A Handy Death

“When they arrived there, Raymond Neeley, the deceased, went into the kitchen and put on some coffee. When he came back he saw that the defendant had gone into the bedroom, taken off his jacket, tie and shoes, and stretched out on the bed and fallen asleep. Mr. Neeley woke the defendant and said the coffee was ready, and the defendant said he didn’t want coffee, he wanted a drink. The deceased, aware that the defendant had had too much to drink as it was, claimed there was no liquor in the apartment, at which the defendant became very abusive and called him obscene names. The deceased then said, in essence, ‘If you don’t behave yourself I’ll call the police.’ At that point the defendant became violently abusive and started to tear the place apart, ripping the bedclothes from the bed, and so forth. The deceased, Mr. Neeley, then grappled with the defendant and tried to force him from the apartment. The defendant pulled a gun, shoved Mr. Neeley away from him, and said, ‘Do I get liquor or do you get shot?’ or words to that effect. When Mr. Neeley still insisted there was no liquor in the apartment, the defendant then said, ‘I’ll find it easier with you out of the way’ and deliberately proceeded to shoot Raymond Neeley in cold blood.

“The victim ended up in Wickersham Hospital suffering severe gunshot wounds of the face and head. The People will call the Assistant Medical Examiner of New York County who will describe to you in detail the cause of death of the victim in this case, that cause being the gunshot wounds perpetrated by the defendant on the twenty-fifth of July in the year 1964.

“The prosecution would like to point out to the jury at this time — although the judge will undoubtedly do so in his charge to the jury — that the fact that eight years passed between the assault and the death of the victim does not in any way affect the charge of murder. There is no statute of limitations on murder, and had Raymond Neeley died as a result of that gunshot wound twenty, thirty, or even forty years later, the charge would remain the same.

“Ladies and gentlemen, after you hear all the evidence in this case, you can only come to one conclusion: that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed premeditated murder in cold blood, and accordingly the prosecution will ask you to render the only possible verdict under the law: ‘Guilty of murder in the first degree.’

“Thank you very much.”

Varick walked over and sat down. The silence that had attended his statement was broken by the rustle of bodies assuming more comfortable positions in their chairs. Judge Waxler turned toward the defense table.

“Mr. Ross, would you care to make an opening statement?”

Ross came to his feet and nodded.

“A very short one, Your Honor. May it please Your Honor, Mr. Foreman, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: You have just heard a very dramatic presentation of what the prosecution claims happened on a certain night eight years ago. However, the prosecutor wasn’t there at the time, any more than I was. He was not a witness.”

A brief titter swept the room, instantly stilled. Ross did not smile.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the only evidence the jury is permitted to believe is the proven and believable evidence that comes from the witness stand, and that evidence, I maintain, will demonstrate a completely different set of circumstances from that which the prosecution has so imaginatively described.

“The evidence in this case will show as follows: that the accused, Billy Dupaul, was the victim of a swindle scheme, and that in the course of the perpetration of this swindle, one of the swindlers suffered an accidental wound and eventually died from it.

“The defense is prepared to prove that Billy Dupaul was handed a gun and told to shoot to defend his own life as well as that of a companion, and under the extremely extenuating circumstances that prevailed, did, indeed, pull the trigger. We do not deny that Billy was guilty of folly, of extremely poor judgment in going into a bar, getting drunk, and allowing himself to be picked up by a woman in this state, nor do we deny it was extremely naive of Billy not to have realized he was the intended victim of a swindle, but if poor judgment or naïveté were a crime, there would be few of us free to be here and involve ourselves in this trial today. It must also be remembered, ladies and gentlemen, that at the time of these events, Billy Dupaul was barely nineteen years of age, with little experience of life, and no experience of liquor at all.

“Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.”