Posted on 06/13/2006 7:56:53 AM PDT by SmithL
Both sides in the trial of Susan Polk began their closing arguments Monday, with the prosecutor urging jurors to focus on the night of Felix Polk's death and the defendant characterizing her late husband as a lifelong abuser who tried to kill her.
"It's still going to come down to what you think happened in that pool house," deputy district attorney Paul Sequeira said to the jury in a courtroom overflowing into the foyer with onlookers.
Sequeira halted his closing argument at each of the 14 motions for a mistrial that Polk requested.
Polk began her argument in the afternoon, returning numerous times to her recollection that Felix Polk drugged her and had sex with her on the floor of his therapy office when she was his teenage patient.
"What kind of man would do that?" Polk said. "The same kind of man that would rape a 14-year-old girl."
As Polk spoke, an easel behind her displayed an enlarged photo of her as a teenager wearing a short dress.
Polk, 48, is accused of murdering her husband in 2002 during their bitter divorce. She testified that she was defending herself against 70-year-old Felix Polk after he attacked her, and that his death resulted from a heart attack after being stabbed.
The defendant, who is representing herself, has said she survived decades of an abusive marriage.
Sequeira said Polk's story of how her husband died has changed over time and fails to fit the physical evidence. He often paced around his lectern with his hands in and out of his pockets and looked over his reading glasses directly at jurors.
He said Polk left the fight with barely any wounds.
Sequeira held a knife in a stabbing position at his shoulder, within three paces of the jury box.
"How in the world does she get her hand in here and get the knife away?" he asked, alluding to Polk's recounting of grabbing the weapon away from her husband.
Sequeira touched on evidence the jury has heard throughout trial -- from Polk's son Gabriel saying his mother had discussed ways of killing her husband to her trying to cover up the crime after deciding not to tell police that she was defending herself.
During most of the two hours Sequeira spoke, Polk flipped through papers on her desk with one hand and took notes with the other.
The jury heard different versions of what family life was like in the Polk household, Sequeira said. In some, Felix Polk was a "brute." In others, he told friends he feared for his life.
The basics of their marriage, he said, were comparable to a job the prosecutor said he worked as a boy on a farm, piling bales of hay.
"If the bottom layer, your foundation, is crooked, the stack is never straight," he told the jury. "This stack probably never had the chance to be straight."
At least one juror nodded off to sleep as Polk spent the afternoon recounting, without any apparent pattern, the testimony of various witnesses over the past three months. She said the prosecutor's main witnesses, including two of her sons, were untrustworthy.
She talked about literature, such as the stories of Odysseus, "Beauty and the Beast" and "1984", trying to draw analogies to her own life.
Even if jurors believe testimony that she is delusional, Polk said, she was still defending herself when her husband attacked her.
"Even if you think I'm as crazy as a bedbug ... I would not have been precluded from defending myself when my husband attacked me," she said.
Evidence showed that investigators tampered with the scene, she told jurors in a theme she tried to bring out during trial.
For instance, the cuts on the bottoms of her husband's feet were not defensive wounds, but put there by investigators, she said.
"If they didn't have to fabricate evidence, they wouldn't have," she said.
Polk lied to investigators at first because she wanted to take care of her son and dogs, she said.
"If they had let me go to sleep and come back in the morning, I very likely would have told what happened," she said.
Polk is expected to finish her closing argument today. Sequeira has up to one more hour to give a final argument before the jury begins deliberating.
MARTINEZ — Even though murder defendant Susan Polk's relationship with her late husband began inauspiciously more than 20 years ago, she did not have the right to kill him in 2002, prosecutor Paul Sequeira said during his closing argument Monday.
"She has lied to you folks, she has lied to you all along during this trial, and she is guilty of murder in the first degree," Sequeira said.
Polk, who delivered her closing argument later, sat taking notes as Sequeira talked, constantly interrupting him with a string of objections and 16 calls for a mistrial based on misconduct. All were denied quickly by the judge.
Sequeira paced, raised his voice and wielded a knife in front of the jury as he reenacted the struggle between Polk and her husband, Felix Polk, inside a small, Craftsman-style pool house at the Polks' Orinda property.
Polk met psychologist Felix Polk when she was his teenage therapy patient. At the time, he was married with two kids. They began a relationship and married after Susan Polk graduatedfrom college.
Standing in front of a large, blown-up photograph of her when she was a teenager, Polk said the jury must understand that her story of abuse began when she was Felix Polk's patient.
"One might consider that the fact he became involved with me when I was 14 years old is evidence that (Felix Polk) is not trustworthy," Polk said, as she pointed to her photo.
Polk claims her husband physically and mentally abused her throughout their 20-year marriage, and that she stabbed him in self-defense. She said that in October 2002 he rushed at her and punched her in the face. She claims to have sprayed him with pepper spray before he threw her to the ground and got on top of her. She said he pulled a knife and tried to stab her, but she was able to wrestle it out of his hand before stabbing him multiple times.
Standing at a podium facing the jury, Polk said there was a time when a defendant had to prove a killing was done in self-defense, but now it is the prosecutor's job to prove it was not.
Some jurors appeared to doze during Polk's presentation, and a number of them smiled and rolled their eyes as she spoke of self-defense.
Sequeira pointed out that the evidence of the angle of the stab wounds and their placement on Felix Polk's body — especially a slice on his back — shows that Polk could not have stabbed her husband while lying on her back.
Sequeira told jurors that Polk at first denied stabbing her husband, then changed her story many times over the years before her trial.
"And how does she get the knife away?" Sequeira asked, pointing out Polk claims that by the time she got the knife away she had been punched repeatedly in the face and had pepper spray rubbed in her eyes. She testified that the oil from the pepper spray and a stiff kick to Felix Polk's groin caused his hand to relax.
Sequeira added that even Polk has said it had to be a miracle that she managed to get the knife away without any wounds whatsoever.
"And there's nothing wrong with believing in miracles, but there is something wrong with believing someone who lies as much as she does," he said.
The prosecution's theory is that Polk killed her husband because she was on the losing end of a bitter divorce. A judge had cut her monthly payments drastically, and she had lost sole custody of her youngest son. This and her delusional belief that Felix Polk was an Israeli spy who ignored her psychic predictions about terror attacks and assassination attempts fueled her actions that night, Sequeira has argued.
Polk said she had no financial motive.
"In fact, I suffered financially from his death. He made $175,000 per year ... that's a lot of money," she said.
While Polk denies she is mentally ill, she argued that it should not matter whether the jury believes she is delusional or not.
"Delusional people are not fair game to be attacked by schizophrenic psychologists," she said. "Do crazy people deserve to be treated with violence?"
But Sequeira based most of his argument, and his case, on the testimony of Gabriel and Adam Polk, two of Polk's three sons, who testified that their mother was delusional and aggressive.
"This case starts with Gabe Polk. What must it be like? Your father is murdered by your mother, and you find the body and call the police and the first suspect that comes to mind is your mother," he said.
Gabriel Polk testified that his mother's delusional behavior began around 1998 and that she was the aggressor in the relationship. He found his father's bloody body and told police he thought his mother had shot his father. Gabriel Polk testified that his mother said, "Well, I guess I didn't use a shotgun, did I?"
"I don't think anybody can understand the mental heartbreak that must have overwhelmed him," Sequeira said.
Gabriel Polk also endured five days of cross-examination by his mother, and Sequeira noted that she never asked him about the night he found his father's body.
Polk objected, saying she never got to ask Gabriel Polk about the night of Felix Polk's death because the judge cut off her cross-examination. The judge cut Polk off after five days because she said the long questioning bordered on abuse.
During Polk's closing argument she sought to discredit her sons.
"Adam and Gabe had a financial motive," she said, mentioning the wrongful-death lawsuit they filed against her. The suit was settled by Polk's insurance for $300,000, over her objection, she said.
At the same time Polk told the jury that the son who supports her, Eli Polk, is the only one telling the truth.
"Eli did not join the lawsuit and had no motive to lie."
Sequeira noted that weeks of testimony were spent by Susan Polk on her family's dynamics and details of her children's teachers, schools and upbringing.
In the end, he said, none of it matters.
"It all comes down to what you believe happened in that pool house," he said.
Polk did not finish her argument Monday and will resume this morning. She is under a time limit, and the judge said she will have 10 minutes to finish.
"I need more than 10 minutes," she said as the judge walked into her chambers.
At the conclusion of Polk's closing argument, the prosecutor can offer a rebuttal before the case goes to the jurors.
Polk
I
N
G
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.