Horan's Rebuttal Argument

Wednesday, December 17, 2003; 12:00 AM

The following is the transcript of the Dec. 16 rebuttal argument by Fairfax Commonweath's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. in the capital murder trial of Lee Boyd Malvo. This is from a preliminary transcript of court proceedings compiled by court reporters Alvis & Cheesebrew, Inc.

THE COURT: Mr. Horan, would you like to make rebuttal argument?

MR. HORAN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We will go ahead.

MR. HORAN: Members of the jury, it has been a long day, and I will be brief.

Counsel talks about the shot from across the highway into the Home Depot. You heard the expert rifleman testify here who said he could train anyone in the courtroom to do it in a short period of time. It is not a hard shot. We have -- you will have the rifle in the jury room with you to take a look at it. Hold that up and just on the back of the bolt area of it, there is a button there. You push that button and a scope lifts up for you. In the middle of a circle, on that is a dot. It is as Lee Boyd Malvo said, "You put the dot on the target and fire it." It is not a complicated weapon, and as the expert testified, 152 yards is not a difficult shot.

I waited in vain for the defense to tell you how this defendant's DNA got all over that weapon. In the quadrillions. There is no explanation for that. How come Muhammad's cheek did not get on the receiver of that weapon? The simple explanation is the shooter was this defendant.

The trunk of that vehicle, you saw it. It was tailor-made for him, 5-foot-5-inches tall. It fit him like a glove. It would not fit a guy 6' 1", 180 pounds. That is what Muhammad was.

There was no evidence, none, that was presented to you that indicates any force, intimidation, any bad conduct on the part of Detective June Boyle or Agent Garrett of the FBI, none. You listen to the tapes. You see if it sounds like to you like anybody is pressuring him to say anything. He is kind of running the show. Listen to him talk to Sam Walker of the Prince William County Police Department. He plays like he is running the show. He tells Sam Walker, "If I feel like answering, I will. If I don't feel like answering, I won't." It is on the tape. It was the same way with Boyle and Garrett. You can bet your last dollar if there was any legal requirement for a lawyer to be there or a guardian to be there, you would have heard about it. There was no such legal requirement.

Two witnesses for the defense testified that this defendant did not know right from wrong when he killed Linda Franklin, Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Schetky. They are the only two who testified to sanity. Cornell did not testify to sanity. Those two did. Dr. Blumberg first examined this defendant in November of the year 2002, Nov. 2002, and for seven months, he did not ask him about the offenses, seven months. Why was that, members of the jury?

Why would a psychiatrist hired to examine a defendant, being paid $40,000 for it, why didn't he talk to him about the offenses prior to June of 2003? Because Malvo was not saying what they wanted to hear. That is what happened. Malvo was not saying what they wanted to hear. They had to brainwash him and get him thinking down a different path. So Blumberg sat there all of these months, Nov. 2002 until Oct. 15, 2003, when all of a sudden Dr. Blumberg, lo and behold, says: Insanity. He did not know it was wrong to shoot a woman in the head. Can you believe that testimony? Does common sense tell you to believe that testimony? Of course not.

Members of the jury, if you have any doubt, read the letters that the new Malvo wrote after August of the year 2003. Read them. You will have them in the jury room with you. Commonwealth's 233: "All I need is a gat. Hey, 10 years from now if we meet again, can you get hold of them gats when you get out? Because then we can -- we can make some quick paper and leave to your mother's homeland with about one mil apiece."

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2003 The Washington Post Company