The Pastor's Wife (24 page)

Walt Freeland began his closing arguments by impressing upon the jurors the importance of what they had done and thanking them for their service to the state of Tennessee.

“There's been a lot of confusion, I submit. If I have contributed to that, I apologize, because as difficult as your job is, it's really a pretty simple thing that you have to decide.”

He displayed a definition of first-degree murder on a screen and discussed each element that the state needed to prove beyond a shadow of doubt and with moral certainty. The first on the list was that the state needed to show that the defendant unlawfully killed the victim. “A determination of whether it was an unlawful killing is: Did he deserve to die? According to Mary Winkler, he did not deserve to die. According to every piece of evidence that you heard from that witness stand, he did not deserve to die. Here was a thirty-one-year-old man, in his own house, in his own bed, with his family, his little girls—two in the next room, one down the hall—asleep, asleep in his own bed. Not a threat to anybody. He was brutally, intentionally, premeditatedly killed. Shot in the middle of his back as he slept. He did not deserve to die.”

He moved on to the second element, the desire to kill, or intent. “It would be easy to say you cannot know what is in somebody's mind. Nobody knows what is in somebody's mind, but the person. Well, of course, that's silly,
because that would mean that it would require every defendant to testify or give a confession that ‘It was in my mind to intentionally kill this person.'

“The question, I submit, is: Was this an accident? Now you have heard…that this was abuse on one hand…or on the other hand, if it wasn't abuse, it was an accident. I submit to you that these are theories that don't go together…This is not an accidental death. It is ludicrous…the intention can be concluded by the action…It is ridiculous to think that it was an accident. It was not an accident.”

He told the jury that the state had to prove intention, but not intelligence. “Murder by definition is not intelligent…The question is whether it was intentional…It wasn't well thought out, but the question is: Did she mean to do what she did when she aimed that shotgun and pulled the trigger? If she did, then that is an intentional act.

“…She may have regretted it the second after she did it. She may regret it for the rest of her life. That is not the question. The question at the time of the killing is: What was her mental state? At the time of the killing, not now—if she's remorseful—not one minute after, but at the time of the killing.”

He next argued about premeditation, telling the jury that it was not required to be present for a definite amount of time. She had to be “…sufficiently free of excitement and passion to form premeditation.” He insisted that her knowledge of the banking problems and her retrieval of the shotgun from the top shelf of the closet proved that Mary premeditated the crime.

He reminded the jury that Mary said in Alabama, “‘I always thought it was going to kick hard.' She thought about it? Now this is a lady who claims she doesn't know how to use a shotgun, but she thought about how hard it was going to kick.”

He cast doubt on Mary's ability to remember the actual murder while being able to recall that it was “‘a little bang, it wasn't as loud as I thought.' She thought? She was
thinking about the sound it was going to make. How long was she thinking about that?”

He drew their attention to another statement made by Mary Winkler, “‘It's crossed minds.' Now, Ms. Winkler can't explain what she meant, because she can't recall saying it. Again, you don't have to abandon your common sense to know what that meant.

“She told Stan Stabler she'd been ‘battling not to do it forever'…It is impossible to spin that as anything but a confession.”

He described the defense case as “sleight-of-hand.” He told the jury that the custody case and the wrongful death civil suit had nothing to do with this trial. He reminded the jury that, “Because of the defendant, brothers have lost their brother, a mother and father have lost [their] son, and three precious children have just lost their daddy. That's for your consideration. That's the murder.”

Freeland charged that the confusion in the courtroom was created by the defense strategy. All designed with the intention of making you see Mary Winkler as a victim.

“I submit, the only verdict that truth dictates and justice demands is a verdict of first-degree murder. You are not to have sympathy for Matthew Winkler or Patricia Winkler or Allie Winkler or Breanna Winkler. You're not. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Mary Winkler is guilty of murder.

“And I submit that you should not have any sympathy for Mary Winkler for the same reason. It has nothing to do with whether or not she's guilty of first-degree murder.”

He then argued why the other degrees of offense were inappropriate, and wrapped up his statement. “It's not up for you to decide if Matthew was a good guy or a bad guy, or if he could have been a better husband. Or if she could have been a better wife. That has nothing to do with what you decide. Your attention must be focused on March twenty-second, the instant she pulled that trigger.

“…Ladies and gentlemen, has the state carried its burden of proof that Matthew Winkler was unlawfully
killed? Has the state carried its burden of proof that he was intentionally killed—that it was an intentional act? I submit that it has.

“And has the state of Tennessee carried its burden of proof that this act was premeditated? I believe, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the facts that we have presented prove that.

“Truth dictates and justice demands one verdict, and that is guilty of murder in the first degree.”

Leslie Ballin stepped up to address the jury. He opened by proclaiming the great responsibility of the defense team to speak up for Mary Winkler. “Lord knows that we are not worthy. A feeling of inadequacy fills my body because the words I am about to share with you, you will use as building blocks to build firm foundation to arrive at a verdict that truth dictates and justice demands.”

He then promised to be brief. “Words and facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored. It's time to take your blinders off. Open your eyes. Open your eyes to the truth. Open your eyes to the life that Mary Winkler lived that brought her to March twenty-second of 2006.

“Facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored.” He expounded on the cornerstone of our justice system—the presumption of innocence. “We need facts in this courtroom for you to hear, for you to feel, for you to understand in this case.”

He then described the possible charges they had to consider. “Three charges…require proof of a culpable state of mind…What proof has the state produced to convince you that Mary Winker knowingly or intentionally committed any crime?”

He explained that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence could not be reached unless it was consistent with the theory of guilt, and must exclude every other reasonable explanation. “Where is that proof?

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

A premeditated act had be committed when the accused was free from excitement and passion. “Under the facts of this case, her whole life was in a state of excitement—a heightened state of emotions.”

He reminded them that they needed to look before the day of Matthew's death and told them, “Do not forsake your eyes and ears that have been with you for the last ten days.”

He said there was no proof for the second-degree murder charge or for voluntary manslaughter, since there was no intent. “It's not up to the defense to prove that it was an accident. It is up to the state to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it isn't.”

He spoke of the two other possible charges that allowed the jury to decide that, even though the act was not intentional, it still might be criminal. He added, “I do not think that Mary is guilty of anything.”

Steve Farese stepped before the podium looking solemn and pained. “There's nothing more dangerous in this world than a sincere ignorance and a conscientious stupidity. Those that can make you believe things with ignorant, sloppy recording, insufficient data, really make you less than human.

“Does the prosecution expect us to leave our life experiences at home? That we put on a juror's cap and we become a robot? You have seen a robot. You've seen Mary Winkler.”

He drew an analogy of the Borg on
Star Trek
to the prosecution in their ability to assimilate and defeat all resistance. “If we put a witness up and the witness says, ‘I don't know how to shoot that gun'…they put up another witness who says, ‘You do know how to shoot that gun.' How do you fight that? Well, we fight it with truth.

“Mary Winkler told you the truth. You know that. The truth has, what a professor told me one time, the ring of truth. Unfortunately, Matthew could talk the talk, but could not walk the walk. He couldn't practice what he was preaching. It's not unusual. It happens to a lot of people. He had a problem. His problem was that, as Trooper Jones said, of a bully.

“And what bullies do is, they pick on people that are smaller than them. They talk about people as if they're not human, as if they're second-class citizens—that they're
better than they are. Maybe because they're better-looking, maybe because they're smarter, maybe because their status in life is better economically—because that's what bullies are.

“And if you don't believe Mary Winkler was beaten up and subjected to years of abuse, then that's okay. You heard the proof.”

Farese evoked the 1968 Democrat convention in Chicago, where the chant was: “The whole world is watching.” “I suggest to you, that the whole world
is
watching. This is not just about Mary Winkler. This is not just about Matthew Winkler. This is not just about Patricia and Allie and Breanna, or Dan and Diane Winkler, or Daniel and Jacob Winkler.

“This is about a problem we have in this country, and it's spousal abuse. The whole world is watching.

“Now, they think of us in Tennessee and Mississippi as a bunch of bumbling, redneck know-nothings. We know that. But we're just as smart as anyone else. We care just as much as anybody else. And our family matters to us just as much as anyone else's family does. We're as honest as anybody. We're as good as anybody.

“And I say to you, if you looked up abuse—spousal abuse—in the dictionary, you're gonna see Mary Winkler's picture looking back to you.

“Does that mean that Matthew Winkler
had
to die? No!

“Does that mean Matthew Winkler
deserved
to die? No!

“Does that mean that this family,” he continued, pointing to the Winklers, “has to sit through a trial for two weeks and suffer? No!

“Therein lies the sincere ignorance of the prosecution. They say, ‘Okay, the defense is accidental. Okay, we'll debunk that. Wait a minute. Did you say the defense was domestic abuse? Okay we'll debunk that.'

“It's like
My Cousin Vinny
, where the prosecutor says, ‘Over here we have domestic abuse and over here we have accidental shooting, and they won't meet.' That's ridicu
lous.
And
insidious. Because that's exactly what the defense is, because the defense is based on truth, not supposition.

“The defense is based on her statement. Now, you haven't heard her statement in closing argument, have you? Because if you hear her statement, you hear her voice. If you hear her voice, you have empathy, because you're hearing the truth and it's painting the picture of someone who's been beaten down. Someone who's been ‘nailed…in the ground,' according to her statement. Someone who is trying to protect her husband, trying to protect her children, because that is the pattern of an abused spouse.”

He talked about Lynne Zager's testimony that Mary had all indicators of an abused spouse. He blasted the prosecution for using the psychologist's statements when it suited them and when it didn't, making fun of her expert opinions. He said that their attitudes toward the issue of domestic abuse and psychology were behind the times, and drew parallels to past discrimination against women and minorities. He accused them of being intellectually dishonest.

He moved on to an analogy about the Wizard of Oz. “Pay no attention to the man behind the screen. Pay no attention to the custody hearing in another court. They have segregated Mary from her children. And I submit to you that segregation is wrong in any circumstance.”

He turned to the men who died on Normandy Beach during the D-Day invasion. Their last words, he said, “…were never ‘Daddy.' They were ‘Mother.'” There is a bond between a mother and their children that can never be expunged. These children are part of their mothers. They came from their mothers. They are inextricably twined with their mothers. Daddies can love their children. I love my children. But I guarantee you this: My daughter loves my wife more than she can ever love me. There is something inherent about that relationship. It is unnatural for daughters to be separated from their mothers.”

He detailed the birthdays and other special events in the children's lives that Mary has missed since March
2006 and then moved back to that fatal morning. “It is uncontroverted that there was any planning, and yet the prosecution says there was planning. What? If grabbing a pair of baby socks as you leave the home is planning, then I guess she planned. If not knowing where you're going is planning, then I guess she planned. If using your name everywhere you went is planning, I guess she planned. Planning? Intellectually dishonest.”

He pointed out that no evidence was presented to show that Mary went to the closet to retrieve the gun, yet, in closing, the prosecution claimed that was part of the planning. He said it would be easy to have Mary manufacture a convenient story about the location of the gun that morning, but that would be a lie that would undermine our system of justice.

“It's uncontroverted that there's no criminal intent, because there was no planning, if you throw in Dr. Zager's testimony. And if anyone is honest in this courtroom, it can't be murder one or murder two. It cannot be!”

He spoke of the alienation of the children and said, “Mary was isolated from her natural family when she was married. Now she is isolated from her natural children when she got charges. And the cycle of abuse continues.

“…It's uncontroverted that the gun could have discharged unintentionally. It's uncontroverted because we know that from Steve Scott, who's an expert, who had a gun unintentionally discharge.”

“It's uncontroverted—and I've hit on this—that she did not have the state of mind to form intent to commit a crime.

“It is absolutely unconscionable to me that the state of Tennessee can raise the issue of the unplugged phone as a part of the planning of the premeditated murder when they know why that phone is unplugged. They know. You know, too.

“Unfortunately, the ABI, who doesn't know how to search a van and find evidence in a murder case—it's only a murder case, so why be concerned?—the ABI did something right.” The photograph of the unplugged phone on
the floor of the motel room surrounded by baby toys appeared on the screen. “Impossible that a baby will be playing with the phone in a home and at the motel? Now, what are the chances that we would have this picture? That's scary, isn't it?”

He then took a swing at the prosecution's financial motive. “I spent three days of my life listening to that crap.”

He brought out the shoe. “This is not about religion, but, I submit to you, that a Church of Christ's minister's wife does not wear this kind of shoe.”

On the sexual abuse, he demanded, “Is it funny that he forced her to have anal sex? Is that funny? Is that funny to you? Is that nothing? How could she even make up a story like ‘He told me I could have surgery if it damaged me'? How could you even make that up? You couldn't, because truth is stranger than fiction.”

He talked about the pressures on Matthew to follow in his father's footsteps. He pointed out Mary's inability to talk to anyone about her problems, because it would affect Matthew's career and harm her children. “She'd finally gotten the courage to get his attention, but after years of abuse and being a punching bag, of being belittled and have the self-worth of a crippled ant, she shorted out. That's what Dr. Zager said.

“The gun goes off. None of us will ever know how. None of us can ever possibly know if it was intentionally or unintentionally, whether it was accidental. I don't know. I wasn't there. I can't tell you. I cannot set up here and be intellectually dishonest with you. I can't do it.

“Could she have killed him intentionally? Sure, absolutely, positively. Have they proved it? Absolutely, positively
not
! Have they proven any crime? This is hard for me to say, maybe. Maybe she was negligent. Maybe she was negligent. But what I can't get by is what Dr. Zager said: She couldn't form intent.

“…I don't believe she is guilty of a crime. But I'd be less than honest if I stood here and told you she couldn't have been negligent.”

About the children, he said, “Do I think their grandparents love them? Absolutely.” He spoke of his empathy for Dan and Diane Winkler and their remaining sons. He said if it was his family, he would be bitter and couldn't let go. “And sometimes it's hard to forgive. And sometimes when you're getting bad information, it's hard to let things go. And if it was me, I couldn't do it.

“…But you know what? Mary has a family, too. They're out here,” he said as he turned to them and pointed, “and they're re united, but they're missing three.

“Mary never once during this ordeal ever thought of herself—never once. Did she lie to her children? Yes she did. She lied to protect them, to ease them. She wanted to go to the beach with them and have some good days before the bad came. And the bad did come, like a thief in the night.

“Mary Winkler sits before you innocent of any crime. She is covered with a veil of the presumption of innocence. She is protected by the greatest hurdle in the free world when it comes to burden of proof. And that hurdle is reasonable doubt.”

He talked to the jurors about how to know if they made the right decision. If you catch a glimpse of yourself in the mirror next week, “…would you say to yourself, ‘Did I do the right thing in convicting that girl?' If you do say that, you did not do the right thing. To me, that's a pretty simple guide.

“As you all can see, I love what I do. Y'all would rather be home, but I'd rather be right where I am, 'cause I have the chance to represent someone who needed help, and this time it's pure. There's no money involved. It's pure. And I get to represent somebody I can believe in and get to know this person and know her family. And it's real. These are real lives. These are real people,” he said, pointing to Mary's family members. “These are real tragedies.”

Waving his arm in the direction of Matthew's family, “And it's full on this side of the aisle, too.

“Circumstances are not dependent on men. Men are
dependent on circumstances. And in this case, there was an accumulation of circumstances. Mistakes by both people. Should she have left? Yes, she should've left. But could she leave? No. Should he have acted in the way in which he did? No. But he certainly did not deserve to die.

“Mary loved Matthew. I guess you could say she loved him to death. If you don't believe she loved him, look in her eyes, because they are dead.

“You heard Mary testify that she loves her children. I guess she's just talking,” he said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “I don't guess she really loved them. I don't guess she proved by her actions that she really loved them. And I don't guess that he loved her.

“And I guess over in Iraq or Afghanistan or one of those countries where our young are fighting, one of them is getting shot right now and he's lying on the ground. And you know what he's saying? ‘Mama.'

“Thank you.”