Flower delivery turned murder

The jury of nine women and three men had been sequestered for almost two weeks, not allowed to discuss the case with each other. As they began deliberations, they say they carefully reviewed their notes, then took an informal vote.

This first vote was close to half and half. It was definitely not an open and shut case.

The jury would need to decide unanimously whether James Sullivan hired a hit man to kill his wife, Lita. They knew a guilty verdict could lead to the death penalty.

All three jurors we spoke to say Lita’s parents were like a silent witness in the courtroom every day.

Victoria Corderi, Dateline correspondent: They were sitting next to you the entire time. What did you feel?

Debra, juror: Pain. Their pain. Their anger. Their heartbreak, their sorrow.

But still, the jury forewoman says, they were determined to put emotions aside and concentrate only on the evidence.

Juror: I tried not to think about, too much, their tragedy. Because I was most concerned that we get the verdict right.

It was a circumstantial case, requiring them to make certain leaps in judgment.

Adrienne, juror: They didn’t have any specific eye witnesses to actually see the murder take place, and because 19 years had passed, and there was so much conflicting information.

It was clear that the Sullivan’s divorce was bitter to the core.

Debra, juror: He was a control freak. He wanted her to have nothing.

But many divorces get ugly… was that enough motive to have someone murdered?

Nancy, juror: I thought he was a miserable human being. But you know you still have to say there are miserable human beings who do not hire hit men to eliminate their wives.

And they say there were problems with the credibility of the man who took part in the murder, the state’s star witness, Tony Harwood.

Juror: You could tell that, when he was asked questions, that he was lying… he’s definitely a loose cannon.                   

There were also credibility problems his former girlfriend Belinda Trahan, especially her testimony about the trip to the diner to meet Sullivan for the payoff.

Corderi: Did you find her memory problems troubling?

Juror: Yeah, that was strange.

Debra, juror:  She doesn’t know what car she was in. she doesn’t know where she was going.

Adrienne, juror: What state she was in.

Debra, juror: What road she was on. If it was day, if it was night.

Corderi: Did you think that she was actually in that diner and that money changed hands?

Nancy, juror: It’s a possibility.

Debra, juror: But do we know for sure?

And as for that elaborate re-staging of the payoff in the courtroom?

Corderi: Did it help you envision it?  Or was it a turn off because it felt like a dramatic ploy?

Juror: Ultimately, the jury did not take into consideration the testimony of Belinda Trahan or Tony Harwood.  So it was, in a way, a big to do about nothing.

As for the prosecution’s other dramatic touches, right up to closing argument, jurors said they found that entertaining, but ultimately insignificant.

Nancy, juror: There were moments I wanted to roll my eyes.  But I appreciate what the prosecution had to do.  They had the burden of proof.  They have to lay it on thick. 

But they say the prosecution did make a big impact with witness Bob Christiansen, Lita’s friend and neighbor who identified Harwood.

Juror: Bob Christiansen was very credible witness.

Juror 2: Very credible.  He was very beneficial to the case.

And key evidence, they say, those phone records showing calls from Harwood’s motel room to and from Sullivan’s house days before the murder and a call from a  payphone to Sullivan’s house minutes after the murder — circumstantial perhaps, but impossible to dismiss.

Juror: I think the phone calls—were the one—that was the—the biggest impact for, I think, almost all of us. 

But even with seemingly incriminating details, they say, there was  little hard evidence.

Nancy, juror: I wish there had been more direct evidence, but there wasn’t.

Corderi: What would have satisfied you?

Nancy, juror: Well, bank records that Tony Harwood actually received—the sums that were alleged.

Corderi: The cashier’s checks?

Nancy, juror: Yes. They had nothing there.

Jurors say they methodically reviewed the evidence and took several votes, until they were of one mind.

Juror: It just became obvious that everybody felt fairly satisfied.

Finally, after almost five hours— and for some, 19 years— there was a verdict.

The jury found the defendant James Sullivan guilty of malice murder.

There were tears and the release of years of pent up emotion. But Jim Sullivan sat motionless as he had throughout the trial, listening as he was found guilty on all five counts.

It was the word the McClintons so desperately waited to hear after a long and tortuous road to justice.

Jo Ann McClinton, Lita Sullivan's mother: I heard the third one.  And it began to sink in. 

Corderi: Did it sink in?

McClintons: Yeah.

Emory McClinton, Lita Sullivan's father: I didn’t need to hear but one.

With the guilty verdict behind them, the jury would now have to decide how Jim Sullivan should pay for the murder of his estranged wife. 

Prosecutors argued that he deserved nothing less than the death penalty. They wanted jurors to imagine Lita’s last moments, gasping for life in a pool of her own blood  They called on Lita’s family to tell the jury about the painful impact of losing her.

It was Lita’s mother’s last opportunity to convey her personal agony to the jury. It was a sadness that became defiant.

Jo Ann McClinton: I have looked forward to this day for many years. Should I forgive him? I cannot. Should I forgive him? I will not.

The defense faced the task of steering the jury away from its sympathy for the family, and focusing instead on the need for mercy—life in prison instead of death.

Defense attorney: We reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst, for the most horrific and terrifying crimes imaginable, this is not a death penalty case.

Did Jim Sullivan deserve death, they asked, when the man who agreed to kill his wife only got a 20-year sentence? There were no close friends or family there to speak for James Sullivan. Instead, the defense focused on an impassioned plea to spare his life— referencing the Jewish Talmud, the tenets of Christianity, the dharma of Hinduism.

In the end, it was the defense’s direct appeal that most influenced the sentence. Jim Sullivan was spared the death penalty... but he will live out his days behind bars?

Jo Ann and Emory McClinton say they are satisfied, but still, nothing will ease the pain of losing their daughter.

Jo Ann McClinton: We’ve worked so hard to get him where he is.  But there is no closure.

Emory McClinton: Because our daughter’s gone.

But the high life is over for Jim Sullivan, no more ocean breezes and seaside retreats—his long vacation from justice has come to an end.

Emory McClinton: We won the battle. He’s not gonna make a mockery of the courts anymore. It’s over, Jim.  Merry Christmas.

But the high life is over for Jim Sullivan, no more ocean breezes and seaside retreats—his long vacation from justice has come to an end.

Emory McClinton: We won the battle. He's not gonna make a mockery of the courts anymore. It’s over, Jim.  Merry Christmas.

MORE FROM DATELINE

Dateline Section Front

NBC's People of the Year: Read the interviews The Night Mary Jane Disappeared The Friday the 13th Mystery Mystery at Lost Dog Road Slideshow: Photos in the Bob Duke case When The Smoke Clears   Sneak peek: When The Smoke Clears Slideshow: The Christie Fleming murder Transcript: Dan Brown and Secrets Of The Lost Symbol Through The Pouring Rain Dateline Section Front   Add Dateline headlines to your news reader: