David J. Paul (blue shirt, left) talks to his grandmother in the courtroom gallery following the verdict in his case while Judicial Services Officer Al Fenumiai (right) handcuffs him and public defender Eric Hedland (center) watches. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News

A Juneau jury has acquitted David J. Paul of second degree murder with extreme indifference to the value of human life, but convicted Paul of manslaughter.

“OK. So, for Count Two, not guilty. For Count Three, guilty,” said the jury foreman who delivered the verdict several minutes after noon on Monday. The verdict came only a few hours after the jury sent out the latest note asking about the elements and factors of the two charges against Paul.

Count One, murder in the second degree with intent or knowledge of causing serious injury or death, was essentially thrown out earlier in the trial. Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg granted public defender Eric Hedland’s motion of judgment of acquittal on that charge.

The 24-year-old Paul has been on trial for causing the death, possibly by shaking, of four-month old Rian Orr, the daughter of his then-girlfriend Jaki Orr. The baby died in August 2010, with brain injuries.

The jury began deliberating late Thursday afternoon. The trial entered the fifth week on Monday.

Assistant District Attorney Angie Kemp issued a short statement on Monday afternoon thanking the jury for taking almost five weeks out of their lives to serve their community and perform a difficult task.

As for the verdict in this case, it is the collective hope of the Juneau District Attorney’s Office and the Juneau Police Department that by presenting Rian’s case we did right by Rian, vindicated her memory, and served justice.”

Public defender Eric Hedland signaled that he intends to file another motion calling for a new trial or judgment of acquittal on the manslaughter charge.

At least the way I understand the rule, the way I interpret the rule, is that Mr. Paul could, within five days from today’s date, submit a motion to have either the court set aside the verdict and order a new trial or renew the motion for judgment of acquittal.”

Paul’s defense stipulated to aggravators of the crime occurring to a most vulnerable person who is unable to resist because of extreme youth and the victim being a member of the same social unit within a single residence.

Barbara Bruce, Paul’s grandmother from Rainier, Washington, said the verdict wasn’t quite as bad as she feared. But she still would’ve preferred that he was found innocent of all the charges.

I know he called me as soon as he got to Harborview (Medical Center in Seattle). He had to pay his own way to Harborview because they refuse to let him medevac out with them. They immediately told him that it was all his fault, a 100 percent his fault. Jaki (Orr, Rian’s mother) was just way too little to have done such as thing. And I told him “David, that’s not true. It’s not true. She could have hurt the baby.” I asked him “What happened?” He goes “I don’t know what happened, Grandma. I don’t know what happened to her.” He’s never lied to me before. I don’t think he was lying to me then either.”

Bruce said her grandson loved that baby and cared for Rian as if it was his own child.

Sentencing has been scheduled for all day on September 5th. Paul could receive between seven and eleven years in prison.

Judge Pallenberg profusely thanked the six-man, six-woman jury for their weeks of dedication and service to the case. (There was also an additional man and a woman who served as jurors for the majority of the case, but they were randomly selected as alternates on Thursday and excused from deliberations.)

It’s way above and beyond the call of duty as jurors. Most people get called for jury duty for a day or two. And this is week five. I’m enormously aware of the imposition that is on your lives.”

And he also let them know about a relatively new state law.

There’s money budgeted and set aside. If anybody feels like, either just because of the strain of being here that has caused dislocation and trauma on your life or the subject matter, there is money available for a number of sessions with a trained and certified counselor that can work with you on those things. I’m not telling you that I think you need it or that you don’t need it. But the law is there and the money is available.”

In addition to the trial lasting into the fifth week, several jurors were visibly upset or turned away from autopsy photos that were shown as evidence.

(Story updated June 18, 5:07 a.m. to include comment from District Attorney’s office.)

Original story, June 17, 2013 at 12:37 pm

A Juneau jury has found David J. Paul NOT guilty on a single count of second degree murder with extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Paul has been found GUILTY of manslaughter.

The Superior Court jury delivered the verdict just a few minutes ago.

The 24-year-old Paul has been on trial for causing the death, possibly by shaking, of four-month old Rian Orr, the daughter of his then-girlfriend Jaki Orr. The baby died in August 2010, with brain injuries.  The trial lasted more than three weeks. The jury began deliberating late Thursday afternoon.

Paul’s defense stipulated to aggravators of the crime occurring to a most vulnerable person of a very young age and as member of the same social unit.

Sentencing has been scheduled for all day on September 5th. But public defender Eric Hedland signaled that he intends to file another motion for judgment of acquittal on the manslaughter charge.

Defendant David Paul (right foreground) chats with defense paralegal Thea Howard as Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg, public defender Eric Hedland, and assistant District Attorney Angie Kemp hold a bench conference earlier in the trial. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News

The U.S. Supreme Court (Photo by S.E.B/Flickr Creative Commons)

With only two possible days for decisions from the Supreme Court left in this session, rulings in two cases have both sides of the same sex marriage issue on the edge of their seats.

Two cases currently before the Supreme Court could have an impact on same sex marriage laws and whether the federal government will recognize same sex marriage. The Supreme Court did not rule on either case this morning. The next possible days for the ruling are Thursday and next Monday.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in both cases back in March.

The first case, Hollingsworth versus Perry, has a complex legal history, but basically the court will rule on whether it was unconstitutional for California to have banned same sex marriage after having allowed it.

The second case, United States versus Windsor, is about whether the Defense of Marriage Act violates the right of equal protection under the law. DOMA defines marriage as between one man and one woman for the purpose of Federal marriage benefits. DOMA’s definition of what constitutes a marriage prevents married same sex couples from receiving any federal marriage benefits.

“There are over 1,000 federal laws and programs that confer some right or benefit or privilege to married couples who are of opposite sex,” says Jason Brandeis, a professor at the Justice Center at UAA. Brandeis teaches and researches constitutional law and civil liberties.

He thinks that it’s unlikely we’ll see a sweeping judgment from the court that decides the issue once and for all.

“The court is supposed to take the path of least resistance, issue a decision that is on the narrowest grounds possible. Generally, the court does not issue broad sweeping decisions that will make major changes. They will issue a ruling that is on the facts in front of them. And often times that decision will have a larger impact. For example, Brown versus Board of Education. Brown versus Board of Education dealt with segregation in public schools. It did not deal with all forms of segregation and racial discrimination. But the impact of the case was to establish the constitution does not look favorably upon certain types of racial discrimination and that paved the way for lots of other changes.”

What does this mean for Alaska?

Alaska banned same sex marriage through a constitutional amendment in 1998.

Unless the court issues a ruling that says all bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional, the ruling won’t have an immediate impact on Alaska’s constitutional ban.

However, Brandeis says it’s likely the decision the court issues will have language that can be used in future court cases dealing with same sex marriage.

We’ll continue to follow this story as we wait for the ruling.

Shelf of books in the Dimond Courthouse law library. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News

Judge, jury, and lawyers in the David Paul homicide trial were all puzzled on Friday by a factor in one of the charges that the Alaska Supreme Court says must be considered in determining a defendant’s conduct, but justices apparently have not yet defined the term for lower courts.

In deciding the charge of murder in the second degree against David Paul and whether his conduct was extremely indifferent to the value of human life, jurors were instructed to determine social utility of that conduct. That’s in addition to other factors like magnitude of risk, Paul’s apparent knowledge of the risk, and what precautions that he took to minimize that risk.

But what does social utility mean?

The jury in the Paul case sent out a note essentially asking that question late Friday afternoon. The question was considered at length by Judge Philip Pallenberg and attorneys in the case after the jury had already gone home for the weekend.

David Paul is on trial for the death of four-month old Rian Orr. The first full day of deliberations was Friday in Day 19 of the trial.

Judge Pallenberg said he was unable to find a definition or a comparable Alaska case in which that particular factor is important. However, he did find a law review article citing the example of someone who attempted to shoot a lion that was attacking another person, but he accidentally shot the victim instead. It could be argued that the shooter’s conduct had a potential benefit to another individual. Another possible example of social utility may include a critically ill family member who was taken to hospital by a drunk driver.

Public defender Eric Hedland believed it was an affirmative defense and that such a factor had a limited application where someone was accused of being reckless. He said it impossible to argue about social utility when the theory is that David Paul did not do anything.

Judge Pallenberg offered a hypothetical example without making a comment on the evidence. Perhaps, if Paul was going to feed the baby and dropped the baby by accident, then the jury could find that was an act that had social utility even though they thought it was reckless. He offered to craft a definition that would give the jury room to find some social utility if they found a sequence of events that involved caretaking for a baby.

Hedland said that it just makes murder two with extreme recklessness easier to prove than the simple recklessness of manslaughter.

Meanwhile, still under consideration is the earlier motion for judgment of acquittal on the second degree murder charge. Judge Pallenberg has taken that motion under advisement.

Assistant District Attorney Angie Kemp noted that if a jury comes back with a guilty verdict on the charge of murder in the second degree, but then comes back with no verdict on the lesser included charge of manslaughter and a judgment of acquittal is granted, then the state has no remedy on manslaughter.

Judge Pallenberg will meet with Hedland, Kemp, and assistant District Attorney Nick Polasky on a draft definition of social utility before giving it to the jury early on Monday morning.

Monday 11:30 a.m. update:

Another question came from the jury on Monday morning in the David Paul homicide trial. They were curious about the factors of extreme indifference as related to the charge of murder in the second degree murder.

After consulting with both the prosecution and defense in the case, Judge Philip Pallenberg sent back a long answer that essentially ended with an instruction that they should consider the defendant’s ‘culpable mental state (that was) present at the time that the defendant allegedly engaged in the conduct causing’ the injuries to the baby Rian Orr. That instruction seems to preclude consideration of any evidence in which Paul took the seizing baby and mother Jaki Orr to Juneau Urgent Care and then Bartlett Regional Hospital.

The jury also sent out a question late Friday on the first full day of deliberations about the term ‘social utility’. A crafted definition was sent back to the jury this morning.

The jury appears to be carefully considering all the factors and elements in the charge of murder in the second degree. Paul is also charged with manslaughter in connection with death of Rian Orr in August 2010.

Steven McKinley, a seasonal worker staying in Anchorage, is charged with driving under the influence and 46 counts of reckless endangerment.

Troopers say passengers called shortly before 9 a.m. Friday to say that the intoxicated driver wouldn’t pull over. About 20 minutes later, passengers called again and said the driver had pulled over and was walking north at milepost 12 of the Seward Highway.

McKinley is a new hire at Anchorage-based Alaska Cruise Transfer and Tours.

Spokeswoman Anna Lewis says McKinley passed a drug and alcohol test when he was hired. She says he was fine when he arrived for work Friday.

David J. Paul leaves the courtroom following an earlier session of his trial in Juneau Superior Court. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News

The jury of six men and six women sent out a note after about a half-hour of deliberations asking if they reach a verdict on one charge, then do they need to reach a verdict on the other?

After conferring with attorneys, Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg sent back a response asking the jury to please consult a particular set of jury instructions and decide each count separately.

The 24-year old Paul faces one count of murder in the second degree with extreme indifference to the value of human life, and one count of manslaughter. Prosecutors believe that Paul caused the death, possibly by shaking, of Rian Orr, the four-month old daughter of his then-girlfriend Jaki Orr.

The last witness called to the stand on Thursday was Katrina Houston. Paul and the Orrs stayed with Houston after Rian was born, and David Paul and Jaki Orr cared for Houston’s two children while she was at work.

“He fed the baby. He changed the baby. He did everything. He was kind of at her beck and call,” said Houston after she was asked about how Paul took care of Rian.

“Did David get frustrated with those obligations?” asked public defender Eric Hedland.

“No, not that I ever saw. Never raised his voice at all,” answered Houston.

Houston testified that Jaki Orr seemed to suffer from post-partum depression. Paul hand-fed her while she laid on the coach.

Before the defense rested, David Paul was asked the usual set of questions asked of every defendant during a criminal trial.

“Now, your lawyer has indicated that it’s your intention to rest the defense case without taking the stand and testifying. Is that your decision?” asked Judge Pallenberg.

“Yes, it’s my decision,” answered Paul.

“Anybody threatening you with anything, or putting pressure on you to get you not to testify?”

“No, sir.”

“You feel like it’s your free and voluntary choice?”

“Yes, it is.”

Closing arguments

Most of the day on Thursday was taken up by closing arguments with the prosecution taking up a total of an hour-and-45 minutes, and the defense spending a little over an hour to make their case. Prosecution gets the first opportunity to talk to the jury, followed by the defense, and then comes the prosecution’s rebuttal.

Much of the case against David Paul is circumstantial. Rian Orr’s brain injury became apparent on August 9, 2010. In addition to chest bruising, it was later discovered that the baby also suffered from a thigh bone fracture and three rib fractures, but there was little agreement presented at trial on what or who caused those injuries.

Paul and Orr apparently were the only two adults who cared for Rian, and Paul was identified as a potential suspect before the baby was even medivacked to Seattle. Two significant pieces of evidence include police interrogations with Paul that were conducted eleven months apart. In both, Paul seems to confess that he accidentally dropped the baby while entering the bathroom for a morning feeding. That was followed by a quick, almost reflexive shake to get the baby to stop crying.

“I am in sort of an awkward position,” said assistant District Attorney Angie Kemp. “No, we absolutely do not believe everything that the defendant has said, and the ever-evolving nature of his statements are reasonable in light of that.”

During his closing arguments, Hedland turned and walked over to the defense table to address his client as he explained those recorded statements.

And I would be the first to say that I wish you hadn’t made them. Because we wouldn’t be here if you hadn’t, right? (Addressing jury again) You can take all this noise, everything we did for four weeks… If Mr. Paul doesn’t make those statements, then we’re not here. We are not here. And, the State says ‘We don’t even believe the statements. The statements are only relevant for the pieces that we like, and to prove some other thing that we don’t know about.’”

Hedland displayed an M.C. Escher sketch of perpetually flowing water to demonstrate the prosecution’s apparent efforts to make facts fit the cliché of Shaken Baby Syndrome, or Paul as a frustrated parent who was at wits end. He said that no one testified about what Paul said had happened to cause Rian’s injuries. An example would include a possible contusion or skull fracture if the baby had actually fallen on her head as Paul had described. Hedland also said that Jaki Orr was never investigated for her own statements or for possibly causing Rian’s injuries.

The police didn’t look at any of this. They didn’t care about any of that. That is confirmation bias. That lends itself to what we were talking about during jury selection with the availability heuristic. ‘I have any idea in my mind of what I want to be true. I’m going to pull in all of the things that fit that and disregard the things that don’t.’ So, when David says some innocuous thing, how is that viewed? It’s viewed in light that we want him to be the person who did this, or we’ve decided that he’s the person who did this.”

During her rebuttal, Kemp dismissed the various defense experts who were called to the stand by the defense.

So, are we just guessing? Or, is this kid really, truly the most unlucky kid? Did Rian get struck by lightning twenty times?”

The experts testified about the chronic or old fractures, signs of a recurring or chronic subdural hematoma, and brain damage without an expected neck, spine, or skull injury,

Did she have all of these things going on with her? Is that a reasonable conclusion? The part of what is reasonable to draw from all of this is that the notion of red herrings and throwing up as many things as you can possibly think of. But that’s not good science either.”

Kemp was also outwardly disturbed earlier by the psychologist called in to describe the possibility of false confessions which, in her view, seemed to invalidate or preclude the jury’s role in evaluating the credibility of witness testimony.

Start of deliberations

One man and one woman on the jury panel were randomly selected as alternates and excused from the trial. Judge Pallenberg thanked them for their four weeks of service, and recommended that they seek court-funded counseling if they desire it. The trial contained particularly gruesome autopsy photographs that were disturbing to most jurors. The remaining six men and six women retired to the jury room to begin deliberations at about 3:30 p.m. on Thursday.

Before the jury began considering the case, Hedland moved again for a motion of acquittal on the remaining charges. Paul faces one count of manslaughter and one count of murder in the second degree with extreme indifference to the value of human life. But Judge Pallenberg denied the most recent acquittal motion on the manslaughter charge and, again, deferred a decision on the remaining murder charge.

A charge of murder in the second degree with intent or knowledge that it would cause serious injury or death was thrown out earlier in the trial.

As for the remaining second degree murder charge, jurors must determine whether Paul knew or was aware that his conduct would cause the death of Rian Orr. Some of the factors include social utility of the conduct, Paul’s knowledge of the risk, the magnitude of potential harm, and any efforts to minimize the risk.

On the manslaughter charge, jurors must determine whether Paul was reckless or whether he was aware and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk in his conduct that would result in the death of Rian Orr.

Jurors were also instructed that if they determine that Paul caused Rian Orr’s earlier injuries, then they can consider those injuries while determining Paul’s state of mind or whether his actions led to her death.

(Broadcast version of the story corrected to accurately reflect the number of the jurors now on the panel.)

Other stories as part of trial coverage:

Update: Jury now considering infant homicide case

Jurors hear how an innocent person can falsely confess

Suppressed David Paul interview played for jurors

Jury could soon consider murder, manslaughter charges against David Paul

Biomechanical specialist says Rian Orr was not injured by shaking

After about a half-hour of deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking that ‘If they reach a verdict on one charge, then do they need to reach a verdict on the other?’ After conferring with attorneys, Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg sent back a response asking them to please consult a particular set of jury instructions and decide each count separately.

Update June 13, 2013 3:53 p.m.

Assistant District Attorney Angie Kemp presented her rebuttal of Hedland’s arguments.

One man and one woman were excused as alternates and were thanked for their four weeks of service. Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg also recommended that they seek court-funded counseling if they desire it. This trial contained particularly gruesome autopsy photographs that were disturbing to most jurors.

The remaining members of the jury panel retired to the deliberation room at about 3:30 p.m. on Thursday. They will select a foreman and may consider the evidence for an hour-and-a-half. If they don’t reach a verdict by 5 o’clock, then they will return Friday morning to start a possible full day of deliberations.

Update June 13, 2013 1:35 p.m.

Public defender Eric Hedland has started his closing arguments. He is pointing out what he believes are logical gaps and holes in the prosecution’s theory.

Original story June 13, 2013 12:35 p.m.

Closing arguments are underway in the David J. Paul homicide trial, now in it’s fourth week.

Assistant District Attorney Angie Kemp is addressing the jury, recapping some of the testimony and reviewing the chain of events as an injured four-month old Rian Orr is examined and treated by physicians. She passed away in August 2010. Paul is accused of causing the injuries that included brain swelling and bleeding, and older rib and thigh fractures.

Public defender Eric Hedland will have a chance later to make his case before Kemp has one last, final shot to rebut his comments.

The courtroom gallery is almost completely filled with police officers and local attorneys listening as the nearly three-year old criminal case begins winding down.

Earlier on Thursday, Hedland moved again for a motion of acquittal on the remaining charges. Paul faces one count each of manslaughter and murder in the second degree with extreme indifference to the value of human life. A charge of murder in the second degree with intent or knowledge that it would cause serious injury or death was thrown out earlier in the trial. But, on Thursday, Judge Philip Pallenberg denied the most recent acquittal motion on the manslaughter charge and, again, declined to decide on the remaining murder charge.

The Anchorage Daily News reports the trial in Melvin Rush’s lawsuit began Wednesday.

Rush testified that he was driving to Fort Richardson early June 15, 2010, when he saw Officer Michael Wisel bearing down on him in a patrol car.

The police car T-boned the pickup, a truck Rush had purchased a month earlier.

Rush’s attorney claims Officer Wisel was watching his in-car computer and did not see the stoplight. Rush is seeking $500,000 in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages.

Assistant Municipal attorney Sam Severin says Rush is not entitled to punitive damages.

Dr. Deborah Davis, professor of psychology at the University of Nevada, talks to the jury in the David Paul homicide trial about police interrogation techniques. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News

The latest witness to take the stand in the David J. Paul homicide trial said that interrogation techniques used by police are highly suggestive and are designed to elicit an eventual response, regardless if the person being interrogated is guilty or innocent of a crime.

Dr. Deborah Davis, psychology professor at the University of Nevada in Reno, was called to the stand by Paul’s defense on Wednesday, one day after jurors heard a previously suppressed interview in which Paul said that he accidentally dropped the baby Rian Orr. The four-month old died of complications resulting from brain injuries nearly three years ago.

Davis says the Innocence Project has counted false confession rates as high as 25-percent in cases which someone was wrongly convicted and later exonerated of a crime.

Research studies and lab studies have also documented how and when false confessions occur.

Davis said that an individual’s tolerance, stress and anxiety level, a desire to get away or protect someone else may prompt someone to make a false confession. A person may also be confused or have a bad memory and could be convinced that they committed a crime. The interrogation technique is designed to convince a suspect that confessing is a rational decision.

For a person to falsely confess requires that they believe it to be in their self-interest. That’s from the interrogation books. It’s akin to selling a person in the Yukon air conditioning in January. It’s not good for them. They don’t need it. It’s bad for them. But they have to believe it is good for them to get them to confess.”

She said that investigators already believe that someone is guilty before interrogating them. The idea is to draw out the crucial information during the interrogation that will lead to a conviction.

Davis said what’s called the Reid Technique is the predominate standard among police officers, garnering confession rates as high as 77-percent.

You’re trying to get people to say that they did this. If they’re guilty they’re more likely to say it if Reid is used on them and if they’re innocent they’re more likely to say it if Reid is used on them. It makes more difference in getting guilty people to confess than it does for innocent. But if you take a look at the difference at how likely an innocent person is to confess, (then) it can be way more than twice as likely to falsely confess.”

Some of the Reid Technique’s tactics include investigators acting like the suspect’s best friend to undermine resistance, being deceptive or lying about any evidence that investigators may have in a case, posing contrasting or alternative questions that may elicit the suspect’s explanation for the crime or offer less serious options to the person being interrogated, asking open-ended set-up questions about an outcome of a case, and making sympathetic offers to a suspect that may appear to minimize consequences.

Davis said the Reid Technique generally is not intended to create falcity or a false statement. It’s just a side effect of a subjective interrogation process.

It gives person you’re interviewing an idea of what you want to hear or what you think is true. Over and over, they say ‘I think this is what happened. The evidence says this is what happened and I want you to tell me that. Tell me the truth. If you don’t tell me this, that I think is the truth, then bad things are going to happen. If you do, then better things are going to happen.’ So, yes, it’s highly suggestive.”

Davis was not allowed to comment on the specific interrogation of Paul that was suppressed and prompted the eventual dismissal of the original indictment against him. She could only testify about general principals of interrogations and false confessions.

Davis said polygraph tests, whether real or performed as a ruse, are also commonly used as interrogation tools.

Also on Wednesday, public defender Eric Hedland returned to recordings of phone calls between Rian’s mother Jaki Orr and David Paul while he was jailed at Lemon Creek Correctional Center. The selected clips were intended to show his state of mind in allegedly admitting to investigators that he accidentally dropped Rian. Jaki Orr makes disparaging comments about Juneau police investigators, and how she expected to be arrested, but her hands were apparently too small to cause the baby’s rib fractures and chest bruising.

Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg told jurors that they could start deliberating in the case as soon as Thursday, or Day 18 of the trial. First, the defense may put on the stand any last witnesses, including Paul himself if he chooses to testify. Then, the prosecution and defense will present closing arguments before the case goes to the jury.

(Corrected: spelling of Reid)

Juneau Police Detective Russ Haight listens while the defense plays back his August 18, 2010 interrogation with David Paul. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News

Testimony on Tuesday in the David J. Paul homicide case focused on the Juneau Police investigators’ tactics used in a recorded interrogation that the defense had successfully pushed to get thrown out as evidence.

Paul is accused of causing injuries that prompted the death of four-month Rian Orr, the daughter of his then-girlfriend in 2010. He faces charges of second degree murder and manslaughter in connection with her death.

Trial jurors on Tuesday heard portions of an early police interview reviewed by the initial grand jury in the Paul case. That interview was later suppressed because it was determined that Paul was possibly coerced into making certain statements three days after Rian Orr died on August 15, 2010. The original indictment, based on that early interview, was thrown out by Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg (the current trial judge in the case) because Paul was separated from his then-girlfriend Jaki Orr and made statements before he was Mirandized, or properly read his rights. Investigators also continued with their questioning even after Paul said he should contact an attorney.

In a somewhat unique twist on usual trial procedure, Paul’s defense attorney had already successfully moved to introduce that previously suppressed interview, not for the truth of the matter, but to demonstrate that Paul’s prior statements were inconsistent under pressure by investigators.

The interrogation of David Paul occurred in Juneau exactly three days after Rian Orr died in Seattle. Much of the session occurred before Paul was read his rights. It also happened before he was subjected to what public defender Eric Hedland has called a ‘sham’ polygraph test conducted by Juneau Police to intimidate and pressure Paul into revealing information. In one portion of the interrogation, Paul describes accidentally dropping Rian Orr as he entered the bathroom for a morning feeding.

She fell and rolled. When she came out of my arms, she rolled. I think she got hit, she hit her head somewhere right here. I’m not exactly… I don’t quite remember. I know that I didn’t see her face when she hit. So, I know she had to have hit right around there somewhere.”

Video recording projected for jurors show Juneau Police Detective Russ Haight (upper left) interrogating David Paul (right) at the Juneau Police Department on August 18, 2010. Detective Kim Horn (center, back to camera) participates in the interrogation about how Rian Orr sustained her injuries. Photo by Matt Miller/KTOO News

Also on Tuesday, the police supervisor was questioned about that previously suppressed interrogation. Hedland questioned Detective Russ Haight about eliciting a reaction that would tie Paul to any of Rian Orr’s potential injuries.

“I told him several times that we didn’t think he was a monster,” said Haight. “We didn’t believe that he caused the injuries intentionally. So, yes, I guess you could say that we were minimizing his actions.”

“How do you know?” asked Hedland.

“I don’t know. Like I just said, I said we believed.”

“Why do you say to somebody ‘Hey, I don’t think you’re a monster’? Why do you say that?” asked Hedland.

“I think there might have been more severe injuries to this child if he was intentionally causing more injuries,” answered Haight. “You know, severely.”

Along with playback of the tapes, Haight’s testimony made up most of the trial day on Tuesday. Haight said eventually that Paul admitted what they thought was the truth.

“The truth that you looked for somewhere before you talked to Mr. Paul on August 18th?” asked Hedland. “Which truth?”

“The truth of what happened to the child,” answered Haight.

“When you talk to a witness and you want the truth, do you tell them what you want the truth to be?” asked Hedland.

“I think it’s an assumption when we talk to someone, we want the truth. Generally, a witness has no reason not to tell the truth. It depends on their position with the case, though,” answered Haight.

The defense hopes to rest their case and, perhaps, closing arguments will be held on Thursday before the case goes to the jury.

Superior Judge Philip Pallenberg made a bold prediction to jurors that they may begin deliberations as soon as Thursday in the David Paul homicide case.

One of the last major witnesses took the stand on Wednesday for the defense. But public defender Eric Hedland may have one more witness lined up before he rests his case. It’s also unclear whether Paul himself will testify on his own behalf. Then, the defense and prosecution will present closing arguments before the case goes to the jury.

Wednesday marked the seventeenth day of the trial in which Paul is accused of abusing and causing the death of a four-month old baby, Rian Orr.

Paul’s defense presented portions of recorded phone calls with the baby’s mother Jaki Orr while he was jailed at Lemon Creek Correctional Center. The selected clips are intended to show his state of mind in allegedly admitting to investigators that he accidentally dropped the baby.

A Nevada psychology professor also testified on Wednesday about how police interrogation techniques are designed to elicit an eventual response from someone, regardless if they are guilty or innocent.

(Editor’s note: Name of attorney has been corrected.)