|
By Patrick Tepoorten
Story filed at 3:15 p.m., Feb. 14
The fate of Craig Fleming and his level of responsibility in
the death of Martin Carlson is now in the hands of 12 residents of Chisago
County charged with the task of making sense of a senseless death. The jury was
excused at around 12:30 p.m., Thursday (Feb. 14) to begin
deliberations.
Before the jury was excused, attorneys for the state and
defense spoke eloquently on behalf of their case. Not surprisingly, both told
drastically different versions of events in the early morning hours of July 22,
2006; events that both preceeded and followed the death of Martin Carlson, 25,
of Center City.
Prosecutor Fred Fink was dramatic in his closing statements,
holding and demonstrating with a toy gun, pounding it on the podium, and
mimicking what he believed were Fleming's actions that morning. He referred to
the way Fleming held the gun, horizontally, as "showing off" and acting like
"televisions gangsters do." He referenced testimony by medical examiner Michael
B. McGee and said the evidence was "not consistent with anything other than a
cold-blooded execution."
He further argued that it wasn't a spur of the moment
shooting, or self-defense, but rather a calculated, premeditated act: Fleming
had the gun in his truck, it was loaded with a live round in the chamber, he
confirmed Carlson would be there, he laid in wait, he went into the house with a
loaded gun, pulled it, "racked" the slide to insure a live round was in the
chamber, went to Carlson, placed the barrel in a place where he could not miss,
and fired, said "Who's next?" and "strutted" on the porch afterword, saying "No
more Marty."
Fink spoke to Fleming's intent to kill Carlson, noting the
placement of the wound, the evidence of contact between the barrel and Carlson's
head, which Fink called a "can't miss kill shot," and Fleming's familiarity with
firearms, having taught gun safety classes in the area.
He also deconstructed the defense's claim that the shooting
was a result of Fleming's feeling threatened by Carlson, Jason Slattengren, and
Tory Mogensen. In order to have been self-defense, Fleming would have had to
feel threatened, but there was no evidence Carlson had a weapon. That Fleming
feeling threatened could be considered reasonable, Fink pointed out that Fleming
was six feet, two inches in height, while Carlson was only five feet, five
inches. Fink also noted that Fleming had two opportunities to retreat, both
through double doors leading to the back of the residence, and the front door,
which he neglected to take.
In closing, Fink said, "Martin Carlson did not deserve to be
executed, and indeed he was executed by that defendant sitting at that
table."
Defense attorney Gregory J. Rebeau called the state's amount
of evidence "over the top," noting the 125 pictures, what he called "theatrics,"
to show something that was already established; Martin Carlson was shot in the
head and died. "My client shot Martin Carslon, I told you that right up front,"
he said.
What wasn't shown by all the testimony of the prosecution,
said Rebeau, was any evidence "why" the shooting took place. He placed much of
the blame for the shooting on Carlson himself, who Rebeau referred to as "amped
up" on methamphetamine. He also referred to Carlson as the "big man in a little
man's body," a remark made about Carlson by Slattengren that Rebeau used to
portray Carlson as aggressive.
He described a situation in which Fleming and Lona Linc, 40,
were surrounded by Carlson, Slattengren (who Rebeau characterized as "the weight
lifter"), and Mogensen. When things got ugly Fleming and Linc tried to
leave, they were prevented from doing so by the weight lifter. Fearing for his
and Linc's life, Fleming shot Carlson. "They were retreating," said Rebeau, when
Carlson started fumbling for something and Fleming felt he and Linc were in
danger.
To bolster the conclusion that Fleming had no plans to shoot
Carlson, Rebeau noted three separate occasions when Fleming could have taken
Carlson's life earlier in the evening: Inside Rocky J's Bar in Chisago City, in
the parking lot of the bar after closing, and in front of 30495 Park Street when
Fleming, Linc, and Carlson were alone in the yard.
Rebeau referred to the incident as a terrible tragedy, but not
a crime. On that note, he also called into question the actions of law
enforcement officers in the wake of the shooting. Not made part of the crime
scene were the garage behind 30495 Park Street, or the driveway with two
vehicles in it. Nor were searches conducted of Mogensen, Slattengren, or Leah
McLafferty and her car. A blue gym bag in the house wasn't searched, nor was the
house itself.
He called local law enforcement officials "inexperienced" in
these matters, noting there hadn't been a murder in Lindstrom in 50 years.
"Someone should have said wait, let's back up" and conducted a more thorough
investigation of the people and area, said Rebeau. "Maybe three friends are
hiding something," he said. Criticism of the investigation stretched to include
such brief interviews with the principle witnesses the morning of the
crime.
In closing, Rebeau described Fleming's actions as those that
would be taken by any of the jurors in the same situation. He suggested that
Mogenson, Slattengren, and McLafferty concocted statements made by Fleming after
the fact out of hatred for him. He asked the jury to use common sense in their
deliberations and again called the situation a tragedy, but added, "Mr. Fleming
is not guilty of a crime."
Fink was allowed to rebut the closing statement by Rebeau and
addressed credibility among the eyewitnesses. He pointed to many inconsistencies
in Linc's testimony regarding Fleming's demeanor, and her account of events from
previous testimony. He noted that Slattengren told 911 operators that he "didn't
know" who shot Carlson as evidence that he was in shock and not thinking clearly
the morning of the shooting. "He'd just seen his friend murdered," said Fink,
"When more detail was required he remembered. Common sense tells us that is a
common reaction."
He also noted differences between the testimony of
Slattengren, Mogensen, and McLafferty, and suggested that had there been a
conspiracy, testimony would have been in "lock step." Fink pointed to previous
testimony by Linc in which she stated that she ran when the gun came out. "She
knew what was going to happen. She didn't want to be part of a cold-blooded
murder."
In regards to statements by Rebeau that law enforcement
handled the crime scene poorly, Fink said, "So what? It doesn't matter in this
case. This isn't a who-done-it," and disregarded Rebeau's suggestions as to what
might have happened as speculation.
Just before he concluded, he addressed the defense's
contention that Slattengren blocked the door and only then did Fleming feel in
danger and pull a weapon. "Why is this there?," he said, pointing to a diagram
that showed the live round Fleming had ejected from the .45 Ruger laying in the
middle of the room, well away from the door. "Why turn your back on the weight
lifter and go after the little guy in the chair?," he added.
As of 2 p.m., the jury remained in deliberations. If 10th
District Court Judge Douglas G. Swenson believes they are close to a verdict at
the end of the business day, he likely will encourage them to finish their
deliberations into the evening. If it becomes clear a verdict is not possible
today, jurors will be sequestered and reconvened in the morning.
Fleming is charged with first degree murder and second degree
murder in the death of Carlson, and two counts of second degree assault for
threatening actions against Mogensen and Slattengren.
|
