CHAPTER 74
Friday, September 20, 2002
Efrain de la Fuente stood up to make the closing argument for the state in what had been the largest trial in the history of Travis County. The prosecutor asked the jurors to take a close look at the Michael Scott confession videotape.
“You will see his demeanor on the tape. Look for it. When he’s talking about shooting those two girls, it’s nothing to him. ‘But don’t blame me for killing all four girls because I did not do that,’ and then he starts crying.”
De la Fuente repeated many of the same arguments presented in the Springsteen trial. He concluded his discussion while looking at Michael Scott.
“How do we know what a real killer looks like? Is there an age that we put on them? Do they have to be white, Hispanic, African-American, Asian? Do they have to have tattoos? Do they have to come from a well background or a bad background? When do you know you are looking at a killer? That’s what they’re going to say. Look at this face here. You think this guy was capable of doing what he did?
“Is there really a face that we can put on a killer?” de la Fuente asked as he turned toward the jury. “There is no face you can put on a killer, folks.”
The prosecutor looked back toward Scott and said, “You got two options here, folks. You can award this defendant the Oscar for Best Actor and acquit him when you look at that videotape. Or, you can do what the evidence dictates you must do and convict him. Thank you.”
After a ten-minute break, Dexter Gilford took his place in front of the jury box.
“It is true that guilty people confess to crimes,” the thirty-seven-year-old attorney opened. “It is also true that innocent people confess to crimes. The question then, it behooves us to try to at least determine when does that happen and if we can identify when it happens, [and] how it happens.”
Gilford proceeded to read through a list of details Scott provided during his confession that did not match up to the actual crime scene evidence.
“We have a confession in this case and we ought to ask for more, right? We are all citizens of this city. We deserve it. Those girls’ families deserve it. We deserve something better than a slipshod, disjointed, inaccurate, incomplete, unreliable, manifest lies–filled substitute for what happened to those girls.
“Mike Scott should not be our easy way out of this. If the function of this whole thing is for us to get to the truth, then Mike deserves it. This town deserves [it]. You deserve it. The families deserve it.”
Judge Lynch dismissed the jurors for deliberation.
CHAPTER 76
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
The previous day’s testimony focused on the good and bad of Michael Scott after the murders. The jury had the night to digest the information. Now they were ready to hear the final arguments in the case.
Prosecutor Efrain de la Fuente covered the same bases as in the Springsteen trial that the jury would need to decide: future dangerousness, participation in the crime, and were there any mitigating factors. He stated that the answers should be yes, yes, and no. And that Michael Scott should receive the death penalty for the murder of Amy Ayers.
“We, as a society, did not fail Michael Scott. And do not blame society for what this defendant did to those four girls. Thank you.”
Dexter Gilford took his place before the jury box.
“I’ve had to stand before a jury one time in my career and face the kind of task that I face this morning. I’m going to ask you all to answer those questions in such a way that you give life, that you maintain life, that you all preserve life.”
Gilford stood straight before the jurors. “All twelve of you, and me, Carlos, Tony, and Mike, Robert, Darla, and Efrain, and the families on both sides of the aisle, are bound together in ways that we will be appreciating years from now. If you all live a long, full life, as I hope to do, I imagine you will appreciate that as time goes on.
“I say that to you for one reason, and for one reason only, and I don’t want to suggest it; I just want to be up front with you. You all stand on a precipice. And you will make a decision that, the truth is, will be very, very, very difficult to undo.”
Gilford spoke of human fallibility. “We all know that everybody is much more than one day, however bad that day was, however horrible.” Gilford said his client had traveled the straight-and-narrow path for the majority of the time after the murders. “Mike Scott learned how to be a father, a good father. He learned how to be a friend, a good friend. He learned how to share what he could with people that he knew and cared about. Everybody can’t do that. Everybody doesn’t do it.
“You never know how your daily walk affects other people. And it ought to count for something.”
Again the defense team turned to the Holy Book for inspiration.
“Let me leave you with this,” Gilford stated quietly. “When Paul addressed a group of citizens of the city of Corinth who had been persecuted, and when it was finally clear that at some point the persecution might stop, he had one admonition. Be careful that you do not take, retake, life for life and kind for kind.
“I listened to Mr. Ayers. He said that he was running out of things to do. I have two daughters at home, and every night I come home during this trial, I look at them both, and I don’t know how these people do it. They’re the most gracious people I’ve ever seen.
“But let me say this to you. I don’t know how killing Michael is going to give anybody anything to do. Thank you for your time and your patience. Godspeed to all of you.”
Carlos Garcia picked up the defense’s closing argument. He struck with an additional emotional plea.
“If Martin Luther King were here today, he would choose life for Michael James Scott. If Gandhi were here today, he would choose life for Michael James Scott. If Mother Teresa were here today, she would choose life for Michael James Scott. If Jesus Christ were in human form present here in this courtroom, there is no doubt where he would stand. He would choose life. The best of us chooses life, time and time and time again, no matter who the sinner is.”
The historical and evangelical angle seemed to work. A few of the jurors cried as Garcia spoke. Tears formed in Scott’s eyes as well.
“The best of us,” Garcia continued, “the best of humanity, chooses life. We choose life. The law is satisfied with life.
“And the best of those human beings that I just mentioned is in this courtroom today. It is. That best is in all of us.
“This case is a test for you. Sometime in the future, all of us are going to die and whoever your Maker is is going to ask for an accounting, going to ask, ‘What did you do?’
“You can answer, ‘Lord, that day there was a man before me who at one time was a child, and flawed as he was, I chose life, because that’s what I learned from you.’”
Garcia paused and turned toward the jury.
“We’re asking for a verdict, not for this man, but for a boy. A seventeen-year-old boy. Thank you.”
The state had one last argument for the jury. Prosecutor Robert Smith stood before them.
“I will not be arrogant enough to tell you that I know what the answers to these questions will be,” stated the soft-spoken attorney. “I will not be presumptuous enough to tell you how God will judge you for the decisions that you make in this trial.”
Smith wanted to remind the jury that Scott’s actions were not those of a boy, but rather a cold, calculating killer.
“They came in through those back doors, men with guns. The one place in the world that these girls should feel safe is in the back room of the yogurt shop.” Smith spoke of how the girls gave them everything they had, but it was not enough.
He pointed to a photograph of Amy Ayers, “a thirteen-year-old girl who was embarrassed to even dress at school is made by these men to take off all of her clothes.”
He next pointed at Eliza Thomas’s photograph and said, “This beautiful young lady, on her period, is required by these men at gunpoint to take off all her clothes.”
Then a photograph of Sarah Harbison. “This young lady, fifteen years old, she, too, is required to disrobe. Remember that young girl took the time and made the effort to take the ring of her boyfriend off when she took off her clothes. This young girl, who only moments earlier had been so happy because she’s been with her boyfriend.”
Smith reminded the jury of the brutality of the crime. He also stressed that Michael Scott was capable of making adult decisions.
“This was not an impulsive act. Choices like that are made on values, not on science.”
Smith again turned his attention toward the jurors.
“I want to leave you with one last thought when you are evaluating Michael Scott. They asked him a question on that tape. ‘How were the girls shot?’
“And he said, ‘In the back of the head.’ And then he slipped and out of his mouth came ‘quick, easy kill.’ That’s how he remembers that. And he’s home taking care of Jasmine, and that’s how he remembers it. ‘Quick, easy kill,’
bang, bang
. That’s who you’re talking about here.”
September 24, 2002
3:01 p.m.
Once again the jury returned with a verdict. Several of their faces were red from wiping away tears. Once again Judge Lynch wasted no time in reading the verdict.
“‘Issue number one. Did you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society? Answer: No.’”
Scott stood motionless and emotionless.
A hush fell over the gallery.
“Based on the jury’s answer to special issue number one,” Judge Lynch stated, “the court is ready to proceed with the punishment and the sentencing at this time.
“After the required hearing on punishment, the jury today returned a verdict answering special issue number one, no. The court hereby accepts the verdict of this jury in this case.” Judge Lynch glanced up toward the defendant.
“It is, therefore, the judgment of this court that you, Michael Scott, are guilty of the offense of capital murder. Further, in conformance with the jury’s verdict on special issue number one and in compliance with the laws of the state of Texas, I hereby assess your punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life.”
After Judge Lynch dismissed the jury, he addressed all of the attorneys.
“I know this has been a tough trial for the lawyers as well, and contentious at some times, contentious amongst each other and with the court. But I appreciate the diligence of the lawyers on both sides. I have never had harder-working attorneys—I will say that for the record—and I appreciate it from both sides. Thank you.
“We are in recess at this time.”
The reaction to the verdict was mixed. The defense was elated Scott had avoided the death penalty. Attorney Tony Diaz stated, “Today’s verdict shows we are evolving into a new standard of decency. That’s what this represents for the city of Austin.”
Scott’s wife, Jeannine, received hugs from her friends and family. She repeated, “All we have to do is bring him home now.”
The parents of the girls were less than thrilled. Barbara Ayres-Wilson sat quietly. When asked if she had anything to say to the jurors, she replied, “I just couldn’t say anything nice to them.”
Bob Ayers briskly walked out of the courtroom past reporters without saying a word.
The jury foreman gave a quick quote: “It was a sad experience for all the family and friends of the victims and the guilty party.”
Christian González, senior Web correspondent for Channel 8, a local television news station created by Time-Warner Cable, conducted an interview with the three defense attorneys after the sentence was read.
Channel 8:
Is this a bittersweet victory?
Garcia:
A lot of satisfaction. We think it was the appropriate verdict, given the facts that were presented in the punishment phase of the trial, given the little evidence the government had, future dangerousness, I think the jury reached the only decision they could reach given what they heard.
Q:
What caused the emotion in your final argument?
Gilford:
When I talked about the courage, I couldn’t help but think about how scared I had been in that courtroom many a days, as the evidence unfolded and as frightened I was of what might happen to our client. And just that fact that I had gotten this far is what caused the emotional outpouring in me.
Q:
How has the case affected your faith?
Garcia:
The only way you can do this kind of case is to have some sort of faith that the right decision is reached. My faith was shaken to some extent on Sunday, that’s what I want to say there. But nonetheless, I’ve come to realize that things happen for a reason. But for our faith, I don’t think we could have produced the kind of commentary in closing arguments we produced today. All of that material is not ours. At least I don’t think it is. It comes from inspiration from God.
Diaz:
I prayed for Dexter. And I prayed for Mike. And I prayed for Carlos.
Q:
What did you learn from this case?
Garcia:
You can’t do it alone. There’s no way that any of us individually could have done this job alone.
Gilford:
I drew a lot of my will to kind of show up every day from Mr. Ayers, of all people, and his wife. All of the families, but particularly those two because they sat right there in the front row. More than anything a sense of grace. A sense of grace that I kind of drew on from him. I know that might sound odd but I really did because I thought that he was a very, very gracious man. But if he showed up every day, I figured I certainly could.
Q:
Who is Michael Scott the person?
Garcia:
He is goofy. He is patient. He is kind. I mean we didn’t find one person, one person . . . you know, to say one bad thing about this kid, with the exception of this allegation.
Q:
What did you tell Scott’s wife?
Gilford:
Mainly along the lines of not being shaken to the point that she lost all of her hope.
Q:
What’s next for Scott?
Garcia:
Legally we file a notice of appeal and a motion for a new trial, certain things that you just do as a matter of course and it goes from there. He’s got three cases pending all arising out of the same incident. We don’t know what that district attorney is gonna do.
Q:
What do you say to your critics?
Garcia:
I got on this case a year ago this week and our job is real simple. Our job is to defend our client. That is what we get court appointed to do. That is what we get paid to do. And it’s to follow the law and defend him. On a personal note, I’m against the death penalty. And so no, it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other what anybody else thinks. I’m gonna work as hard as I can to complete that job.
Q:
What were the costs of the case?
Garcia:
The cost is we don’t get to see our kids. We don’t get to see our families. We miss the summers and we miss family events. There is a cost that you cannot put a price on, that’s something that doesn’t show up on a voucher. It doesn’t show up on a county budget and that kind of cost you cannot account for.
Q:
Compare this case to others.
Garcia:
It doesn’t. That courtroom on a day-today basis, every time we went in there you could cut the tension with a knife. That pressure and tension just permeated that courtroom. There was a clear division down that aisle of the family of the victims and the Michael Scott family and friends. There was a clear line between the prosecution and defense. It was very contentious. It was just different. It’s just different. It didn’t feel good and it takes a toll on you. But you can feel it. It’s a weight.
Gilford:
There were times where it was just, you felt like it was you, Carlos, Tony, and Mike at that little table and everything else [was] just closing in on you and those were the times that were most difficult.
Q:
What’s next for you?
Gilford:
I gotta go back to my office and see what’s left of my practice. I had a practice before this thing started.
Garcia:
I’m gonna go build a tree house, go lay ceramic tile in my kitchen because it’s been without tile for eight months. And just take some time off. And then after that I’ve got two other capital murder cases. Our practices are shot in terms of business. So we gotta go back and build that up again. I suspect that if we both (Gilford) continue doing death penalty work that we’re going to be working together.
Q:
Describe the legal system.
Garcia:
We have a criminal justice system that is flawed. But in spite of its flaws, its defects, it works. It’s the best that we have. Sometimes we don’t agree with its results, sometimes we do. But the point is, that it is a human system, a human artifice and with all its flaws, it’s the best we got. You know, we respect it.
Q:
Describe that hug you shared with Scott before they took him away.
Gilford:
He was trusting me with his life. And whether or not I was up for that job, realizing that at that time and also realizing that Mike’s life had been spared, all of that kind of happened at once. I knew that he appreciated all that we had done, even if that jury would not have come back with the verdict that they came back with. He trusted me. When they came back with that verdict, he and I just shared in all of that. So, all of that kind of happened at the same time.
Q:
Explain Scott’s sentence.
Gilford:
Thirty-five years, including the time that he spent in jail when he was arrested on Oct. 6, 1999. Which was what? Almost three years now. So, it’ll be 32 more years before the board of pardon and paroles can even consider him.
Q:
Some may call you the dream team.
Garcia:
(Laughter) We did the best we could with what we had.
Gilford:
Often times we just kind of felt like Laurel and Hardy. We wanted to make sure our personalities came out because we thought having some credibility at punishment was going to be very important.
Q:
Any parting thoughts?
Gilford:
None of us are unmindful of the pain and suffering that those families have to go through all the time. None of us are unmindful of that. And like I told the jury, I probably haven’t seen a more gracious set of people, and that’ll remain with me for the rest of my life and my career.