However, Mrs. Reasoner told him that her husband misconstrued the events at the picnic and that she and Rumson were just friends and went overboard.

He told the prosecutor that he found an unloaded Taurus 9mm on the kitchen table and it was unloaded by the victim with the magazine and chambered round next to it with the slide locked in the open position. It smelled as if it had been recently fired. CSI found three spent 9mm shell casings on the floor and that the victim had three gunshot wounds to the chest. He added that based on the evidence he decided to hold the defendant Mr. Reasoner over for questioning and later decided to arrest him for capital murder.

He testified that according to the defendant he saw an unknown male entering his residence and was silhouetted so his face was not visible. The defendant claimed that he feared for his life and defended his person by firing his Taurus 9mm three times at the victim in self-defense. The weapon is registered and legally owned by Mr. Reasoner for protection and that he invoked the Personal Protection and Safety Indemnity Act AKA "defend the homestead" and vehemently denied knowing the victim's identity at the time the shots were fired or that he had been invited to enter by his wife.

When the prosecution finished Jarvis questioned the detective. He asked Iverson why he decided to charge me with capital murder. Iverson told the court that it was really the D.A. who made the final determination based on the circumstantial evidence and Mrs. Reasoner's account of the events they decided to file the charges.

Jarvis asked Iverson, "So, without Mrs. Reasoner's testimony would you have filed charges?"

Iverson simply replied, "I don't believe so. It's hard to say. I would have liked a bit more time to investigate things a bit more thoroughly."

Jarvis asked, "Are you still following up on the case?"

Iverson replied, "No, it has concluded at our end."

Jarvis thanked him and he was dismissed. My wife, the prosecution's star witness was up next. Her willingness to completely and wholeheartedly betray me by her testimony left me shocked, hurt and humiliated. I could understand her loneliness and frustration and even her affair because of it.

Yet the anger, disrespect, and total disregard for me was something unfathomable. However, her public humiliation of me as she offered evidence against me would indeed need to wait until tomorrow as the judge called a recess for the evening. I sat in my cell contemplating how my seemingly wonderful life went so far south so quickly. I had never felt so alone as I lay in the bunk of that jail cell awaiting the most undeniably painful experience of my life.

The next morning after a bowl of cold oatmeal and even colder coffee I was taken to dress for court, shackled and loaded into the transport. I was placed in the holding cell at the courthouse at 7am. At 8am Jarvis arrived and prepped me for my wife's testimony and that he was left little choice but to do all he could to destroy any shred of credibility she had and I needed to be prepared and remain unemotional and not allow the jury to see any expression of emotion that might affect their opinions.

Court began at 9am. The jury was seated and followed by the judge, the honorable Harland B. Ferguson, presiding. Harland Ferguson was known as a sharp legal mind, conservative but fair minded and a true jurist. Nobody disrespected the sanctum of his courtroom or the fair and equitable constraints of due process and letter of the law.

The prosecutor proceeded to call Sandy to the stand. I sat stoically as possible while my wife took the stand and was sworn in. The D.A. asked her to tell her version of the events of 9 November 2018. Sandy choked up and Angela Caskenette told her to take her time. Sandy regained her composure and began relating her story.

She told the jury that she had been seeing Dave Rumson for about two weeks prior to November 9, 2018. Our company had a costume party and I was out of town on a job. She decided on going. It was at the party that she had run into Rumson. He had hit on her at the picnic on July fourth and she told him to get lost.

However, she had been looking forward to the party and was angry that her husband, the defendant, couldn't attend. So, she said that she had started drinking a bit more than normal and soon found herself inebriated. Rumson asked her several times to dance and she had rebuffed his advances. As the night grew longer and her level of intoxication rose, she finally capitulated and danced with him.

He continued to ply her with drinks and by the end of the evening he offered to drive her home. Once at her home he kissed her and she tried to resist but with her inhibitions lowered by the alcohol she started responding but nothing went beyond kissing. He always knew when her husband was out of town and called or came by during those periods.

She had found Rumson attractive and she was angered by her husband's frequent absences. Finally, she decided to see him when her husband was out of town. On that Friday, she had not expected her husband to be home and had invited the victim, Dave Rumson, to her home. They were entering the house when she heard three shots ring out and found Mr. Rumson unresponsive and on the floor in a rather large pool of blood. She ran upstairs and locked herself in her room and called 911 afraid for her life because her husband had just murdered her friend.

The D.A. was finished and now it was Jarvis' turn to cross-examine Sandy. Jarvis slowly approached the stand where Sandy was sitting. He recapped her testimony. He asked her if she knew the penalty for perjury. Sandy looked worried and nodded her head in the affirmative. Jarvis told her she needed to answer and she meekly told him yes, she understood.

Jarvis asked if she had anything she wanted to add and Sandy answered no. So, he began his questioning. He asked her, "Did you perform fellatio on Mr. Rumson on October 27th, 2018 in his truck outside your home after he drove you from the party you attended earlier that evening? Remember, you are under oath."

Sandy replied meekly, "Yes."

Jarvis then asked, "Mrs. Reasoner did you also commit the act of fellatio on Mr. Rumson on October 30th in the parking lot of Revolutions Nightclub, on November 5 in your car parked at the Starlite Lounge and again in your garage just before the shooting took place?"

Sandy began weeping and shook her head no before putting her head in her hands. Jarvis asked her again for her answer. Sandy answered, "Uh..."

Jarvis went in for the kill. "Your honor, I request permission to treat Mrs. Reasoner as a hostile witness and please instruct the witness to answer."

Judge Ferguson said, "Request granted. Miss, I understand the level of humiliation you must feel but you must answer the question or I will hold you in contempt of this court and you will be remanded in custody at the county jail until such time you are to comply with my orders. Is that clear Mrs. Reasoner?"

Sandy answered, "Yes, your honor. As to your question Mr. Jarvis, yes."

He asked her if she had sexual intercourse with Mr. Rumson and she vehemently replied, "No, I never had intercourse with Mr. Rumson, ever!"

Jarvis asked, "Yet, you visited Mr. Rumson's apartment on several occasions. Did you ever spend the night?"

Sandy answered "No, never!"

Jarvis followed up with, "You are positive that during those visits you never had sexual intercourse with Mr. Rumson?"

"Yes, I'm certain, it was only oral sex. I never had intercourse with him."

Jarvis continued, "Mrs. Reasoner, you admitted that you performed fellatio in your garage prior to the shooting. Isn't it true that you were cleaning Mr. Rumson's semen from your car seat when the fatal shots were fired and were in no position to witness how the shooting took place? Also, isn't it true that you never checked your messages where you would have discovered that your husband was to be home that evening?"

Sandy told the courtroom that what Jarvis said was the truth.

"Mrs. Reasoner, wasn't your intention on November 9 to have Mr. Rumson spend the night because you had decided to engage sexual intercourse with Mr. Rumson?"

Sandy hemmed and hawed but finally answered, "Yes."

Jarvis asked, "Mrs. Reasoner, did you know that your husband carried a 9mm Taurus semi-automatic pistol on his person for protection?"

Sandy answered, "Yes, he has had the pistol for two years and nearly always had it on his person."

Jarvis said, "Let me recap Mrs. Reasoner. You have for a period of two plus weeks had a sexual affair with the victim that has been collaborated by video evidence and eyewitness testimony. The affair was clandestine and you deliberately set out to deceive your husband and to betray your wedding vows with the victim.

You failed to check your home and cellular voicemail and your email so you were unaware that your husband would be home. Then you brought the victim to your home for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse while your husband was away at work. Is this correct? Sandy answered yes.

By your own admission your husband has frequently been out of town during this period and your only contact with Mr. Rumson was during those absences. So, it is unlikely your husband knew of this affair given he made plans to celebrate with you the night in question.

Given all of this, the facts in evidence and your own sworn testimony, how can you be sure that my client shot Mr. Rumson with premeditation and malice when by your own testimony you couldn't see him? The truth is that the events that took place the night of November 9 took place as my client has described it. That he simply shot who he believed to be an intruder entering his home?"

Sandy answered, "Yes, it is possible."

"Would you say that it was even probable Mrs. Reasoner?"

"Objection your honor! Mr. Jarvis is leading the witness!" the prosecutor said.

Jarvis replied before the judge could rule, "I withdraw my previous question your honor." The judge instructed the jury to ignore the question.

Jarvis continued, "Mrs. Reasoner a couple of final questions. You were in the garage for several minutes after you arrived home and after you sent the defendant in ahead of you. Your husband's truck was parked inside the garage in its normal spot. Is this correct?"

"Yes." Sandy answered.

Jarvis then asked, "If his truck was in the garage then you must have at least suspected your husband was at home. You testified that you knew he carried a handgun for protection and that by various accounts and his own statement that he had no prior knowledge of your affair with the victim. I

If you suspected the remote possibility that your husband was in the residence and you knew that your husband would respond to an intruder isn't that why you insisted your lover enter the home? That you in fact orchestrated the death of your lover?"

"OBJECTION!" shouted D.A. Caskenette. Judge Ferguson said, "Sustained! Mr. Jarvis, I will not tolerate cheap theatrics in my courtroom! The jury will disregard that final question."

Jarvis simply replied, "I apologize to the court your honor and I withdraw the question and I have no further questions.

The D.A. looked a bit flustered as she rested her case.

Judge Ferguson called for a recess for lunch, it was 11:30am. I was escorted to the conference room where Jarvis had Mom and Dad. They brought me a giant club sub from Jimbo's Deli and I devoured it as Jarvis told me the parade of character witnesses set to testify and he would submit the tapes from the two clubs as well as testimony from witnesses. As I ate the last of my sub I though how much I wanted this whole thing to be over with once and for all.

Back in court there were a parade of witnesses that attested to my character as a fine and decent man and a fair and reasonable supervisor. Larson's foreman Bill Gower testified that I could have had Rumson fired on the spot but requested for him to be warned about his inappropriate behavior and nothing went beyond that day save for his warning to Rumson.

Sam testified about my arrival and how they worked to finish the job. He lamented how I bought the entire crew lunch and gave him $500 to buy drinks once the crew got home to celebrate and how he arranged for a small chartered bus to make sure they all got home safely. He added that he knew of my plans to go home and celebrate by taking Sandy out to dinner.

Connie testified that I was ecstatic when I phoned and had her make dinner reservations at the last minute. She told Jarvis about ordering champagne at the restaurant and for the delivery of roses to our home to celebrate the bonus and promotion it earned. She also told him about the $500 gift certificate for her and her husband and said they used it to celebrate their 25th anniversary.

Jarvis then entered the videotapes into evidence and had the witnesses testify. At 3:00pm he rested. The Judge called recess and told the counselors that closing arguments would begin at 9am. I was shackled and returned to my cell at county. That night after forcing down some nearly inedible slop I laid down in my bunk. I realized that my entire future would be decided soon. I thought that Jarvis had done an excellent job but wondered it would be enough. Soon a restless sleep consumed my weary mind and body.

The next morning Angela Caskenette summed up her case. Her argument was that while the case was based on mostly circumstantial evidence that there were far too many coincidences for any reasonable person to believe that the shooting of David Rumson was anything except a cold, calculated plot to get rid of his wife's lover permanently. The evidence and testimony heard left no reasonable doubt that his was a homicide and that, they the jury, needed to return a verdict of guilty of capital murder.

However, Jarvis had effectively destroyed the credibility of Sandy's testimony and had made me look like a victim in the eyes of the jury. Her summation failed to directly mention Sandy or her testimony and even I could tell that the slam dunk case she had envisioned as this trial began was all but lost.

Jarvis attacked the sloppy police work, neglecting evidence that proved the witness had in all actuality, witnessed nothing. He cited the shakiness of Sandy's account of the shooting and added, that, "My client gave an accurate representation of the events and that it was supported by the evidence and the testimony of a score of witnesses."

He went on to say that the prosecution's case had more holes than a block of swiss cheese. The witness was unreliable and the circumstantial evidence supported his client. Thus, enough reasonable doubt existed and having unrefutably established such doubt, they had no other recourse than to acquit his client of capital murder. He concluded that while the shooting of Mr. Rumson was both tragic and avoidable, his client, "Was simply defending his life and home."

The jury began deliberations at 10:05 am. The verdict was in at 3:15pm. I was returned from the conference room to discover my fate. The jury entered at 3:25pm and Judge Ferguson entered and called the court into session at 3:27pm. The bailiff handed him the verdict and he read it before he returned it to the jury forewoman.

His honor had ordered me to stand and Jarvis rose with me. Judge Ferguson asked, "Madame Forewoman, have you reached a verdict?"

She rose and said, "We the jury in the entitled action of Capital Murder in the first degree, we find the defendant, Henry Andrew Reasoner, not guilty."

Judge Ferguson thanked the jury for their service and dismissed them. He addressed me next and said, "Mr. Reasoner, I recommend that you seek some type of counseling to help you cope with the stress of taking another life. Even if it was justified it has been proven to be difficult to live with. Especially since this shooting involved unforeseeable circumstances that led to an innocent man losing his life has compounded the stress and guilt.

Given the tragic nature of this shooting and the other trauma involved I hope you do get help and find a measure of peace and stability in your life. You are hereby remanded to the county jail for immediate out processing and release. You'll be home in time for supper. This case is dismissed."

I gave away everything I brought with me and wore my suit that I had on for court to return home. I had noticed that Sandy didn't appear in court after closing arguments. I couldn't deal with the mess that my marriage had become. Mom and Dad picked me up outside the sally port once again a free man. All I wanted to do was eat some real food, have an ice-cold beer and sleep. They took me home with them. Tomorrow I wanted to celebrate and the next day to mourn all that had been lost.

Dave Rumson was a slime ball but his seduction of my wife and their cheap tawdry affair didn't warrant a death sentence. My family and friend's minus Sandy came to congratulate me over some first-rate barbeque and plenty of beer. I was truly thankful for all their support and well-wishes.

The next day I paid a visit to Dave Rumson's family and told them how sorry I was for what had happened. They assured me that while they missed their son, they understood the tragic course of events that led me to shoot and mortally wound their son. His father said he would have done the same if someone entered his home in a similar manner. I knew that his death had been a hardship on his family. Before I left, I gave them a check to go along with my final apology.

Dad paid me the entire time I was in jail and had kept Sandy from touching any of it. I took a couple of weeks to recover and get reacclimated to the world before I returned to work. I went to the cabin on Lake Massaweepee for some solitude and fishing. I had just returned from the lake due to thunderclouds that rolled in unexpectedly. I entered the cabin and I had just beat the downpour.

I took off my jacket and fishing vest and as I turned toward the main room, I saw her. Sandy sat there on the sofa. I noticed that she had lost weight and looked emaciated to some extent while it was obvious by her reddened eyes and tear stained cheeks that she had been crying while she sat there. It took her a moment before she noticed I had entered the cabin from the back door and to look in my direction.

She had a deer in the headlights look and whatever reason had compelled her appearance it was painfully obvious her resolve had faded and if she could she would have run from the room and into brunt of the storm. She was paralyzed by fear. Suddenly a large bolt of lightening hit a tree about a hundred yards from the cabin and the clap of thunder that followed shook the walls. Sandy jumped and ran at me and wrapped her arms around me.