“Miss Harding’s attorney immediately contacted Dr. Madison’s attorney and made a proposaclass="underline" she would drop the rape complaint against him in exchange for a modest sum of fifty thousand dollars.” Denton strode back toward the jury. “This is called extortion, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s against the law. I’m going to show you how she played this same game of extortion with a former employer of hers two years ago. And you’ll see a video of Brittany Harding admitting to this gentleman that she was extorting him. We’ll hear him testify as well.
“But Brittany Harding,” he said, looking over at her again, pausing, allowing the jurors to follow his gaze to the defendant, “did not succeed with her plan of extortion against Dr. Madison. Yes, he paid the money, because in the long run, sadly, it was cheaper to pay her than go to trial to defend himself, and it was safer than risking damage to his reputation that the public exposure of her false accusations would certainly have caused.
“So why did her plan fail? Because Brittany Harding was not content to take the money and run. She decided she wanted more. Money was not enough. She needed revenge. She wanted to destroy Dr. Madison’s marriage. So she mailed a copy of the payoff check along with a copy of the agreement the two lawyers had drafted, as well as a staged picture that I’ll show you during the trial.
“As a result, Brittany Harding had violated the agreement, and Dr. Madison’s attorney forced Miss Harding to return the money-all of it-to avoid a lawsuit alleging extortion.” Denton chuckled. “She was furious, to say the least. Look at all the trouble she’d gone through. Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll bet she felt that she’d earned this money! After all, she worked hard for it. But then, overnight, it was taken from her. Stolen from her. She was angry, enraged. So angry, in fact, that she confronted Dr. Madison in a supermarket and began screaming at him.” Denton held up his tightened fist toward the ceiling. “‘You’ll pay for this. I’ll get even!’ she yelled, in front of witnesses.”
He leaned both hands on the railing in front of the jury box, and looked deeply into their eyes as he spoke. “You’ll hear from one of these witnesses, the grocery clerk who checked her food out right after the argument occurred. He’ll tell you exactly what she said. You’ll hear for yourselves just how angry she was. He’ll also testify that she purchased a six-pack of Millstone Premium Draft beer-remember this because in a moment I’ll mention these beer cans again, and you’ll see their relevance.
“So what was it that she did in order to get even with Dr. Madison?” Denton folded his hands in front of him again, and stood facing the jurors. “I’m going to show you how Brittany Harding stole the motor vehicle which belongs to Dr. Madison, and then used it to kill two pedestrians, leaving one of them, a single parent, to die slowly in the street on a cold, rainy, winter evening.
“And I’m going to show you that following the hit-and-run, Brittany Harding then planted evidence in the vehicle-those Millstone Premium Draft beer cans that she’d purchased in the market a few days earlier-with the intention of fooling the police into thinking that Dr. Madison had, in a drunken state, run those two people over.”
Denton began strolling slowly in front of the jurors. “For a while the police were fooled. They did think Dr. Madison was the guilty party. After all, it was his car. In fact, I’ll freely admit to you that I was ready to go to trial against the good doctor until we discovered two additional pieces of evidence. Two things that convinced me that Brittany Harding had committed these murders…two things that will convince you that she committed these murders: her motive, and the physical evidence that proves the beer cans belonged to her.
“Now, before I tell you how I’m going to prove that Brittany Harding had a motive, let’s first discuss what motive means. In a legal sense, motive is that idea, belief, or emotion that leads the mind to indulge in a criminal act.” He stopped, allowing the definition to sink in. “It’s the cause or reason that moves the will and induces criminal action on the part of the accused.
“Through the testimony of several witnesses, you’ll hear what kind of person Brittany Harding is, what type of relationship she had with Dr. Madison, and, just as importantly, how she threatened revenge against him in public. When she screamed ‘I’ll get you for this! You’ll pay,’ she telegraphed her actions loud and clear. She announced what she was going to do, and then she acted upon her promise. We don’t have to guess what was in her mind because she told everyone who was in earshot what she intended to do.
“And that makes it really quite simple. If you agree that Brittany Harding’s emotions led her to commit a criminal act, then the rest is easy. Everything else will then fall into place for you. It’ll look black and white, and a verdict of ‘guilty’ will merely be a logical conclusion.
“I will do everything I can to make this case as clear-cut and black-and-white as possible. But in general, a juror’s job is always difficult, because the defendant’s attorney will try and cloud the issues, throw up roadblocks and smoke screens, and try to confuse you. Don’t be fooled. Don’t let him deceive you.
“Once you hear all the evidence, you’ll then have to decide which of it is significant. Which facts are important, and which are not. Who is telling the truth, and who is not. Ultimately, you’ll have to ask yourself if a person like Brittany Harding, who was capable of extortion on two occasions, who was capable of lying to the police about a rape that never occurred, is someone you can believe when she says she is innocent of murder.
“It’s important that each and every one of you work hard until you’ve accomplished your task. Because there was a real crime committed, ladies and gentlemen. Two real victims, and a whole lot of pain. It’s your job to determine if the defendant is going to pay for the crime that was committed. The prosecution is confident it will make its case against Brittany Harding; otherwise, I wouldn’t be standing here before you, taking up your valuable time, the judge’s time, my time, and the state’s resources-to present this case.
“No. If you look at the facts as presented and listen to the witnesses I will bring, you’ll see that there is only one truth. That Brittany Harding committed murder in order to carry out an act of revenge. And for that she must be held accountable. Thank you.”
Denton sat down, a bit lightheaded, the perspiration under his armpits disguised by the cover of his suit coat.
Judge Calvino nodded to the defense table.
Wendell Warwick, the public defender, removed his reading glasses. Tall and thin, with a sharp nose and small, beady eyes that appeared to be constantly squinting, he smiled at the jury as he arose and buttoned his suit coat. “‘Don’t be fooled. Don’t let the defendant’s attorney deceive you,’” he said mockingly. He stopped and smiled again, extended both of his lanky arms out in front of him, palms up, his back arched slightly backward. “Do I look like I’m here to deceive you, ladies and gentlemen?
“I’m not. I’m here for the same reason as the prosecutor: for justice to be served. But that’s where the similarity ends. Mr. Denton wants you to find my client guilty. To him, that is justice. To me, justice means that you will not find an innocent woman guilty and send her to prison for a crime she did not commit. But there is one other very important difference between Mr. Denton and myself. The prosecutor has to prove his case against my client. If he fails to make a believable case-that is, if he fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client is guilty-then you must find her not guilty.
“The prosecution has the burden of proof. They have to prove Miss Harding committed these crimes. As the judge will instruct you at the end of the trial, Miss Harding is innocent until proven guilty. Although the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I do not have to prove innocence. In fact, I don’t have to prove anything.