Final Analysis (27 page)

After the murder, Scott Dyleski allegedly poured himself a glass of water, rinsed his hands in the sink and had a shower: a forensic examination of the bathroom faucets revealed traces of blood. Apparently unconcerned about the blood-stained crown molding he left, the teen used a little-traveled trail through the woods, arriving home sometime between 10:20 and 11:00 that morning. Croen wasn’t the only one who noticed
Dyleski’s injuries that day. Several of his housemates later told police that they observed a gash on the boy’s face that morning. When asked about the wound, Scott claimed he scratched himself during a morning hike in the woods.

A forensic examination of Vitale’s laptop showed Pamela was on her computer, surfing the Internet for various things, including Court TV’s website, for articles about Dan’s criminal representation of Susan Polk, when Dyleski entered the trailer that Saturday morning. Logs show that at 10:12
AM
her computer searches ceased.

On the evening of Wednesday, October 19, investigators served two search warrants on the home of Dyleski’s mother, Esther Fielding, “looking for any type of murder weapon that would cause blunt-force trauma or other injury.” Posters covered nearly every inch of wall space in Scott’s bedroom. Amid the clutter were drawings of symbols similar to the H-shape found carved into Vitale’s back. Three computers were seized by investigators, along with several knives, bedding, and other items. In a van behind the house, police found a duffel bag with Dyleski’s nametag. Inside, they found bloody clothes, shoes, and a ski mask that later tested positive for DNA from both Dyleski and Vitale.

The following morning, as friends and family were saying a final good-bye to Pamela at her funeral, her alleged killer was arrested and held in lieu of $1 million bail.

Six days after the killing, on October 21, the teen was brought before a Superior Court judge and charged with first degree murder as an adult. Handcuffs encircled his bony wrists, and strands of dark, wavy hair covered much of his angular face as he was led into the courtroom. Dyleski said nothing during the brief court appearance.

Details of his brief and troubled life would emerge in the days and weeks ahead. Interviews with schoolmates painted the teen as a loner who was mercilessly teased about the way he dressed by his classmates at Lafayette’s Acalanes High School. Friends said that Dyleski endured endless taunts for being “nerdy” while growing up in the small, rural town as a Boy Scout, a basketball player, and a good student in elementary school.

But something inside Scott seemed to die in 2001 when his eighteen-year-old half sister, Denika, was killed in a car crash. The once easygoing
student suddenly began shaving parts of his head, wearing dark eyeliner and black nail polish and dying his brown hair jet black. He began dressing all in black accessorized by heavy silver jewelry and a long black trench coat like the one worn by rocker Marilyn Manson, the self-proclaimed “Anti-Christ Superstar” whose stage name merged that of Marilyn Monroe and Charles Manson.

One former classmate told the San Francisco Chronicle he believed Scott was trying to be noticed with his strange appearance and clothing. “I always thought he was trying to get attention,” Kevin McDonald said of Dyleski. “But he seemed like a nice guy, not someone who would ever do something like this.”

Dyleski had been reportedly studying hard for his GED, desperate to escape Acalanes High School and the teasing he endured. He was taking art classes at Mt. Diablo College in Pleasant Hill, the same junior college that Susan Polk had attended as a teenager, and had submitted some of his dark, imagery-driven art for grades. He was to celebrate his eighteenth birthday two weeks after the murder.

O
n January 12, 2006, Susan stood before Judge Laurel Brady and asked that she be allowed to fire Horowitz and Golde, her fourth attorneys, and represent herself in the murder trial. While the lawyers knew beforehand that she wanted them removed, Susan’s action both surprised and disappointed them, after having invested so much into the high-profile case.

Interestingly, her decision to replace them seemed to have little to do with Horowitz’s personal tragedy. As most lawyers who worked with Susan discovered, representing her was something of a roller-coaster ride. Just two weeks prior to her announcement, she had expressed concern for Horowitz’s well-being and seemed happy to have him as her attorney, but soon something soured her on his representation.

In the weeks leading up to the trial, Susan had made many calls to Horowitz’s office with countless requests. Horowitz assigned Valerie Harris to handle the multitude of Susan’s needs, but as time went on, that arrangement backfired. Susan began complaining about what she
perceived as Dan’s lack of attention to her case and accused him of failing to file legal motions on her behalf. Once she felt neglected, it was not long before she notified Horowitz that his services were no longer needed.

“She has a right to an attorney of her choice,” Horowitz told reporters outside the courtroom. “But the judge may not let me out because we’re so close to trial. I feel sorry for her [Susan]. What can I say? Going through Pamela’s death was a horrible experience. It’s not deliberate. She’s not really trying to hurt me. She’s desperate and scared.”

During the ninety-minute hearing before Judge Brady, Susan claimed that Horowitz had all but ignored her case since his wife was murdered. Though Horowitz had already filed some forty motions with the court, Susan still wasn’t happy, claiming he had failed to file others for her. Despite the severity of the charges, Susan believed that she could represent herself in court. She asked that Harris, with whom Susan had formed a strong bond, be permitted to remain on her case as a consultant.

In addition to her complaints about Horowitz, Susan also filed a lengthy declaration on January 12 in which she outlined several grievances she had with the judge and police department. Among other things, Susan complained that Horowitz had failed to file her motion to disqualify Judge Brady and the entire Contra Costa County judiciary because they were all prejudiced against her. She also claimed that she had been subjected to discriminatory treatment by law enforcement since she had unsuccessfully moved to have Judge Brady removed from the case in August—including being “the only female prisoner” to be transported in shackles.

Susan also claimed that Dan Horowitz was a suspect in the murder of his wife. Later, she told reporters that she believed that Horowitz may have been involved in Pamela’s murder “based on statements he made to me.” She even offered to testify on behalf of the murder suspect, Scott Dyleski, at his upcoming pretrial hearing. Though Horowitz declined to respond publicly to Susan’s allegations, in part because a gag order had been issued, it was clear that he was infuriated by her remarks.

Not surprisingly, Judge Brady denied Susan’s motion to have the entire judiciary of Contra Costa County removed at a hearing on January 20, but
she granted Susan’s request to dismiss Horowitz. The judge set a new trial date for February 27, giving Susan six weeks to prepare her defense.

“It is Susan’s story,” a visibly pale Dan Horowitz said while waiting in the hallway of the courthouse after the hearing. “She lived it and she wants to tell it. She has the absolute right to present her own defense.”

Ivan Golde chose to phrase it a bit differently: “It’s a very sad day,” he said.

O
n February 27, 2006, three hundred prospective jurors arrived at the Contra Costa County Courthouse in Martinez to begin jury selection in the murder trial of Susan Polk.

Surprisingly, Polk’s original prosecutor, Tom O’Connor, had announced his resignation from the D.A.’s office just one week earlier to take a job in the private sector. A senior prosecutor, Paul Sequeira, was immediately assigned to take his place. Though new to the case, Sequeira told the media that he was rapidly getting up to speed and regarded the case as fairly straightforward.

With no lawyer by her side, Susan was relying on Valerie Harris and had a jury consultant to help with the selection process. Prospective jurors arriving at the courthouse were first directed to an assembly room where Judge Brady informed them about Susan’s decision to represent herself. She asked jurors if they could fairly adjudicate the case under that scenario. Those who expressed doubts were immediately excused. The others were directed to the courtroom where Susan and Paul Sequeria would conduct their questioning.

As jury selection began, Susan seemed in control of her defense. Her questions were measured and appropriate, although in some instances she revealed too much about the specifics of her case and was admonished by the judge to restrict her comments. Soft-spoken and articulate, Susan’s demeanor was more of a schoolteacher than a murder defendant. She showed up for court each morning in well-tailored outfits,
gold-rimmed designer glasses—and a uniformed court officer on each arm. Though she appeared self-assured at the start, it wasn’t long before it became clear that she was very nervous about her case and somewhat uncertain about how to proceed.

Late in the afternoon, Susan erupted into tears after a potential juror voiced alarm over the possible length of the trial, estimated at over two months, and Susan’s decision to serve as her own attorney—or to go
pro per.

“I feel this is my one chance,” Susan defended, wiping tears from her cheeks. “I’m taking a calculated risk, and I realize all of you have things you’d rather do.”

In the courtroom, Susan was timid one minute and more like an articulate, thoughtful law student the next. She could be confident, emphatically arguing legal points with the judge and citing information from a law book. Other times, however, she was apologetic and ill at ease. She grew visibly upset one afternoon when she misplaced one of her documents. After Susan spent several anxious minutes rifling through the stack of papers on the defense table, she finally gave up in exasperation and carried on from memory.

By the end of the second day, Susan had dismissed eight prospective jurors while the prosecutor had dismissed six through the preemptory challenge process. Susan’s questioning made it clear that she was most anxious to have a juror who could be objective in adjudicating a case in which a defendant was acting as her own attorney.

While questioning one prospective juror, a building inspector, Susan crafted an analogy, asking him how he would react if he went to someone’s house and found that the homeowner had fixed his own toilet and done his own construction and wiring, while following the appropriate rules.

The man said that wouldn’t trouble him.

“And so, here in the courtroom, if I follow the rules, although I sometimes might make mistakes, would it annoy you that I’m doing it myself?”

“No. It wouldn’t annoy me,” he said.

Despite his positive responses, Susan would later strike the building inspector from the jury because of his friendships with a local judge and members of law enforcement. She excused another potential juror after
the woman told Judge Brady that she thought Susan “was a fool” for choosing to go
pro per.
And she let a third man go after he joked about her decision to represent herself.

“It’s like a game of wrestling, where a flyweight is with a heavyweight,” the retired draftsman chuckled. “If I bet on it, I bet with the heavyweight.”

While Susan took the courtroom proceedings seriously, she invoked a little humor when one prospective panelist raised concerns over how Susan intended to cross-examine her sons and take the stand on her own behalf. With a giggle, Susan recounted a scene from a Jim Carrey comedy in which the actor played a defendant who was representing himself, leaping from the podium to the stand as he conducted his cross-examination.

“I’ll actually have notes and questions for myself and an outline leading me through what I need to tell you,” Susan told the woman, a registered nurse, who was later selected to serve on Polk’s jury.

By late Monday, March 6, Susan and Paul Sequeria announced their agreement on a panel of six men and six women, among them a woman who had served in the U.S. military, a retired female U.S. Parcel Service worker, and a sales manager for the local plumber’s union who shared one attribute with Susan—a young son. The jury selection process had taken a full five days.

Judge Brady could have started the case with opening remarks that same afternoon, but at the request of the prosecutor, she agreed to begin the following day, March 7.

The case had drawn considerable attention from local and national media for a variety of reasons—the relationship between Susan and her therapist husband, the allegations of an abusive household, and the anticipated testimony from all three of the Polks sons—two were expected to testify against their mother and one was expected to take the stand on her behalf. The fact that Susan had fired four different defense attorneys and was now going to represent herself at trial made the case all the more interesting.

With people routinely questioning her sanity and judgment, the trial offered her an opportunity to prove the naysayers wrong and show that she could handle the task. Building from the material that Horowitz had
prepared, she would present a straight self-defense case, alleging that Felix attacked her with a knife that October night and that she had fought back before fatally stabbing him to save herself. Furthermore, she would present evidence that Felix died from a heart attack—not the multiple stab wounds she inflicted during their heated altercation—and would call an expert to support her claim.

On Tuesday, members of the media, law enforcement, and curiosity seekers occupied most of the fifty seats in the gallery. Others sat on chairs that had been set up along the walls or stood in the rear of the courtroom, awaiting the opening remarks from Paul Sequeira and Susan Polk.

Susan looked drawn and frail as she stood organizing her papers at the defense table. Dressed in a white sweater and khaki pants, Susan’s sporty attire contrasted sharply with the conservative dark suit and solid gray tie worn by her opponent, Paul Sequeira. The prosecutor looked to be about ten years Susan’s junior, with thick, layered hair and wire-rim glasses that tended to perch on the end of his nose. Obviously comfortable in the courtroom, Sequeira made a habit of strolling across the commercial-grade carpet and sometimes leaning on the railing of the jury box.

Polk immediately surprised the crowd when she asked and was given permission to postpone her opening statement until she began her case-in-chief. It was just after 3
PM
when the prosecutor rose to address the jury. He told Judge Brady that his remarks would take about fifty minutes to deliver, but in reality the remarks took a lot longer, as Sequeira was interrupted repeatedly by Susan’s objections.

“You are about to embark on a journey through a dysfunctional relationship that ended in murder and destruction,” the prosecutor began. “Felix Polk was a Holocaust survivor. Susan was fifteen when she went to see him. They had a relationship that went wrong. The physical relationship began when she was seventeen or eighteen. They married when she was twenty-four and had their first son, Adam, in 1983. What was born out of dysfunction began to look like a normal, loving relationship.

“The defendant worked in the home raising children, but there were always conflicts. Wherever Susan went, there was a trail of conflict and confrontation. If there were problems in school, it was the teacher’s fault.
This also became the children’s reality because it was easier to go along than to take responsibility for their actions.

“Susan also had a theory that Felix controlled the school. Gabe admits that he was sucked into this delusion. As time passed, Susan became more paranoid and began making things up. Then, five years before the murder, Susan’s mental instability intensified on a trip to Disneyland. She had a full-blown break and claimed to have repressed memories. She claimed she was raped as a child by her father and brother, and described in graphic detail the rape scenes to her children.”

“I object, your honor!” Susan announced, rising to her feet. Judge Brady admonished Susan that she was not permitted to object during the State’s opening remarks. But her words fell on deaf ears. In fact, Susan began interrupting the prosecutor at almost every turn. These interruptions set the tone for the entire trial. Throughout the proceedings, Judge Brady would attempt, often unsuccessfully, to control Susan’s flare-ups and accusations, including allegations that she and the prosecutor were colluding against the defendant.

Turning his attention back to the jury, Sequeria took a deep breath and once again tried to complete his opening remarks. The prosecutor described how Susan’s delusional behavior soon focused on Felix. She believed her husband was in the CIA, the FBI, and the Mossad. She believed he had offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands. Susan told her three sons that Felix “was a monster,” the prosecutor charged, triggering yet another objection from Susan.

“Felix was a therapist who couldn’t help his own wife with her paranoid delusions,” Sequeira continued amid more objections and yet another stern warning from Judge Brady.

“Until the murder, there was no extreme violence in the house,” the prosecutor went on. Citing the accounts of two of the Polk sons, the prosecutor argued that Felix was not the abuser and that both Felix and Susan provoked repeated confrontations in the household.

“Objection,” Susan yelled yet again.

“Mrs. Polk, I will not admonish you again,” Judge Brady warned angrily. The judge threatened to remove Susan from the courtroom if she interrupted one more time.

Jurors exchanged silent glances as the prosecutor continued.

“There was lots of grabbing and bumping but not extreme violence,” Sequeira said. “One time, Susan slapped Felix in front of a police officer. The boys will say that dad was an older guy and worked long hours. He came home late and tired and Susan would often verbally abuse Felix throughout dinner. Susan would challenge his manhood and poke fun at the size of his penis in front of the boys.”

“Objection!” Susan barked, seething with anger.

“I will remove you from this courtroom!” Judge Brady fumed, glaring at Susan.

For a moment, it appeared as though Susan would be barred from the proceeding. From Brady’s tone, it was clear that this would be her final warning—and Susan seemed to understand the gravity of the judge’s words.

From there, Sequeira continued his opening statement without interruption, weaving the complicated tale of the turbulent times in the Polk household. Painting a picture of dysfunction and psychological disturbance, the prosecutor detailed how Susan routinely belittled and emasculated the aging Felix. He walked jurors through Felix’s final days, detailing the brutal battle for custody of Gabriel and the fight over Susan’s alimony payments. To Sequeira, the Susan Polk who killed her husband was a cold, callous woman, not the victim she made herself out to be. She lied to the police about her involvement from the beginning, and she was still lying about her involvement as they sat there in the court.

“Susan then lies over and over and over and over at the police station,” he told the jurors as the defendant watched his every move. “Does Susan say ‘he came at me with a knife and I attacked him in self defense?’ No, she says she didn’t do it. But then forensic science kicks in and her lies are not permitted.

“She destroys evidence. Bloody clothes. Gone! Knife. Gone! Car—moved! Lies and a cover up!”

Jurors listened intently to the prosecutor’s theory. Sequeira detailed Felix’s injuries, informing them of the savage nature of his wounds and showing the jurors dramatic crime scene photos. Despite the graphic pictures, no one flinched.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence will show the defendant was upset. This festered until she made good on a repeated threat” to kill Felix Polk, the prosecutor charged. “Dr. Polk, abuser or victim of the ultimate attack of murder?”

F
ollowing Sequeira’s opening remarks, jurors were dismissed for the night, but Susan wouldn’t leave without one parting shot at the court.

“I want a mistrial!” Susan demanded as the last juror stepped out of the courtroom. “It’s all lies,” she shouted furiously, ticking off each of the prosecutor’s statements. “Anyone who knows me knows I wouldn’t talk about my husband’s penis in front of the boys. It’s laughable.”

Judge Brady angrily directed Susan to move on to evidentiary issues that needed addressing, but Susan wouldn’t let things rest. She complained that her case assistant, Valerie Harris, was not being permitted to visit with her in jail and that she had still not received all of the case documents from Dan Horowitz.

Ignoring Susan, the judge turned to the prosecutor and instructed that he discuss the evidence with the defendant.

“Liar!” she shouted at the prosecutor.

“Lady, I know your act, and if you try to draw me in, and try to control me like you’re trying to control the court, then I’ll deal with Mrs. Harris,” Sequeira shot back.

“Then, I’ll fire Ms. Harris,” Susan said as she promptly terminated her only assistant.

When court recessed for the night, Susan rehired Harris; she was back at Susan’s side the following morning, watching intently as Susan interrogated her youngest son.