Trail of evidence

Arizona’s Pine Canyon trail is a rugged beauty—a difficult hike beneath a peaceful ridgeline. But the silence of the trail was shattered by gunfire one day in 2004, and only one man was left to tell his side of what happened. 

John McCauley, Grant Kuenzli's friend: Mr. Fish is the only one that has a story.  Mr. Grant Kuenzli is dead.  He doesn’t have a story.  He can’t defend himself.  I am here to defend him.

John McCauley got to know 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli four months before Kuenzli lost his life on the trail. They met in this dog park in Payson, Arizona.

The two men developed a close friendship that grew out of their love of animals. McCauley and his dogs would spend a lot of time with Kuenzli and his yellow lab, Maggie.

McCauley: We would talk for hours about various things. He was like a son to me.

McCauley says that at the time of the shooting, Kuenzli was living out in the forest but was very connected to the local community. He says his friend would come into the town of Payson every day to shower at the gym, and then would take dogs from the Payson Humane Society to exercise them.

In fact two of the dogs Kuenzli had with him that day on the trail— Hank and Sheba— were on loan from the Humane Society.

McCauley says he was in shock when he heard of his friend’s death and that something about Harold Fish’s story did not sit right with him. He did not believe his friend wanted to kill or even hurt Fish.

McCauley: He was definitely running down to stop the dogs from barking and harassing Mr. Fish.

Larson: You don’t think he was trying to attack Mr. Fish?

McCauley: No, definitely not. Grant was not a person that would have threatened anybody.

McCauley circulated a petition in town to support his friend.

McCauley: He was known by 300 people that attested to the fact that he was in fact a nice person.

Linda Almeter, Grant Kuenzli’s sister: Grant was a wonderful, caring, sensitive, humble person.

Grant Kuenzli’s sister, Linda Almeter, believes her brother, who from a young age adored animals and as an adult worked as a fire inspector, would never hurt anyone.

Almeter: He chose to spend his life doing things that made a difference to other people and to him.

Almeter does not believe Fish’s claims of self-defense. She thinks he mistakenly overreacted, leading to tragic results.

Almeter: And the world will never be the same for any of us.

Kuenzli’s friends and family were not the only ones who believed Harold Fish needed to be held responsible for what happened—so did the Coconino County attorney’s office. They charged Fish with second degree murder.

Prosecutor Michael Lessler: The case was about whether or not you can shoot an unarmed person, whether the circumstances in this case justified it.

The case generated local and national attention. Dog lovers were pitted against gun lovers.  It fueled the debate on gun control versus self control.  The National Rifle Association even got involved, partially sponsoring Harold Fish’s defense fund.

Harold Fish was not held in jail. He spent two years with his family preparing for trial. A conviction could bring up to 22 years behind bars and away from his wife and kids.

Harold Fish says of all his seven children, it’s his youngest daughter, two-year-old Marian, who has kept him going.

Fish: I won’t let them put me in jail for something I didn’t do for Marian. I’m not gonna do that. She’s gonna know her dad. And her dad hopefully will be exonerated. I hope that she grows up never knowing what happened, or at least not finding out about it for a long, long time.

Harold Fish’s journey was about to take him from that scenic hiking trail into a courtroom, where a jury would decide where the defendant’s fate would lie.

The trial began in April of 2006 in Flagstaff, Arizona. The prosecutor argued that Kuenzli’s death was not an act of self defense.

Lessler (in court): By his own account, Mr. Fish had not been threatened with any weapon — not a knife, not a gun, not a stick.

The prosecutor realized this would be an emotional case. After all, the defendant was a retired high school teacher, father of seven, and had no criminal record. But, he told the jury, this case is not about Harold Fish’s character. It’s about behavior and about accountability for the choices we make.

Lessler: This case and the evidence you will see and hear is not about a bad man doing evil things. This case in short is not about character. It is about behavior.

What behavior exactly? Well, prosecutors suggested that Fish, angered by the victim’s dogs, overreacted on that trail, using way too much force, then covered his tracks and lied about the threat he’d faced to save his own skin.

Lessler: Mr. Fish is, in my judgment, an extraordinarily self-righteous man.

Larson: You think there’s an arrogance there?

Lessler: Absolutely. Mr. Fish believes that life should be lived by the way that Mr. Fish lives his life, and by his sense of morality, and that if people violate that they should be dealt with sternly.

The prosecution zeroed in on Fish’s story, starting to pick it apart, beginning with the timeline.

Fish told the original lead detective on the case that he shot Grant Kuenzli about 6:30 p.m. A woman, camping with her friends about a half a mile away, told police on the scene that she heard the shots much earlier—somewhere around 5:30 p.m.

And the man Fish flagged down on the highway said Fish waved him down at about 6:40 p.m..

The prosecutor wanted the jury to ponder the question: If the shooting did happen at 5:30, why did it take more than an hour for Fish to get help? Had he intentionally lied about what time the shooting happened in order to help his claim of self-defense?

Lessler: Mr. Fish knew darn well that he had shot an unarmed man and that he could not justify the shooting. He made a strategic decision to stay and spin the case his way, as opposed to leaving, probably getting away with it, but running the risk that if he ever were caught he couldn’t ever claim self defense.

Prosecutor Lessler then pointed out Fish had different versions of exactly what Kuenzli had said to him on the trail. Did Fish make up a tale about threats from the victim to justify the shooting, then have trouble keeping his stories straight?

This sergeant took Fish’s first statement at the scene:

Sergeant who took Fish’s first statement: He reiterated to me he was in fear for his life because the person running at him was saying, ‘I’m going to kill you, you son of a b*tch!”

But later that night, Fish said he couldn’t remember what Kuenzli had said to him. The prosecutor played a tape from an interview with Fish—

“I’m trying to remember exactly what he said, you know, whether he said ‘I’m going to kill you’ or… he said something I can’t remember what it is.”

And Fish later told a grand jury something else. He said Kuenzli may have said “I’m going to kill you, I’m going to hurt you, or I’m going to shoot you.”

Lessler: He took time to think that through. The problem is that when you do that under that kind of stress, it’s extraordinarily difficult to keep your story straight.

Next, the medical examiner’s testimony called into question Fish’s description of an enraged stranger charging at him.

The witness explained that Grant Kuenzli was shot three times in the chest, and one of those bullets went through his right hand before hitting his chest.  

Medical examiner: This wound to forearm and the wound of the hand would necessitate the arms to be in front of the torso and those are the types of wounds we’ve described in other cases as a defensive type posture.

Was Kuenzli actually trying to defend himself from Fish, rather than the other way around as Fish claimed?

And then, a shocking statement from the medical examiner: He said the position of Kuenzli’s arm may prove he was actually standing still when he got shot—not running towards Fish as he had claimed.

Medical examiner: It would be an unusual position for someone walking or running to have a right hand across body like that.

Could Fish have shot a man standing still?

And the jury had another issue to think about: Fish’s gun.

The firearms investigator said that Fish’s gun — a 10mm — is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection.  And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times, called “a hollow-point bullet,” is made to expand when it enters the body.

When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.

Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.

Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?

Lessler: Yes.

And what about Fish’s argument that those dogs that charged him were aggressive and violent? The prosecutor argued this was just not true.

A veterinarian neutered Hank, the chow mix. She says she will not neuter an aggressive dog.

Vet: If I have an aggressive animal from the Humane Society I recommend euthanasia.

A woman got to know Sheba, the Shepherd mix, while working at the Payson Humane Society.

Witness: She’s not aggressive at all.

The prosecutor said the evidence in the case can be best summed up by one question: “Why warn the dogs and shoot the human being?”

The prosecutor was confident about his case. He believed Kuenzli’s death was unnecessary—and Harold Fish should be found guilty of second degree murder. But the defense was about to make it’s case. And they would argue character, not behavior, was the key to proving Harold Fish acted in self defense.