Archive of Our Own ^beta

Chapter Text

-Superior Court of King County, Part 30, Criminal Division-

=========

====

-Closing Arguments-

King County Deputy DA: "The People readily concede that Robert Sullivan has spent his life in service of his fellow citizens.
It is undisputed that he has led an admirable life; earning as you heard and saw the admiration of peers, colleagues, and
superiors: friends and loved ones - even ENEMIES...unfortunately he is not on trial for any of those things: the charge is
two counts of capital murder. Despite those outstanding qualities, we ask that you look past them and return a verdict
of GUILTY on both counts."

The presiding Judge provides jury instructions after which he releases the twelve for deliberations. Six hours later a note
from the jury advises the judge that they have a decision...

===

Judge Martin Martinez: "Madame Forewoman...has the jury reached a verdict?"

Forewoman: "We have, Your Honour."

Judge Martinez: "Your verdict is unanimous?"

FW: "It is."

Judge Martinez: "Please publish the verdict."

JFW: "In the case of the State of Washington versus Robert E. Sullivan; as to the charge in count 1 - felony murder - in violation of
of penal code RCW 9A.32.040 we the jury in the above-entitled case find the defendant"-

Chapter Text

~PRECINCT ONE/SEATTLE POLICE DEPT: PREVIOUS~

Inspector Tom Hackett and Detective Damien Asante meet at noon to review their findings re their interviews
with connections whether direct or peripheral to their investigation. Stoic Brit expat Hackett begins the discussion:
"No joy from my four: 'no sale' at the downtown Veterans Administration and the SFD therapist, Dr. Lewis- they could
only verify that Sullivan suffers from PTSD - from both combat and fire service. My other two contacts are re-visits. You?"

Asante responds "Background from Fire Chief Ripley is what we expected: they are best friends. I put a flame under the
for path reports, and re-interviewed the First responders from that night. With DICKface unalive who do we report to?"

Tom replies "Chief of D's Hendricks. You'll approve - he's natural police. Unlike some."

Damien leans back and says "OH...we should switch on Noonan; you know why and I'm not comfortable with TANNER
taking Andy Herrera's statement."

"Riiight...we give Herrera to (Sarah) Linden and (Stephen) Holder; Tanner can backtrack on whomever we missed today."

///

FIRST DAY OF TRIAL-OPENING STATEMENTS

Judge Martinez leans back in his chair and says "Mr. Plank, you have the floor."

"Thank you, Your Honour...ladies and gentlemen, allow me to re-introduce myself: "I'm Michael Plank, Deputy District
Attorney for King County and I intend to show that the defendant - Robert Sullivan -decorated First Responder that he is -
decorated combat veteran that he is - murdered two men with malice of forethought: meaning that he committed those
crimes intentionally and for the age-old reason that many men commit such crimes: LUST. Lust, you say? The defendant's
estranged spouse entered the dating pool again and he was unable to accept this fact. Through witness testimony the people
intend to show that this highly skilled and efficient killer - who honed his skills on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq
made use of those skills to end the lives of Seattle Police Chief MICHAEL DIXON and Seattle Fire Captain SEAN BECKETT.
Now...the people are aware, as you likely are that this same defendant saved two young victims of a human trafficking
ring without proper equipment and great risk to himself when the kidnapper's home caught fire; and who could forget
the incident at the military surplus - the Marine Corps veteran? The people recognize and applaud Mr. Sullivan's heroism
and many acts of community service though we stress that none of that excuses capital murder.

"I remind you that for the people to prove a charge of murder in the first degree - what popular television dramas commonly
refer to as 'MURDER ONE' - we must establish several connecting points: that the accused had motive and opportunity, that an
illicit sexual encounter with one or possibly both victims may be the catalyst, and the defendant has the strength, skill, and the
WILL to carry out the killings. Thank you."

Judge Martinez: "Ms. Lopez."

"Good morning. I'm Emily Lopez and my co-counsel and I - Luke Watkins - will present evidence to completely and
THOROUGHLY refute the people's assertions to prove to you and the city of Seattle what we have already discovered:
Chief Robert Sullivan is an extraordinary man, a patriot, a consummate professional, and a man not
capable of murdering in cold blood. It ISN'T IN HIM. Counselor Plank is 1000% percent correct: Cheif Sullivan famously
put others above himself in the rescue of the kidnap victims; his calm and quick wits in talking down the young veteran Kyle
Kenney from the military surplus - where the owner illegally stockpiled military ordnance - served him well; had the grenade
Kenney brandished that day IMAGINE the loss of life and property-"

Plank is on his feet in an instant. "Counsel is testifying, Your Honour!"

The Judge ponders a moment, then says "Both of you," and wiggles his gingers in a 'come hither' motion. "NOW - Mr. Plank,
my observation of Ms. Lopez is that she intends to 'get' the defendant's public and national service into the record on way
or another - do I presume correctly, Ms. Lopez?"

"You are, Judge."

"Yes...Yes; Mr. Plank: that said I'm instructing opposing counsel to...'temper' her delivery. PHRASING. Am I understood?"

Both: "Yes, Your Honour."

"Step Back. You may continue, Ms. Lopez."

Emily says "My client is against my addressing his military and fire service records; these are his exact words: 'Any war story
is as true as it is false; and whatever a combat veteran forgets is what he/she chooses not to remember'. As poignant as I
find those words I still am unsure what he means. I trust that we may all become enlightened to the meaning of those state-
ments. Thank you."

/////
~PREVIOUSLY (In Los Angeles, CA)~...

"Baby...what's your take on that murder case In Seattle?" asks Emily.

"Remind me again?" replies Luke after shutting off the volume on their large-screen TV.

"Former Marine combat veteran - Recon, which makes him a 'special operator... Purple Heart and Bronze Star for Valour - at
least two physical wounds and a big 'ole dose of PTSD. THAT'S on top of his injuries and trauma during his 15-year fire career;
I want this case, Luke."

"OK, Alright - let's slow it down, yeah? Whether we want it what about the accused? Secondly: we have a toddler trying a murder
lawsuit roughly 960 miles away."

" Regarding Andres: our parents - and we fly back every weekend. And our client - ROBERT SULLIVAN - is loaded: as in name our
price loaded. And...I've already accepted it."

~updated 10/22/24~

"Of course, you have!" her life mate guffawed. "In all seriousness - OK, Papa (she brought their son: who had crawled into the
room and over to his Mommy onto her lap) - WOULD he consider a diminished capacity defense? He almost certainly has PTSD from
his combat experience...OK, OK; toma mi rey " she cooed, freeing one of her breasts for him to suckle.

"I'll ask him," Luke replied. "He's a proud man, Sullivan."

Sometime later, while Luke caught up on some of their other pending cases, Em read an article by Omri Berger, Dale E. McNiel, and
Renée L. Binder in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online December 2012, 40 (4) 509-521: ABSTRACT :
'Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been offered as a basis for criminal defenses, including insanity, unconsciousness, self-defense,
diminished capacity, and sentencing mitigation. Examination of case law (e.g., appellate decisions) involving PTSD reveals that when offered
as a criminal defense, PTSD has received mixed treatment in the judicial system. Courts have often recognized testimony about PTSD as
scientifically reliable. In addition, PTSD has been recognized by appellate courts in U.S. jurisdictions as a valid basis for insanity, unconscious-
ness, and self-defense. However, the courts have not always found the presentation of PTSD testimony to be relevant, admissible, or compell-
ing in such cases, particularly when expert testimony failed to show how PTSD met the standard for the given defense. In cases that did
not meet the standard for one of the complete defenses, PTSD has been presented as a partial defense or mitigating circumstance, again
with mixed success.

'Even before posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) became an official diagnosis, traumatic stress syndromes, such as traumatic neurosis
of war, were successfully offered as bases for criminal defenses.1 Soon after its introduction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III), in 1980,2 the PTSD diagnosis also made its way into the criminal courts as a basis for several
types of criminal defenses for both violent and nonviolent crimes.1,3,4 In addition, other trauma-related syndromes not included in the
DSM, such as battered-wife syndrome and battered-child syndrome, have been offered as bases for criminal defenses.3,5,6 However,
these related syndromes have generally been presented as special types of PTSD.4,5'...

"Huh." The gorgeous Latina sits back, eyes closed and body relaxed. "Yeah. Yeah." she whispers to herself.