Practice to Deceive

to Whidbey Island didn’t even know who he was. The case had lain fallow ever since Jim Huden went into hiding. Predictably, neither of their attorneys wanted Peggy Sue Thomas and Jim Huden to be tried jointly.
    Initially, Jim was supposed to go first, followed by Peggy Sue. He was expected to take the defendant’s seat in court on November 27, 2011.
    I made reservations at a motel in Langley and packed my bags. And then I unpacked them.
    Huden’s trial was switched with that of Joshua Lambert, the homeless high school dropout who was accused of killing both of his grandfathers on the same day.
    On January 6, 2012, Judge Vickie Churchill granted attorney Peter Simpson’s request to release him as Jim Huden’s defense attorney. Matthew Montoya was chosen to replace him. Montoya immediately asked for a trial delay because he needed time to go through stacks of sheriff’s follow-up reports and legal documents.
    Judge Churchill granted his request, and Jim Huden’s trial was now set for March 13, 2012.
    Peggy Sue would face a jury after that. Her trial would begin on May 1.
    But once again, the scheduling changed. None of this was a surprise; for a relatively small county with few prosecutors, three separate murder trials were going to demand a lot of juggling of dates and staff.
    I kept making hotel reservations and canceling them. I finally just kept my bag packed. At some point, there would be a trial, although no one could say absolutely which of the two defendants would go first.
    And then, once more, Jim’s and Peggy Sue’s trial dates were reversed. Prosecutor Greg Banks said it really didn’t make much difference which of them went first—that they would basically be trying the same case twice.
    In the end, it was Jim who went on trial in Superior Court Judge Vickie Churchill’s courtroom in Coupeville on Tuesday, July 10, 2012.
    Courtroom 2 in the law and justice center had three long benches and shorter benches on opposite sides of the aisle. There were no windows beyond two small panes of glass in the door, making the courtroom isolated from the world outside.
    Prosecuting attorney Greg Banks would speak for the state, with his assistant Michelle Graff and Detective Mark Plumberg beside him at the state’s table. Michelle could put her finger on whatever documents Banks might need, and Banks expected to call and recall Plumberg to the witness stand for the prosecution.
    Matthew Montoya and his paralegal, Glenda Ward, sat beside Jim Huden at the defense table. The bailiff was Ron Roberts, and the court reporter was Karen Shipley.
    Huden was clean shaven, his ponytail pulled back and cinched neatly. And compared to photos taken of him just after he was extradited from Mexico, he looked healthier and well rested. He wore a dark gray suit with a navy blue tie and shirt. The expression on his face was almost impossible to read.
    The jury pool began with seventy-five potential jurors, and they filled the benches and sixteen folding chairs brought in to accommodate them. These possible jurors had to be winnowed down to twelve people, with two alternates—in case any of the sitting jurors became ill or had to withdraw for other reasons.
    Judge Churchill addressed the jury panel, explaining the jury instructions, and they were given questionnaires to fill out. Nine prospective jurors were dismissed for cause; most of them had already made up their minds that Jim Huden was guilty.
    There were soon others who appeared to know more than a little about the well-publicized case. Three said they had been influenced by “media bias,” one was dismissed for an illness in his family, and one had gone to high school with the defendant.
    Clearly, the jury selection would be a long and tedious process. One by one, possibles were eliminated. Judge Churchill read over the questionnaires and saw that many had issues of anxiety and depression, spinal pain, and family responsibility.
    As was to be expected, several juror candidates stepped down because they knew Banks and Churchill, or other members of the legal cast.
    Hearing a list of witnesses expected to testify, the smaller panel didn’t seem to recognize them. Nor did anyone feel they had bias or prejudice that would flaw their fairness in rendering a verdict.
    Greg Banks asked when they felt murder might be justified. Several answered in self-defense or time of war. Vigilantism? All said never.
    “What about the killing of a rapist or serial child