Trail of evidence

The jury had been taken through the thicket of the Fish case by the prosecutor, who had said all roads lead to one conclusion: Harold Fish was a murderer.

But was there another route through the evidence?

The defense had a road map of its own:

Defense opening: He’s a father, he’s a retired teacher, he’s a scout leader, he’s a wonderful citizen in this community. The state are trying to tell you. “Let’s label him a murderer” for something he didn’t promote, he didn’t initiate. He was a victim.

While the prosecution said this case was about behavior, not character, the defense argued that character actually dictates behavior. For the defense, Harold Fish’s character was the key to proving he had acted in self-defense.

Mel McDonald and Bruce Griffin are Fish’s attorneys.

Mel McDonald, defense attorney: It’s the kinda guy that you never see getting in trouble with the law. Everything about his character and background was exemplary.

Fish’s wife Deborah took the stand to testify to his character.

Deborah Fish, Harold's wife: He’s very loving. His family is the most important thing to him. The good old boy scout ethic, “You don’t lie, you don’t cheat, you’re honest, you always tell the truth.”

And the defense argued Fish was telling the truth when he claimed he feared for his life and had no option but to shoot with a very powerful weapon.

Despite the prosecution’s claims that the dogs in this case were not aggressive—the defense argued that at least one of these animals had a vicious nature.

The Payson dog catcher described Hank as a “fear biter” back in 2003.

And what about the gun Fish carried with him? Remember the prosecution said that this is a weapon more powerful than what most police officers carry. The defense said there was nothing wrong having that gun; in fact he needed it in the wilderness.

McDonald: He wasn’t going out hunting people. He had the weapon to protect himself against predatory animals.

Moreover, the defense stressed that Harold Fish was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and had special training that would have made it less likely for him to overreact.

Michael Anthony is a gun expert involved in concealed weapons legislation and training. He told the jury a trained person knows how to evaluate when a threat really justifies using a firearm.

Michael Anthony, gun expert (in court): The standard is whether a person is in reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death.

A trained shooter, the defense suggested, would only fire his gun if he had to.

And what about shooting the victim in the chest? Wasn’t that going too far?

No, said the defense.

The expert testified that in concealed weapons training, people are taught to always shoot at the center of the body—never at a hand, or a foot.

Anthony: Students are taught to shoot to what we call the center of mass. The object of this exercise is not to kill somebody it’s to stop the threat.

And, another part of the training is that after someone is shot, to provide assistance and summon help. Which the defense argued is exactly what Harold Fish did. After Kuenzli fell to the ground, Fish Fried to help him. Fish placed his backpack under Kuenzli’s head, covered him with a blanket, and flagged down a vehicle to get help.

Were these the actions of a cold blooded killer?

McDonald (Dateline interview): His intention that day was not to kill Kuenzli.  His hope was that he could stop him and get assistance for them, and that is a humane act to do.  

And another fact in the defense’s favor: Not only did he help the man who he had shot, he was also very cooperative with the authorities.  But remember, the prosecution argued that some of the statements Fish gave over time to authorities were inconsistent, suggesting he was making up a story to cover his tracks.

The defense dismissed this as nit-picking.

McDonald: It would be impossible for people to remember every statement and get it exactly the same every way as he talked to different people.

And what about that seemingly damning testimony from the medical examiner, who’d said the victim may have been trying to defend himself—could even have been standing still when he got shot?

On cross-examination the witness backed off, leaving open the possibility that the victim was really on the offensive when fearful Harold Fish shot him.

Defense lawyer: You’re not trying to say by your answer you can go into mind of Mr. Kuenzli and interpret what his action was at the time, can you sir?

Dr. Horn, medical examiner: Absolutely not.

Defense lawyer: And what you were intending to say was that simply the hands were in front of torso.

Dr. Horn: Yes.

Defense lawyer: We could just have easily said offensive as defensive and in fact in your answer you can’t say which one.

Dr. Horn: That’s correct.

Harold Fish never testified in court, but he made his case to Dateline.

Harold Fish: I didn’t feel guilty of having done anything criminal.  I was not a murderer.  I did not feel that way.  I was just merely trying to stop him and defend my life.

Fish insists he had no other options than to shoot this man.

John Larson, Dateline correspondent:  Why not hit him?  Punch him?

Fish: You know I just didn’t think it would work.  To be honest with you, it didn’t really even occur to me.

Larson: Why not fend him off?  You have a gun in your hand and if nothing else that’s heavy metal.  Hit him.

Fish: Never thought of it. All I can tell you is I knew, I absolutely knew that if I didn’t stop him with that gun and I mean by using gun fire that he was gonna be all on me and that was it.

But remember Fish’s lawyers said this case was about character. Not just about Harold fish’s character, but Grant Kuenzli’s character.

McDonald: You had an individual, a troubled man, who for the preceding five years had severe problems with self-control to the point that he would literally terrify responsible citizens.

Larson: He was a loose cannon?

McDonald: A loose cannon out of control.

There was a lot more to learn about Grant Kuenzli, but would the jury ever hear it?