Elegy - Chapter 30

As the following week passed, my nerves ramped up as we were closing in on the hearing to consider the motion to dismiss my case. If we got this granted, I’d be able to finish the school year, although catching up on almost three weeks of classes was going to be hard, and I’d have a chance to get something done with my music. If it wasn’t granted, it would be fall before my case actually went to trial, and I wasn’t sure I’d ever recover from that kind of delay.

It got so bad I was physically sick the morning of the hearing. I couldn’t imagine anyone living with this much anxiety, although it did give me new respect for what Kat had been able to deal with. I could barely take a week of it, and she’d done it for years.

I sat beside Mr. Eaves in the empty courtroom, trying to focus on the imposing oak-paneled walls, the tall ceiling, and the frankly intimidating raised desk where the judge would sit, and not on Mr. Campbell at his table to the right of us, shuffling through an impressive stack of papers. It was only how calm Mr. Eaves seemed to be that kept me from falling apart.

Finally, a bailiff came out and said, “Order in the court,” followed by the judge walking out in her robes and stepping up behind her desk. Mr. Eaves grabbed my sleeve and tugged me to stand next to him, causing me to scramble to get up in time. He’d warned me about that, but I was so overwhelmed that I’d almost missed it.

The judge herself was an impressive woman. Tall with pinned-back curly black hair, she had this air of authority that I had never seen before. It was the thing that I think some teachers and people like Mr. Packer tried for, but until this moment I hadn’t realized how much they’d failed. Even looking over her hawkish nose, through reading glasses, at the documents set out on her desk, she still came off as stern and commanding. It didn’t do a lot to settle my nerves.

She set down the papers and looked at the three of us at our respective tables and said, “Good morning. We are here today to discuss the motion to dismiss charges in the case of The State of North Carolina versus Charlie Nelson. A few ground rules up front. I want to remind everyone that our purpose here is to examine the legal arguments and evidence presented, and to ensure a fair and just process. I expect all parties to conduct themselves professionally and respectfully throughout these proceedings.”

She paused to look at Mr. Eaves and Mr. Campbell, I guess to make sure they were paying attention, like there was even another option.

“It is the court’s responsibility to carefully consider the arguments put forth by both the defense and the prosecution. We will assess the evidence presented, the relevant legal principles, and any applicable precedents to arrive at a just decision,” she continued. “I want to emphasize that today’s hearing is not a trial. It is a focused discussion centered on the motion to dismiss. The burden rests upon the party making the motion to demonstrate that the charges should be dismissed based on legal grounds. The District Attorney will have an opportunity to present counterarguments and evidence to support their position. Does everyone understand?”

I was pretty sure she was talking to Mr. Eaves and Mr. Campbell, but I added, “Yes, ma’am,” just in case.

“Good. Mr. Eaves, present your arguments.”

“Your Honor,” Mr. Eaves began, his voice firm and even. “The crux of our position is this: this case should never have made it to the grand jury in the first place, let alone inside a courtroom. We believe the only reason an indictment was handed down in this case was because the District Attorney failed to present evidence that would have made it clear that Charlie is innocent of what he’s accused of. Now, I can hear my colleague’s counter-argument already, that the District Attorney is not required to present exculpatory evidence during grand jury proceedings. However, the prosecution is not allowed to shape a charge, using false and misleading facts while removing anything that counters those lies.”

“The charge against my client started with a description of him plunging a knife into his father’s chest. What wasn’t included was that his fingerprints weren’t on the weapon at all. His mother’s fingerprints were on the knife, confirming my client’s description of his mother grabbing the knife from the counter and it being knocked out of her hand just before she was pushed into the counter edge, which forensics shows was her cause of death. His father’s fingerprints were also on the knife, again confirming my client’s description of his father picking up the knife and using it against him. There’s a slash on my client’s arm, where his father tried to stab him. The knife fight only ended when the two grappled, as my client tried to keep the knife from stabbing him. They fell and my client hit his head, resulting in the concussion that left him unconscious, which was how the paramedics and the sheriff found him. The only explanation in that situation was that his father fell on his own weapon. What isn’t possible is my client pulling the knife and stabbing his father, which is all the grand jury heard.”

“They also heard that Charlie is a violent offender with a long criminal record, which is not true, as my client has never been convicted of any crime, let alone a violent one. What they didn’t hear was that Charlie was with his girlfriend at the house where he has been staying since his emancipation, when his mother called, telling them his father was kicking in her door and that she needed help. They didn’t hear nine-one-one's recording of the call that has his girlfriend, who happens to be the daughter of the sheriff, describing his mother’s panicked call and that Charlie had rushed over there after hearing the sound of the door to the trailer breaking down.”

“They also did not hear that his mother actually had a restraining order against his father, who tried a similar attack a month previously after she filed for divorce from him. They didn’t hear that he attacked my client in a courtroom and was released when this District Attorney decided there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue the charges, even though a family court judge was actually one of the ones attacked. They didn’t hear that the father was, in fact, the violent offender, previously convicted of stabbing another man to death in a bar brawl.”

“Finally, the District Attorney never called the sheriff or any law enforcement before the grand jury to give a witness statement about the attack. He simply described it to them and instructed them to find my client guilty. The reason he didn’t call the sheriff to testify before the grand jury is because the sheriff, who’d previously dealt with Charlie’s father and knew of the restraining order, had argued against my client being charged, making the same argument that I am making now: that my client could not possibly be guilty of manslaughter, let alone second-degree murder, based on the facts of the case. This entire case has been nothing but a legal form of harassment against my client, and the way it has been handled is nothing short of prosecutorial misconduct. I actually have the sheriff here today to give the testimony that should have been given to the grand jury, to show how egregious this entire process has been.”

“I object, Your Honor,” Mr. Campbell said, hopping up quickly. “If Mr. Eaves wants to call the sheriff as a witness, the appropriate place to do that should be at the trial itself. His entire argument is that the case should never have gone to the grand jury, which is exactly why this motion is a farce against the entire judicial process. One of the staples of our system is that district attorneys are allowed wide latitude on how cases are presented to a grand jury, and that we are not required to make the defense’s case for them.

“I believed then, and I believe now, that there is sufficient evidence to present this case at trial. Mr. Eaves, in fact, just pointed out that Charlie’s father was present at the trailer another time when tempers were raised, and no one was assaulted or died in that incident. It can be argued that Mr. Nelson’s presence was what turned the incident deadly, and it would be up to a jury to decide the truth of that. Moreover, I still believe there is a public interest in seeing Mr. Nelson finally being charged. Since the day he arrived in our small town a year ago, he has been in numerous altercations, some involving serious, life-threatening injuries. It is a matter of public safety that Mr. Nelson is finally held accountable for his actions. And lastly, the victims in this case deserve to have their day in court. His mother and father are dead, and the only voice they have to cry out for justice comes from my office. They too deserve to have their day in court. If Mr. Eaves feels our accusations are in error, I say again, he can make that argument then, and he can bring any witnesses, including the sheriff, forward to testify at that time.”

“Your objection is overruled, counselor. Nothing you said refuted the attorney for the defense’s stated reasons for requesting a dismissal of this case. I would like to hear what the sheriff has to say and make a determination based on that.”

“Your honor …” Mr. Campbell said, clearly not ready to let his objection go yet.

The judge, however, cut him off.

“I said overruled, counselor,” she said, sounding a little annoyed she had to repeat herself. “Sheriff, come up here, please.”

I didn’t know a lot about courts of law, but I was pretty sure annoying the judge was high up on the list of things you shouldn’t do. Sheriff Gibbs, who had been the only person sitting in the seating area behind us, since this wasn’t an open hearing, got up and walked around to the witness stand, and sat down.

“Sheriff, you understand that, while we aren’t officially at trial and you aren’t being sworn in, I expect you to answer my questions forthrightly and honestly, yes?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“Good. Now, is it correct to say that you were not planning on charging Mr. Nelson with a crime and argued with the District Attorney over this?”

“Yes, your honor.”

“Why is that?”

“Because it’s the most cut-and-dried case of self-defense I’ve ever seen, and that was even before the forensics came in.”

“What makes it obviously self-defense?”

“For one, I’ve dealt with Charlie’s father multiple times since he came to town last fall. He was frequently drunk and belligerent and had a history of violence when he was drunk. There was a nearly identical incident a month before, where he was at their trailer, trying to get inside, screaming about his wife divorcing him, and making some fairly direct threats. That time, I happened to be nearby when the call came in and managed to get there in under two minutes, which I believe is the only reason it didn’t turn deadly that time. I was even forced to tase him to stop him from attacking, which I think goes to show that nothing was going to stop that man. This time, I was further away, and it took me almost five minutes to get to their trailer when the call came in, which wasn’t fast enough.

Then, there was the nine-one-one call from my daughter, who I do think is a trustworthy source. That call is also recorded. Everything she said corroborates Mr. Nelson’s version of events, including that the door was kicked in while he was still with her, at the house of Jennifer Philips, which is about a hundred yards away from the Nelson trailer. Finally, we found Mr. Nelson unconscious when we arrived, his father lying on top of him. He didn’t wake up for almost an hour, which was long enough for the doctors to worry that he had more than a concussion and might have suffered serious head trauma. Thankfully, that wasn’t the case, but he had to have received a serious hit to the head to be unconscious for that long. That, I think, is the thing that convinced me the most. If he stabbed his father, how did he get knocked out and pull his father on top of him, the knife between them? Self-defense and Charlie’s father accidentally falling on the knife as the two struggled was the only way I could see that happening. Once the forensics came in, and it was clear Charlie had not touched the knife, I was even more convinced, since even if it was possible for him to pull his father on top of him and for the two of them to fall hard enough to knock Charlie out, there wasn’t enough time for all of that to happen before I arrived.”

“I see. Mr. Campbell, do you have any questions for this witness?”

“Yes, your honor, I do, but first I want to make it clear why my office decided against following Mr. Gibbs’ recommendation. Hearing him present things just now, I know how it must sound, and to anyone who doesn’t know the people involved, it would indeed seem like he makes a good argument for the defendant’s innocence. I, however, do know the family, and so I think it’s only prudent to bring some of the things I know to light,” he said before turning to the sheriff. “Sheriff Gibbs, isn’t it true that you and this boy have a long history together?”

“I wouldn’t say it was long, but yes, we have a history.”

“Your first encounter with him was more than a year and a half ago on the preceding September when he got into a fight after attacking some other boys. I would call that a long history. More important than the length of time is the type of relationship you two had. We’ve already heard it mentioned that Charlie is dating your oldest daughter. What wasn’t mentioned is that he regularly socialized with your family, including taking your wife and daughter on a trip to Nashville and dining at your house. While I would, of course, never call your daughter’s motives or truthfulness into question, I also cannot take her description of what led to the murders at face value. She has a reason to lie, to protect her boyfriend, and you have a reason to protect her.

“Moreover, this is not the first time that you’ve argued Mr. Nelson shouldn’t have been charged with a crime after he’d previously broken the law. Considering your close family ties to him and your repeated defense of Mr. Nelson, regardless of the crime he committed, I think it’s fairly clear you are far from an objective observer. You have a clear conflict of interest in this case. Do you expect the court to believe you came here today simply to defend him out of the goodness of your heart and not because you want to protect your daughter’s boyfriend from the consequences of his actions?”

“Well, considering he’s not dating my daughter, yes. I do expect you to believe I came here as an objective observer as part of my duties as sheriff.”

“What?” Mr. Campbell said, clearly surprised by the answer.

I guess he hadn’t heard Sydney and I broke up.

“Charlie and my daughter broke up after all this happened, at my urging. Actually, while yes, my wife did go with him to a music festival this previous summer, it was to chaperone our daughter because I didn’t want her traveling with Mr. Nelson out of town on their own. And yes, he had dinner at our house one time because he was dating my daughter at the time. However, I had been actively trying to convince my daughter to break up with him for a while because I believe that he, rightly or wrongly, has a habit of ending up in situations that I worried could negatively affect her at some point. So no, I don’t think I have a conflict of interest because they were dating. Actually, I am happy that something finally occurred that forced my daughter to see things my way and break up with him. I would say that if anyone has a conflict of interest here, it’s you. You definitely should not …”

“Sheriff, please stay on the topic at hand,” Mr. Campbell said, cutting him off.

“No, I think I’d like to hear that,” the judge countered. “What do you mean about his conflicts of interest, Sheriff Gibbs?”

“The District Attorney and his son have had numerous run-ins with Charlie. The fight a year ago September, that he mentioned, was actually with Mr. Campbell’s son and two other boys. Nothing happened to them because Charlie threw the first punch, but according to other witnesses, they were threatening a smaller child and Charlie came in to defend him. That became something of a pattern, culminating at their prom last year when Mr. Nelson came across Mr. Campbell’s son sexually assaulting a drunk young girl in one of the school restrooms. That ended in Mr. Campbell’s son being arrested. That was actually another instance where the District Attorney didn’t recuse himself due to conflicts, when he refused to let anyone else in his office handle the case and instead decided that, in spite of all the witnesses, he didn’t have enough evidence to press charges against his son. That’s actually something of a pattern in itself. There was another incident this winter when four friends of Mr. Campbell’s son, who have since left for college, assaulted Mr. Nelson, which was caught on camera. Even though we had video evidence of the assault, the District Attorney decided again that …”

“I see,” the judge said.

“Your honor, what may or may not have happened with my son has no relevance here,” Mr. Campbell said, clearly annoyed at having his decisions questioned. “This hearing’s purpose is to consider the defense’s motion to dismiss based on the grand jury proceedings. I’ve already established that my office violated no policies and has, by law, wide leeway in how we handle indictments, the motion should be denied out of hand and this case be allowed to proceed to trial.”

“I don’t believe we’ve established that your office did not violate any laws or procedures in regard to the grand jury. In fact, from what I’ve just heard, the opposite might be true,” the judge said. “In fact, if you did handle your own son’s prosecution and decide to not continue with that prosecution, it sounds like there may be a concerning pattern here.”

“Your honor,” Mr. Campbell started to say, but the sheriff clearly saw this as an opening because he spoke, cutting him off.

“Actually, this isn’t the only time his office has broken policy in regard to Mr. Nelson. The drug possession charges that he referenced a few times are actually a very similar circumstance to this. I was called to the high school because the vice-principal there said they found drugs in Mr. Nelson’s locker during a random sweep. After a short discussion, it was quickly established that the drugs had not, in fact, been found in Mr. Nelson’s locker and had been previously confiscated from other students. The vice-principal agreed the accusation was a simple mistake, and as far as I was aware, that was the end of it. Except, it wasn’t, because the same vice-principal then told the District Attorney about the drugs, and he, without a referral from my department, brought charges against Mr. Nelson for drug possession. I tried to explain to him that those charges were incorrect, but I was told in no uncertain terms to keep my attention on my own department and leave the prosecuting of cases to the District Attorney. It wasn’t until I filed an affidavit with the court and copied it to both the District Attorney and Mr. Nelson’s lawyer restating that the school officials had already withdrawn the accusations and admitted it wasn’t found in Charlie’s possession, that the charges were actually withdrawn. Which is why I’m surprised he framed those charges to this court as ‘still pending’ and as an example of Charlie’s previous bad behavior, since clearly that isn’t true.”

“Why would a school official refer a drug possession accusation to the District Attorney after he admitted to you that it was a mistake?” the judge asked.

“Your honor,” Mr. Campbell tried again, although he seemed notably more deflated than a minute ago.

He had tried to steamroll over everyone, but once everything was laid out, I think even he realized it was impossible to not see the pattern forming. The sheriff, however, wasn’t done yet, and once again spoke over him.

“That’s something I wondered myself, your honor. Now, there’s a rumor, and I will say I have not investigated the District Attorney’s finances to prove if this is true or not, that after his son was arrested at prom, the District Attorney began paying this school administrator to harass Charlie and try to get him expelled from school. Since then, there have apparently been numerous cases where the school administration acted wildly out of their purview, with false accusations and overly drastic decisions whenever Mr. Nelson was concerned. There has also been a suggestion that the drugs that were found weren’t just a mistake, but a purposeful attempt by this school administrator to plant these drugs on Mr. Nelson, and it was only through a stroke of luck on Charlie’s part that we discovered the drugs weren’t his.”

“I will not stand by while I’m accused of …” Mr. Campbell shouted, but stopped when the judge held up a hand, halting his defense.

“That’s a pretty serious accusation, Sheriff,” the judge said.

“Oh, I’m not making an accusation. There was a witness who saw Mr. Campbell handing a large amount of money to the vice-principal in front of the school one evening, which is why I think it is concerning. But, like I said, we haven’t actually investigated the District Attorney. I was asked about conflicts of interest, and this seems like a good indicator that the District Attorney should, at the very least, have given this case to someone else to handle.”

It occurred to me, as the sheriff was speaking, that I’d never told that story to him. I couldn’t even remember if I’d told Mr. Eaves about it. What I did know was that I told Chef, and Chef knew Mr. Eaves. I looked over at my lawyer, who gave me an annoyed expression and pointed at the front of the court, probably not wanting me to tip Mr. Campbell off to what had suddenly occurred to me.

Sheriff Gibbs had mentioned that he was talking to my lawyer about my case, but it suddenly dawned on me that the two of them had planned this. I didn’t know much about the law, but I knew what the sheriff had just said wasn’t something a lawyer could just bring up in court, since there was no evidence at all beyond what I saw. He must have talked to the sheriff and arranged it to let Sydney’s dad bring it up if the opportunity presented itself since maybe witnesses were allowed to say more than an attorney was.

I also noticed he’d mentioned a witness saw the money exchange and didn’t add that I was that witness, or that I thought it was money but had no way of being sure. This was all Mr. Eaves’ plan. Sheriff Gibbs was taking a serious risk doing this. Mr. Campbell was a vindictive man who didn’t like being challenged. There was no way he wouldn’t try to somehow take this out on the sheriff.

“Your honor, these are all lies. I demand it all be stricken from the record and this case allowed to continue to trial.”

“While I agree it’s a stretch to allow consideration of a rumor and an unfounded witness, I do wonder why you would have taken an already disproven accusation and charged Mr. Nelson with that crime or presented it to this court as something you were still considering charging him with. That, at the very least, taints everything involved with this trial, if not your entire office. When put together with you and Mr. Nelson clearly having a relationship outside of your office, and a hostile one at that, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a case where a District Attorney should have recused themselves more than this one.”

“Your honor, this is all improper.”

“No, Counselor, what’s improper is bringing this case in the first place. Yes, prosecutors are allowed wide latitude in charging cases, but they’re also supposed to follow ethics rules in doing so, and you’ve very clearly violated those, to pursue a case your own sheriff thinks won’t hold up. If what the sheriff has said about the drug possession charges being a complete fabrication turns out to be true, not only have you violated ethics rules, but you have very likely broken the law. What’s more, you clearly have a conflict of interest in this case and shouldn’t be involved with it at all. Considering the implication that this is not the first time you’ve allowed your conflicts of interest to influence justice in this county, especially the accusation that there were charges against your son that you disposed of, I am going to be referring the transcripts of this hearing along with my own recommendations to the State Bar and Ethics Committees and the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct.”

“As for this case, I rule in favor of the defendant. This case should never have made it to the grand jury, let alone into my courtroom, and I firmly believe the only reason I am ruling on it today is because of personal animus on behalf of the prosecutors. Mr. Nelson, I want to personally apologize to you for what you’ve been put through. Case dismissed.”

With a bang of her gavel, it was all over.