Chapter 13 - Richard’s Turn
Richard began calm.
He spoke about stress.
Mortgage.
Work.
Two young children.
My car accident.
His mother aging.
Then:
“Emily and I fought.”
He admitted.
“I said terrible things.”
Then:
“I did strike her.”
Backyard?
“Yes.”
“Did you intend unconscious?”
“No.”
“Did you know pregnancy?”
“No.”
“Would you have acted differently?”
“Yes.”
That answer made me angry.
As if my body deserved protection only because pregnancy.
Then:
“Did you love daughters?”
“Yes.”
“Want son?”
“Yes.”
“Did disappointment mean hate daughters?”
“No.”
Then older incidents.
He admitted “physical arguments.”
Not repeated beatings.
January:
“She fell after we both struggled.”
Margaret testified kick.
He denied memory.
Wrist:
“She hit garage.”
Pelvis:
“Porch fall.”
Then mother cover stories.
“She overprotects me.”
Not his instruction?
Sometimes.
Then camera current.
He could not escape.
Why push face into ground?
“She was hitting and scratching.”
Video showed my arms under body mostly.
He said angle misses.
Then hospital lie.
Why stairs?
“Panic.”
Then instruct mother?
“Panic.”
Then son language.
“I regret.”
Then prosecutors cross.
“You wanted boy.”
“Yes.”
“You told wife useless.”
“Yes.”
“Worthless trash?”
The camera audio current captured.
“Yes.”
“You kicked injured leg.”
“Yes.”
“You grabbed hair.”
“Yes.”
“You slapped.”
“Yes.”
“You pushed to ground.”
“Yes.”
“You continued after Lily screamed.”
He cried.
“Yes.”
Then:
“Did Emily strike you in that backyard sequence?”
“No.”
There.
“Were you defending?”
“No.”
Then old.
Mother says she witnessed kick January.
“Is she lying?”
He hesitated.
“She remembers differently.”
Then text after:
Ribs will teach her not to mouth off?
Did such text exist? We can introduce from phone extraction:
Richard to Margaret after January:
She won't stop complaining about ribs.
Margaret:
You kicked too hard.
Richard:
Maybe she'll remember.
This is strong and direct. Let's make evidence already available but now used.
Prosecutor read:
Margaret: You kicked too hard.
Richard: Maybe she'll remember next time.
“Your text?”
“Yes.”
“What's that about?”
He stared.
“January.”
So rib fracture likely.
Then another March after wrist:
Richard: She got in way of garage.
Margaret: Keep her home till swelling goes.
Then Thanksgiving:
Richard: I didn't mean she’d fall off step.
Margaret: No doctor.
Pattern.
Then:
“Why no doctor?”
“To avoid questions.”
There.
Then daughters.
“Did you say if wife takes girls nobody gets them?”
“I was angry.”
“Meaning?”
“I don't know.”
“Did you own firearm?”
“Yes.”
“Did you intend threat?”
“No.”
Then:
“Did you tell mother teach girls fall story?”
“I agreed.”
Then:
“Did you know mother told Lily pregnancy loss was Emily’s fault?”
“No.”
“Do you agree?”
He cried.
“No.”
Then Y chromosome.
Prosecutor perhaps shouldn't. But defense raised? Maybe not relevant. The judge excluded sex of fetuses as prejudicial. Good! We need show legal realism. The jury did not hear. Richard already knows privately. Fine.
Then:
“Mr. Carter, you say marriage was mutual violence.”
“Yes.”
“How many times did Emily send you to hospital?”
None.
“How many fractures documented on your body?”
Objection relevance. The judge may allow limited.
He had none from Emily.
Then:
“Did she ever block you from medical care?”
No.
“Teach children lie about injuries you caused?”
No.
“Drag you into backyard several times a week?”
No.
The comparison.
Then:
“Were you afraid of Emily?”
Richard looked offended.
“No.”
That answer was enough.
Power.
Then defense redirect:
“Did you fear losing family?”
“Yes.”
But not fear her.
Then trial closed.
Jury deliberated.
Not on pregnancy loss cause.
Not on being bad husband generally.
On specific charges.
May you like
The verdict would decide criminal guilt.
Not our entire life.
