Day One in the Desmond Turner Septuple Slay Trial: ‘Hitting a Lick’

Day one of the trial for Desmond Turner — the man accused of being the main triggerman in a June 1, 2006, massacre that left seven family members dead — was an emotional one today. For no one was this more true than for the family of the victims who have waited patiently for over three years in hopes of justice.

The Indianapolis media was out in full force: the story took the lead in all the major local news broadcasts, and took page one on today’s Indianapolis Star. After three years, and several delays, today had to have been one of the most anticipated court dates in this town since Mike Tyson was tried here for rape in 1992.

A few late-night observations as I prepare for tomorrow:

THE PROSECUTION

As the Indianapolis Star’s courts and legal affairs reporter, Jon Murray, noted in an early blog entry this morning, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi was promising an emotional prosecution in the courtroom today. To be sure, Brizzi was in top form, beginning his opening arguments with the unequivocal assertion that “Desmond Turner is a killer.” One wonders how well Brizzi’s charisma plays with Judge Robert Altice, a remarkably sober, direct and equitable figure who so far has shown no penchant toward the dramatic. One naturally also wonders how much better Brizzi’s words might have played to a jury, the right to which Turner waived a few weeks ago in exchange for having the death penalty taken off the table. The deal and the strategy have been heavily questioned on both sides, and I’m sure we’ll be coming back to it throughout this process.

It’s well known that Brizzi has a fondness for the spotlight. But, in all fairness, the spotlight has a fondness for Brizzi, too. He’s young, robust and exudes confidence; his tough talk, hawkish blue eyes, prominant forehead and broad frame make him the alpha dog in any room he enters. But his smile disarms as quickly as his stature intimidates. I know little about his litigating skills at this early stage. But, I’m impressed by his presence and by the emotional content of his work so far. Objectively, it isn’t hard to see how he got to the top of the heap in this town. The guy’s clearly at his best in front of an audience — a total natural.

Which is a good thing for the state, because its case isn’t nearly as strong as some would hope. Brizzi, himself, admitted publicly that “evidentiary considerations” were the main reasons behind his no-death-penalty bargain with Turner.

Brizzi’s mediatic personality isn’t always an asset: He has come under fire for speaking too openly to the media about this and another high-profile case of recent years: just last week, the Indiana Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint against Brizzi for some of his statements, which they say could have tainted potential jurors. Defense attorney circles around town don’t seem particularly fond of his approach, and seem to view him as a better politician than a litigator — not that that’s surprising given their adversarial relationship to him. Brizzi’s office has questioned the timing of the complaint.

His recent troubles didn’t seem to have phased him today. As Brizzi’s argument progressed, a cadence developed, a theme emerged: repeatedly, he returned to “seven fateful words” he claims were uttered by Turner to three separate witnesses just before the massacre: “I am going to hit a lick” — area slang for pulling an armed robbery, or some kind of score. Turner, he claims, was hard up for money, and premeditatively forced his way into the Albarran / Covarrubias home believing he would find large amounts of drugs and money inside; after ransacking the house, he slaughtered them all in cold blood when things didn’t work out as planned.

The family of the deceased packed the courtroom gallery, and emotions, as predicted, ran high during Brizzi’s opener. A particularly gut-wrenching moment came as Brizzi described the fatal wounds sustained by the three children who were among the victims: Alberto, age 11, sustained three gunshots; young Louise, age 5, sustained two gunshots; and David, a mere eight-year-old, sustained a shocking eight gunshot wounds. The number “eight” resonated throughout the courtroom, as pained, incredulous gasps arose as though ripped directly from the hearts of the deceased’s family members.

That such carnage could visit such innocence seemed unthinkable. And, indeed, it was. As Brizzi continued, so did the anguished sobs from the surviving family. It took several minutes for the emotion in the courtroom to settle.

Brizzi was able to establish a coherent — and, so far, convincing — time line of Turner’s alleged actions in the days surrounding and including the massacre itself, based on testimony from various witnesses around “H-Block.” His challenge will be to convince Judge Altice of Turner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As Brizzi admitted up front, the state has an abundance of circumstancial evidence, but not much in the way of hard forensics: no DNA, no blood samples to tie Turner to the scene or to the victims, and no murder weapon. Circumstancial evidence is going to play better with a judge, who presumably won’t need CSI-style forensics to make a well-founded decision. But the horrific crime scene photos he entered into evidence today — at least one of which showed the three murdered children — would undoubtedly have played more favorably to a jury.

Press members were shown those photos in the backroom offices of the court, though we were told we could not publish images of any of the bodies. As a journalist, I can’t imagine any context in which publishing those images would be acceptable. They were, unequivocally, the most horrific images I have ever seen.

The ace up Brizzi’s sleeve could be a first-hand witness who can positively identify Turner (several, apparently, claim merely to have seen “two armed, black males”), but it’s unclear to me at this time whether the state has such a witness.

THE DEFENSE

In the early days of my research into this story, long before the death penalty option was dropped, I was inclined to believe that the best defense for Desmond Turner would be one that attempted primarily to mitigate his culpability. The “not guilty” plea would prove to be more of a formality than a sincere claim. As indications emerged that the guilt for these murders may extend beyond Turner and his alleged accomplice (who’s being tried separately in November), I figured that the top priority would be mostly to try to spread the guilt around, thereby sparing Turner a lethal injection.

To my mind, Turner’s agreement to waive his right to a jury seemed to indicate the same. But it seems the state’s paucity of hard evidence is such that the defense feels it can argue straight out that the prosecution has the wrong man. The real killers, argued Lorinda Youngcourt, one of two defense attorneys appointed to Turner, were a cadre of people in the neighborhood “who wanted the Albarran-Covarrubias family gone.” Specifically, the defense pointed to an extended family that had lived on the block for over 20 years — the Welch-Griffith-Gwinn family, which had a longstanding feud with the murdered Latino family, and a history of violence and intimidation toward them.

So far, the argument is compelling, if not yet entirely believable. But what’s clear is that the defense has a few clear advantages here. First, the burden of proof falls to the state, and the state, as we’ve seen, is short on hard evidence. As the defense pointed out, for example, even in the alleged getaway car, seized just days after the massacre, not a single drop of blood was found linking the car to the crime scene.

Second, the defense says it has witnesses whose statements contradict those of the state’s. One witness, a friend of  the family who was waiting in a car out front for one of the victims, claims to have seen as many as five men exit the house after the shootings. Other names have also emerged in connection with the killings. Some appear to red herrings, to the discredit of witnesses who are alleged to have changed their stories over time; others remain mysterious.

Based on my research over the last year or so, I have long believed that if Turner is guilty, the guilt for these crimes could still extend beyond him and his alleged accomplice, James Stewart. The extent to which the defense can prove that Turner is innocent, or that someone else may have done it, is irrelevant — what’s clear is that they’re building a hell of a case for reasonable doubt, which is all they need — a concept (ironically, given Brizzi’s bargain) that judges always seem to understand far better than juries.

Much more to write, but I will have to tie it into tomorrow’s report.

A FEW PRODUCTION NOTES

Though I will be blogging like this fairly regularly throughout the two-week trial, my approach has always favored the long-view. I’m less interested in nabbing daily quotes at this point than in continuing to slowly introduce myself to those associated with the case — be they family of the victims, family of the accused, or others from around H-Block who are tied to the massacre in some way. The goal, ultimately, is to secure lengthier, one-on-one interviews in a controlled environment. All told, the documentary is my life’s focus; all other short-game aspects of this process are subservient to it.

In the meantime, there’s lots of room for learning. I attempted some video today, but it didn’t turn out quite as well as I had hoped (I gained a lot of respect for television journalists today as I fumbled my way through an ad libbed report outside the courthouse). Instead, I decided to write about it. I also felt it incumbent upon me to cover a lot of background today, which doesn’t lend itself well to short video. Expect shorter pieces down the road — not least of all because they’ll be easier to bang out in a more timely fashion.

The regular video installments I hope to make over the next few weeks will undoubtedly never make it into our feature documentary. But for now, I will continue to bring my camera and film what I can, in hopes of stumbling upon the odd fortuitous moment, and in the interest of experimentation with a medium to which I am still fairly new. As cameras are not allowed inside the courtroom, we’ll just have to see what happens. Today didn’t work out too great. I hope tomorrow works a bit better. As always, being new-ish to video, I will welcome the constructive feedback. Stay tuned.