HOME | Career Highlights | Legal Services | Gallery & Awards | "The Two Trials" | Location & Map | Contact

Courtroom trials provide a level of excitement and adrenaline that’s often absent from the more routine office cases. The Two Trials is the story of one incredible moment in time, proof positive that truth is often stranger than fiction.

I received a call from an experienced private defense attorney who had an interesting First Degree Murder case in which he represented both the husband and wife. He wanted me to represent the husband since he could not ethically represent both due to a conflict of interest. Legal experts often believe that juries are often more sympathetic toward female defendants, and that was the most likely reason behind his choice of client. The next day the attorney arrived at my office with the husband, and as we discussed trial strategy and potential conflicts, it was clear that this was shaping up to be one very interesting case.

The husband was a 25 year old former rodeo star who was very likeable and well-mannered. He was physically fit and a rather handsome young man. He was encouraged by stories of cases I’d won and was delighted that I had agreed to become his attorney.

As we spoke, I became concerned over what I perceived as serious control issues in his marriage. His words painted the picture of a wife who dominated and manipulated her husband. I filed this impression away for future reference, so that I could determine the consistency of this theme throughout the larger story that remained to be told.

The star witness in the case was given immunity from prosecution by the prosecutor, who is now a Circuit Judge. The prosecutor felt that the case could not be proven by granting immunity. This was a major mistake for two reasons. First, the witness had an extensive record in West Virginia and was determined to be mentally unstable. Second, he was more culpable than either defendant in killing the victim, for reasons that I will soon reveal.

My chief investigator, a former chief of detectives with the New York Police Department, immediately went to West Virginia to investigate the witness. He discovered that many police officers in West Virginia knew about the witness and would be willing to testify in Florida regarding his sordid past and propensity for perjury.

The victim was rumored to be a local drug smuggler and cocaine addict. He had been living with my client in an expensive home in Plantation, Florida, a bedroom community of Fort Lauderdale.

According to the medical examiner, the victim was killed by a beating from a heavy, blunt instrument which inflicted numerous wounds to his head and body. This theory was somewhat questionable due to the decomposition of the victim’s body prior to its retrieval from a canal in Plantation. Also, the time of death was extremely uncertain and could only be approximated.

My client denied any involvement in this crime and would not accept any form of plea bargaining. His wife also wanted to go to trial. They had made a mutual decision to not testify against each other. Husband-wife marital privilege only protects confidential communication between spouses and does not include criminal acts involving a homicide.

The trial judge for this case had extensive experience in the juvenile system. He was considered to be an excellent and truly impartial judge. His son has followed in his father’s footsteps to also become a juvenile judge.

I knew that we had a problem when jury selection began as both defendants had conflicting theories on which jurors to choose. I wanted to select female jurors who might be enamored by the husband’s good looks, while the wife encouraged her attorney to choose young men who might be attracted to her.

Instead, we found ourselves with a jury that was older, largely cantankerous, and the victims of many prior crimes. They did not understand immunity or drug dealing. I had immediate concerns about their ability to fully comprehend a murder case.

A former lover of my defendant’s wife was also one of the first witnesses. He testified that she had described the killing to him, claiming that she and her husband consummated the victim’s murder jointly at a home in Plantation. This witness was discredited to some degree as the result of a pending trial for conspiring to assassinate a Fort Lauderdale police officer. This revelation would later create legal problems for the prosecution. The statement never mentioned the name of a third participant, the aforementioned star witness, and it was now time for his testimony.

The star witness admitted his prior record and his sordid past, but claimed to be truthful in his trial testimony. He admitted hitting the decedent with a pipe many times, and then claimed that my client and his wife dumped the body in a canal near the home. The body was found but was badly decomposed. The witness stated that the couple also struck the victim with a metal pipe, the same one that he used. Finally, he stated that they dumped the body in the canal, cleaned the house of any incriminating evidence, and left town on a vacation.

Two police officers from West Virginia came to Fort Lauderdale and testified that they knew this witness and that they believed he was a liar. They could not believe that the prosecutor had given him immunity in this case. Why not give my defendant, a man with no prior record, immunity instead of this man?

My client then took the stand and testified that he had nothing to do with the murder. He stated that the star witness may have been involved in the homicide and had come to the house seeking drugs. The cross-examination of Eugene was ineffective and proved nothing of any consequence. After extensive discussion with her attorney, my client’s wife chose not to take the stand.

During the closing arguments, I contended that the real murderer, if any, was the star witness, who was not free to commit another murder by virtue of the immunity he had been granted. He was the most culpable participant in the homicide and also had the longest criminal record. Even if his testimony is to be believed, it is plausible that he killed the victim with a pipe and that my client and his wife were beating a dead corpse, which does not constitute Murder One. Instead, it might have constituted their being accessories after the fact of Murder One.

The jury was instructed on the law and they deliberated for four hours. My client and I went to my office to await the jury verdict. He asked me for change for a dollar bill so that he could feed the parking meter where his car was parked, in front of the courthouse.

I was astounded! How could he be concerned with a parking meter when he was on trial for Murder One? Was it an escape from reality? I was hopeful that the jury would be sympathetic to this man as they realized how unfair and unjust the case had become due to the immunity contract of the star witness.

I was wrong.

The jury foreman rang the bell and the jurors entered the courtroom. My defendant, his wife, and their family were also present when the judge announced the verdict: both defendants were found guilty of Murder in the First Degree. The couple literally collapsed on the courtroom floor. To make matters worse, my defendant’s mother gave me the keys to his car and said “Since you lost my son’s case, he won’t need this car anymore. You can have it.” I didn’t accept her offer.

The judge deferred sentencing and later imposed a life sentence on both defendants. There were no grounds for the death penalty and the jury had already recommended a life sentence. Neither defendant had any prior felony convictions. Some judges, nonetheless, might have given the death penalty in this case for political reasons. Most overrides of a jury recommendation of life are reversed by the appellate courts at a later date.

The decision in this case became even tougher to deal with when my client wrote me from prison, telling the story of how he was stabbed in the cafeteria line during his first week behind bars. During his second week, he broke an arm when attacked by another inmate. Even though my client was physically tough, he could not withstand the violence and requested a transfer to solitary confinement.

I filed a motion for a new trial after the sentencing based upon numerous grounds, including a Bruton violation by the prosecution. This Bruton violation was a result of the testimony of the first witness, the former lover of my client’s wife, in which he implicated both defendants in an oral statement from the wife. Since she did not testify in her case, I was precluded from the cross-examination of her trial regarding this statement. Much to my amazement, the judge did the right thing legally and granted my motion for a new trial. I could not believe it! I had never had a new trial motion granted, and this was a Murder One case.

The motion was denied on the wife’s case since the facts were different and the Bruton violation did not apply to her. She retained her life sentence.

After the trial, I also discovered some astounding facts. The star witness, while a guest of the state of Florida, beat and raped a young woman on the Fort Lauderdale beach.

The retrial was scheduled within 90 days by the judge.

The second trial for my client was a different ball game. There was no Bruton violation. There was no spill-over from the testimony about the wife. The credibility of the “star witness” testimony was destroyed. The same witnesses were called and the jury deliberated once again after another four days of trial.

The foreman rang the buzzer and came out of the jury room with a smile on his face. I knew that we had finally won this nightmare case. It was a beautiful moment for me.

The next day I received a call from the jail, telling me that my client was still incarcerated. There was a problem with the state prison computer system. The next day he was released and was the happiest man on the planet. He came to my office with a bottle of Scotch for my efforts. He thanked me for saving his life. It was a great feeling to win this case and have a client who truly appreciated my efforts.

My client was a very lucky man. He is now living the good life outside and is a productive citizen. His wife is still serving her life sentence.

This would be my last jury trial for many years.

Alan H. Schreiber, Attorney at Law • 1708 Blue Heron Cove, Round Rock, TX 78681
Phone: (512) 358-1523 • Mobile (954) 993-5433 • Fax: (512) 628-6109 • E-mail aschreiber2@austin.rr.com