CLOSING ARGUMENTS

At 9:16 a.m. on Monday, June 26, two weeks after they began hearing testimony, the jury entered Judge Cooper's courtroom to hear closing arguments in the case. Since the state has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it gets to go first and then it gets to finish up with a rebuttal of defense arguments.

"Good morning, ladies and gentlemen," Townsend began his 32-minute summation. "Before I begin, I'd like to personally thank you. We've noticed that

—it's been quite a long trial and quite a few witnesses—we've noticed you've paid very close attention to the witnesses and the evidence and taken a lot of notes. On behalf of myself and my office, on behalf of the victim, I would like to thank you for your close attention in this matter."

Townsend told them of a young woman they'd gotten to know a bit during this trial, a young mother who loved her daughter, who had a special relationship with her, who could never have committed suicide. And then, interestingly, since he was the county's expert prosecutor on forensics and this case had been billed as one of clear-cut forensics by his office since Fletcher's arrest, Townsend said: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to ask you, and actually I'm going to urge you, that when you consider the evidence in this case, you use your common sense when you look at the evidence. I urge you to use your everyday life experiences when you analyze this evidence in this case. For if you do, because this is a common-sense case, the evidence will become clear to you, the evidence that's there, as well as the evidence that's not there. High-velocity mist. Gunpowder residue. Evidence that would have been there had she shot herself in the head. Blood and mist that would have been on the comforter but does not

exist."

What had begun as a case of forensics, with the prosecution trumpeting many months earlier the supposedly damning bloodspatter on Fletcher's green Oxford shirt, had become a case not of science but of common sense. Not of measurements and scientific testing so much as: Come on, you think it was a

coincidence she got shot the one and only day she went to a shooting range in her life? It was a change in focus that would have made even more sense to Townsend if he could have seen into the collective mind of the jury and seen how little it thought of the forensics.

Townsend then went to motive. "Right from the beginning we know Michael Fletcher did not love Leann. He had a different interest. That interest was Judge Susan Chrzanowski, whom he was having a very detailed love affair with, a very intimate affair with, for well over a year, year and a half." And then he read two of Fletcher's e-mails to the judge, including one that concluded with: "'I miss you already. I am so anxious for the day when I never have to say that again. That's my hope for the future, anyway. I love you, Susan. Mick.'"

From motive, he got to the strength of his case—the seemingly non- common-sensical series of events that happened in the bedroom of the house on Hazelwood, as recounted by Fletcher.

"The defendant tells police, well, I had gone to work and then I returned and then we dropped off Hannah, then we went to the gun range. She was afraid— she didn't like shooting, so we came back and we were going to have sex. That's what he told the officers.

"The facts and the evidence, I suggest to you, show something different. The facts show that Leann had fresh semen in her vaginal cavity. She was found naked from the waist down, so tests were conducted and there was fresh semen. And if you also recall, the defendant's undershorts were taken and also examined by the Michigan State Police and that there was semen in his undershorts. I suggest to you what the evidence actually shows is that in fact he had sex that day, prior to the death of Leann.

"He further tells the police that while she's sitting there, sitting on the bed, while she's naked from the waist down, while she's waiting to have sex with him, that at this point in time he's decided to load his gun and that he loads a full clip, that he puts one bullet, one round, into the chamber. He then tells the police that [he] started loading the second clip again, Leann is waiting to have sex with him. But he's having a hard time loading the clip and therefore, since he's having a hard time, he gives the second clip to Leann to load.

"Again, I ask you when applying that, does that make sense, is that reasonable? You have a complete novice at guns, somebody that doesn't like guns, somebody that is afraid of guns, and I suggest to you has no idea on how to load a clip, and he's asking her to load the weapon."

Townsend then got to the forensics. He said that if MacDonell's theory was correct and that Leann had somehow pulled the trigger with her thumb, there should have been high-velocity mist on her hand. But tests showed none of it. Other tests showed that the Smith & Wesson was a heavy depositor of gunpowder residue but none was found on Leann's hand. And that police firing tests concluded the gun had to have been between 12 and 18 inches from Leann's head when it was fired.

Townsend reminded them of the photo of MacDonell's model, the one with her holding both the gun and the clip in her right hand, with her thumb on the trigger. "It comes down, again, to common sense and everyday life experiences. First of all, would Leann, who hates guns, who is afraid of guns, would she have ever touched it? Would she ever put her thumb into the trigger of the gun? If she's got the clip, would she ever do anything like that? I suppose if we just completely devoid ourselves of our life experiences and common sense, I suppose anything—anything—is possible. But is it reasonable? I suggest to you, absolutely not. There was no reason for Leann to touch that gun and she wouldn't have touched that gun."

Finally: "I think the evidence has shown that at the scene the defendant washed his hands. I forgot to mention one thing. Also recall as far as the phone, the cordless phone that was taken, there was no blood on that. There was blood found in the sink of the trap [sic] and I think that's important. If you find blood in the trap of the sink, according to Mr. Woodford, that would have taken a great quantity or a large amount of blood in order to even get that testing. He's been testing it for 19 years. It's the first time he was able to even come up with a showing that is indeed blood.

"When I asked his one expert, Dr. Besant–Matthews, 'Well, Doctor, do you find it significant that there's blood in the trap of the sink?' He goes, 'No.' I go, 'Why don't you think it's significant?' 'Well, I don't think it's significant

because he had moved the body. He had touched the body.' And I asked him 'So he had blood on his hands so he washed them?' And his response was 'Well, wouldn't you? Would you want that sticky stuff on your hands?'

"Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest to you that if I had gone out and seen my wife—or a person goes and sees a wife or a husband lying on the ground, that they're bleeding, don't know if they're alive or dead, don't know the extent of their injuries, the first thing they're going to do is attempt to find out, is to embrace, to cradle, to comfort. I don't think I'd go wash my hands and then decide to call 911.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the defendant may have washed his hands at the scene attempting to get the blood of Leann Fletcher off his hands. But, ladies and gentlemen, the blood of Leann Fletcher will always be on his hands. It will be on his hands for the rest of his life.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to hold the defendant accountable for what he did on August 16th, 1999. I ask you to hold him accountable for his actions. I ask you to return a verdict consistent with the evidence in this case and consistent with justice in this case. I ask you to return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree."

It was a powerful summation, made all the more powerful by its brevity. Wisely, Legghio asked for 10 minutes to marshal his resources. The jury was excused at 9:50 a.m. and came back at 10:02.

*

It was a hard act to follow. Legghio followed it brilliantly. For an hour and 45 minutes he tore into the prosecution's theory of events and motive, and he ripped into its witnesses. He savaged Woodford, in particular. He was alternately calm and passionate, quiet and thundering. It was a performance worthy of a client whose future was at stake. Michael Fletcher would soon be either going home to his parents and the best meal his mother could make him, or he would be going back to jail, possibly for the rest of his life, with no possibility of parole.

"During the course of trial, and even probably during the course of my closing argument, I sometimes have a tendency to be irreverent," Legghio said,

after, like Townsend, thanking the jurors for their attentiveness. "I have a tendency to be somewhat disrespectful, maybe, perhaps to witnesses or even authority."

He was actually warning them of the disrespect and irreverence toward witnesses and authority that lay moments ahead.

"And if you found that was inappropriate, if you thought I was inappropriately aggressive with a witness or if I conducted myself inappropriately, I apologize. But I will tell you, I take my job very, very seriously. I try not to take myself too seriously, but I take this job very seriously. And so if I have at all offended you, do not hold that against my client."

He made a few more introductory comments and then got to the heart of things: lack of motive.

"I think that the very, very threshold issue that you have to deal with when you go to the jury room is why—why—would Mick Fletcher kill his wife? Now you'll hear law by the judge that says motive is something that you may consider but the prosecution doesn't have to prove it. They don't have to prove it, which, I don't know, is a bit of an oxymoron to me. Their whole case from the day that you walked in this courtroom is that my client murdered his wife in cold blood.

"And that's the motive. Because, you know, if you're going to go in that room and deliberate about bloodspatter and stippling and gunshot residue, I think at least the threshold issue that you better be crossing is, Why is this guy killing his wife? He's 29 years old. He just passed the bar a couple of years ago. He's a fledgling young lawyer. He has a three-year-old daughter. Why would you murder your wife?

"You have heard not one—one!—not one drop of evidence that my client has an assaultive behavior, whatsoever, that he's an angry man or a pent-up person or an assaultive person. And in fact, if you use your common sense as Mr. Townsend wants you to do, what you'll deduce, I think, using a little bit of psychology here, is that my client has all the classic behavioral patterns of avoidance and denial. He's a classic guy who doesn't want to deal with issues.

"He moved out of the house three times. Is he dealing with the issue? No. He's filed a divorce. Is he dealing with the issue? Well, he's taking steps, he

made a pronouncement to the world, you know, I'm going to divorce my wife. And what does he do? He moves back in.

"What does Susan Chrzanowski say? 'He left me three times.' In fact, one time she even said, 'On the day my divorce was final, he moved back in with Leann.' Now, if that's not a message … He's engaged in a behavior pattern where there's flight rather than fight. He's left his wife three times, and his baby, and filed for divorce. Why would you go and kill your wife?"

Then, in a line of reasoning that jury members would later say was crucial in shredding Townsend's theory of motive, Legghio said: "Quite frankly, I think if you examine that relationship with Susan Chrzanowski, examine her testimony, do you really believe that stuff? 'Oh, if I knew he was having sex with his wife, I'd just—well that would be it!' Yeah, right … They say he wants to be with the judge. Whenever he wanted to be with the judge, he was with the judge. He was with her three times, he left her three times. So it's not that.

"Why did he kill her? Because he didn't want the judge to find out his wife was pregnant? Really?… Do you really think that if Leann had kept on living and had this baby and Mick said, 'You know what? I'm sorry we had another child but I'm done, I just can't do this,' do you really think Susan Chrzanowski wouldn't take him back? In a heartbeat. In a heartbeat.

"And so the prosecution says, 'The reason he's willing to kill his wife is because he doesn't want her to find out she's pregnant. Well, lordy, lordy. When she dies, the whole world knows she's pregnant. He was going to keep her pregnancy from the judge if he killed her? Duh! Do you honestly believe that? And so now the judge says, 'Gee, Mick, now we're together. Let's see, your wife died under suspicious circumstances, a gunshot to the head.' Well, that's going to make for a very rosy, long-term investment in the relationship, isn't it?"

*

Having apologized in advance for sometimes being "somewhat disrespectful" toward witnesses, Legghio went on to become very disrespectful. He mocked Cleyman, tried to take Dragovic down a peg or two and downright savaged Woodford.

(Legghio needn't have apologized in advance to the jury. When the twelve of them began their deliberations later that day, they would find themselves agreeing that they thought Dragovic was arrogant but trustworthy; that Cleyman had made a precipitous rush to judgment based on far too little; and that they downright hated Woodford, whose stubborn refusal to comment on defense photos showing blood on Leann's thigh—blood that was hard to explain if she'd been shot in a kneeling position, as he contended—nearly single-handedly destroyed the credibility of much of the police witnesses in their eyes. He had no way of knowing, but when Legghio criticized those three, he was preaching to the converted.)

"Sgt. Cleyman was absolutely sure, he knew the minute [Fletcher] walked down the stairs of the police department, he was guilty as sin. Well, Sergeant, how did you know that? 'Well, one, he was a defense attorney. And two, he took his wife to the shooting range. I've been married 13 years, I haven't taken my wife there. And he didn't have any blood on him. I knew right then. I knew right then. Stone-cold killer.' Really? How interesting."

Of Dragovic? "I like Dr. Dragovic and he presents himself well as a good expert witness. But I suggest to you that there is a fair amount of professional, systemic, institutional arrogance attendant and attached with his testimony."

Legghio criticized Dragovic for being so quick to determine from the stippling pattern that Leann had been shot from 12 to 18 inches away, while admitting under cross-examination that different forms of gunpowder have different stippling patterns and that he didn't know what kind of powder was in Fletcher's gun, or even what caliber it was.

He criticized Dragovic for saying a lack of blood mist on Leann's right hand was critical, while not knowing her hands had been swabbed for gunpowder residue the night before.

Most telling, Legghio presented a blow-up to the jury of some of Dragovic's testimony from June 12. "This is what I call institutional or the systemic arrogance," said Legghio. On the 12th, he had asked Dragovic if Leann's hands were bagged when the body got to the Medical Examiner's Office. Dragovic had said, as the enlarged words pointed out to the jury, that they had been.

"The bagging of hands in this particular case where we're talking about blood mist is important," said Legghio, "because you can use your common sense about rubbing on the cloth and rubbing on the body bags. Why didn't he just simply say, 'You know what, I do a lot of autopsies. I think they were, I'm pretty sure they were, and as a matter of procedure we usually do it?

"I mean, he doesn't just say it once. Were her hands bagged? They were? 'Yes.' They were? 'Yes.' Can you show a photograph? 'I don't take photographs of bagged hands.' So the bags were removed prior to photographing? 'The bags were removed prior to photographing.' Amazing. Once, twice, three times he tells you, 'I certainly know it. They were bagged.'

"I think this is problematic. Why so committed? So committed to provide you testimony, sworn testimony under oath, that he knows. And not just once, not like, 'You know, oh gee, I misunderstood your questions now that I look at it.' No. Three times. He knows. He's certain of it. That's someone who is unwilling to say, 'You know, I think there could be some margin of error.' No, none of that at all. It is Drag's way."

*

The jury didn't like Woodford and neither did Legghio. He had infuriated the defense attorney when he refused to comment on photos of large blood stains on Leann's thigh during cross-examination, and now it was payback time. He attacked Woodford's claim to be an expert in bloodstain patterns, having taken two courses in 12 years but never having been published, nor belonging to any related organizations.

And then, sarcasm dripping from his voice, he paraphrased some of his earlier back-and-forth with Woodford involving a display Woodford had made to show the jury different forms of bloodspatter:

"'Well, Mr. Woodford, you're the expert. Will you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what size are these castoff [blood] patterns? Do you know? 'No, I don't. It's in the book.' All right. Well, go take a look. 'Castoff patterns, according to the book, are three millimeters to six millimeters.' 'Really? And this is your exhibit?' 'Yes, I created this.'

"And what did Professor MacDonell say? In front of you, using a measuring device, he measured this [exhibit] and said there are numerous, numerous castoff stains of a millimeter or less. Now why is this important, besides the fact that it may be a bit embarrassing for Mr. Woodford? Besides the fact that he doesn't really know blood stains that well [that he should] come in here, in my opinion, and testify as an expert in a first-degree premeditated homicide case."

Legghio attacked not just Woodford but the logic behind thinking the blood in the sink was critical. "'That's proof, there it is,' say the People. Really? So then why does he say on the phone [the 911 call]—if he's going to wash his hands and come back to this staged crime scene—why does he say, 'I've got blood on me'? It defeats the entire purpose."

Legghio disputed Townsend's contention that it was evidence of guilt that Fletcher had not hugged Leann and got more blood on himself. "Oh, my God, why would you grab somebody like that? Would you not think, 'I might be hurting them more'? 'I don't even know what I'm doing'? You would pick somebody up? You would dare move that body?"

Legghio attacked police procedures at the scene—nobody bagged Leann's hands, a crucial oversight, leaving subsequent tests for gunpowder residue in doubt. Crime-scene photos show her hands covered in blood; the one photo of her hand during the autopsy the next day shows nearly all the blood is gone.

Legghio also questioned Townsend's assertions that Fletcher had sex with Leann before killing her. It made for a nasty mental picture—of a homicidal villain able to get an erection and ejaculate even though he knows he is about to murder the woman he's having sex with, and murder in the most gruesome, bloody fashion. But in fact, pushing the claim did nothing for the case, except to help demonize Fletcher.

In fact, the evidence was nowhere near conclusive and even hurt the case, by making the time-line so much more jammed up. There was very little time as it was between leaving the gun range and calling 911. Trying to prove sex occurred, too, seemed superfluous to observers. Why the emphasis on it? Because it painted such a horrible image that it was worth it?

Legghio brought up during cross-examination and again in closing that

sperm is considered fresh within 72 hours of ejaculation, so the sperm in Leann's vagina could have been deposited before the weekend even began. And the test of Fletcher's underpants wasn't done for many months, until just before the start of the trial, and then revealed seminal stains, which may have been proof of nothing more than bad laundry habits.

"So, there is no proof that these people had sex immediately before this," said Legghio. "There's no proof of that whatsoever, but that is what I think you are encouraged to believe."

Legghio criticized Woodford for his insistence that there were many blood- mist stains on Fletcher's shirt, yet even pooled together were too little for a DNA match, even though other blood-mist stains in the room were big enough to be seen with the naked eye.

Finally, Legghio got to what had been bugging him since the early days of the trial—and had been bugging the jury, too—Woodford's refusal to comment on Defendant's Exhibit W, which showed blood running off Leann's thigh. "'How did it get there?'" said Legghio to the jury, re-creating an event still vivid in their minds. "'I don't know. I'm not going to give you any opinions. I gave my opinion. I'm not going to look at pictures and give you opinions.' 'Wait a minute, you're an expert, this is what you're supposed to do. Did you look at this? Tell the jury what you make of that?' 'I'm not doing it. I won't do it.'

"If I was aggressive with him or seemingly disrespectful, I'll tell you where it came from. It came from frustration when you come in front of a jury, you testify about bloodstain analysis, you testify you're an expert. You're providing testimony on this man who's facing a first-degree premeditated murder and you say, 'I'm not going to answer your question'? 'You're not going to answer my question? He's facing murder. And you're not going to answer how that blood got there, Mr. Woodford?' 'Don't ask. I gave you my theory.'"

(Legghio's disregard for Woodford wasn't just for the jury's benefit. He would say later: "Woodford looked like a buffoon.")

Legghio finished rebutting Woodford's forensics by saying he had failed to explain blood mist on the bedroom mirror; that the physics were irrefutable that Leann could not have been shot on the floor and then propelled up and over to

the bed; and said that Woodford's own diagram of the gun included bloodspatter on the right side of the gun, which would have been impossible had Fletcher pulled the trigger.

Legghio thought the last point, alone, would be telling in the jurors' minds. He hadn't spent much time during the trial on the diagram. "I laid the snare," he would say after the trial, explaining why he saved closing arguments to stress the point. "It was a Perry Mason moment, and you never get that. A defense attorney never gets that. It's uncontroverted. It's Woodford's own diagram. If there's bloodspatter there, how does he grab the gun and pull the trigger? He can't. It's impossible. But it is consistent with Leann picking the gun up."

(After closing arguments, Townsend would respond to reporters: "I don't know how he held the gun. But I know who held the gun.")

Legghio wrapped things up by returning to the time-line. The Fletchers arrived at the gun range at noon. They fired at least 40 rounds, based on the target later found on the couch in the front room, and left about 12:25. They drove home, which, according to test drives done by Legghio's private attorney, took between 14 and 18 minutes. "If you sit down and add these times up, you'll see that my client had about seven minutes to get out of the truck, leave the targets across the couch, go into the bedroom, have sex, ejaculate, shoot her, go in the bathroom, wash up and call 911."

Legghio reminded the jury that his client had a presumption of innocence, no matter how unsavory his personal life or how much they might dislike him. He told them that in the English system there is a verdict called "not proved" and they might want to think how that seemed to apply here, that this was a situation where the People's case was "not proved." He thanked them for their time, asked them to return a verdict of not guilty and sat down. It was 11:45 a.m. Time for a recess.

*

Townsend began his rebuttal at noon. He told the jury that Cooper would explain to them that closing arguments are not evidence and that Legghio's closing went well beyond the evidence and shouldn't be considered as such.

"I noticed in his closing argument that he pretty much attacked everybody. I guess this has got to be the world's largest conspiracy in the history of Oakland County. And by God, we've got Judge Chrzanowski, we've got Officer Lehman, also the ET or EMT, the medical technician that arrived is in on this conspiracy, we've got Sgt. Cleyman, we've got, I guess, the entire victim's family involved with this, we now also have Dr. Dragovic involved with this conspiracy as well as Mr. Woodford."

For the first time in the trial, Townsend seemed personally perturbed at his opposition. He then addressed the 911 tape.

"I want you to listen to that tape several times, too, because I think if you listen to it, you're going to be able to see through it. And as I stated in my initial summation, one's actions speak far louder than one's words. If that weren't the case, then all a person would have to do is if they murder somebody, 'Gee, let me just call in, I'll act upset, I'll act excited, I'll act frantic,' and they're all done."

And then he tried to repair the damage to the state's claimed motive. "Mr. Legghio says, well, everybody would have known that Leann was pregnant. Again, that's wrong because if the police bought the story, if the police believed it to be an accident, nobody would find out about it … The only reason it came out is because there were charges and it went to trial."

Townsend took another shot at Legghio. "He talks about blood in the sink. I tell you what: Mr. Legghio has got an explanation for everything in this case. But you know what? He has to. And I don't blame Mr. Legghio. If I was Mr. Legghio, I suppose I'd do the very same thing, because all this evidence has a tendency to hurt his client. In fact, each of this evidence, by itself, is sufficient to convict the defendant as to the crime that was committed.

"Well, let's talk about that blood because that's one of the last things he talked about, with regard to the blood in the sink. He goes, 'Oh, that blood in the sink. Well, that could have been, we don't know if it's human blood, we don't know if it's animal blood, it was never submitted for DNA.' You heard Mr. Woodford testify when they do that test, it's the first time in nineteen years that he found blood in a sink, and that in order for him to find the blood … I suggest

to you that it's not animal blood. I don't believe that they were cutting up food or cutting up steaks that morning while they were there at the house.

"I suggest to you the reasonable inference was that it's human blood. I think you can fairly infer that from the evidence. Was it submitted for DNA? No. There just wasn't sufficient enough evidence or blood to submit it for DNA."

Townsend briefly defended each of his witnesses in turn, and their conclusions and then returned to the weakest part of his case: motive.

"Motive does not have to be proven. But I tell you what, ladies and gentlemen: I think everybody wants to come up with an idea why somebody would do something. I've been doing this for quite a while and I can tell you now, I can't get into the mind of a murderer as to why certain people do certain things. We do know that he had an extensive love relationship with Judge Susan Chrzanowski. We do know that he had lied to both Leann and to Judge Chrzanowski.… We do know that Judge Chrzanowski had indicated to him basically if she knew that there was any type of intimate relationship or any type of sexual activity or closeness, that would end the relationship.

"What went through his mind on that day? I don't know. I certainly know that there were reasons for it and reasons that I can't possibly explain to you."

Townsend then reinforced a point that would be at the heart of the long jury deliberations that lay ahead: "As far as the gun itself, the gun should have been to the right. [If] she was sitting on the bed, it should have been to the right, rather than to the left, where it was found.…

"Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard the entire case. You've heard all the evidence.… This is not a grand conspiracy in Oakland County. There's not a conspiracy between Judge Chrzanowski, Officer Lehman, Dr. Dragovic, Mr. Woodford and all the witnesses that came before you. It just doesn't happen that way.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Leann Fletcher did not shoot herself. And I guess that's why I say, use common sense. And I agree with Mr. Legghio: Please do use common sense in analysis of all the evidence in this case … I'm going to ask you again, when you go into deliberations, to return a verdict consistent with the evidence and consistent with justice.

"Don't give the defendant what he wants. Give him what he worked for. Give him what he earned. Give him what he deserved. Return a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. He's earned it."

*

Judge Cooper instructed the jury that they could only base their decision on the evidence presented and her instructions about the law. She defined for them reasonable doubt—"doubt that is a fair, honest doubt growing out of the evidence or the lack of evidence. Now it's not merely an imaginary or possible doubt, but it is a doubt based on reason and common sense. A reasonable doubt is just that: a doubt that is reasonable after a careful and considered examination of the facts and circumstances in this case."

She told them they must not consider the fact that Fletcher didn't testify as evidence of guilt, that they were free to believe or disbelieve any witness as they felt fit, that they were free to assess a witness's bias or prejudice, and that an expert opinion was just that: opinion, and not fact.

She told them that first-degree murder required four elements—that the defendant caused the death, that the defendant intended to kill, that the act was premeditated, even if just for seconds ahead of time, and that it was deliberate, a result of considering pros and cons.

Cooper also told the jury that under Michigan law—[unlike in some other states]—that even though Fletcher was charged with first-degree murder, they were free to judge him guilty of the lesser charge of second-degree murder, which didn't involve premeditation.

She then pulled two numbers out of the 14 that were placed in a box before the trial, blindly pulled out numbers five and twelve, and those two members of the jury were excused from further duty.

At 12:49 p.m., the jury walked out of the courtroom and into the jury room.

Within seconds, they would begin debating Fletcher's fate.