Trail of evidence

Harold Fish’s future depended on the jury choosing one of two paths: Was Grant Kuenzli’s death an act of self-defense or was it murder?

In closing arguments, Defense Attorney Mel McDonald reminded the jury they could not ignore the character of both men involved in the case. Wouldn’t an aggressive, angry man like Grant Kuenzli have scared Harold Fish into shooting him? Could a man like Fish, who’d done so many good things in life, be capable of such a bad thing?

Mel McDonald, defense attorney: A 57-year-old father of seven, a sterling record throughout his life, a guy with a dream to hike the Arizona trail on about the middle of his journey that’s covered 20 plus years and he walks into a guy that you heard from the character witnesses—a perfect storm.

But Prosecutor Michael Lessler argued this case was not about character—it’s about behavior.

He urged the jury to follow the law in their deliberations.

Michael Lessler, prosecutor: Mr. Fish shot him three time in the chest with this high powered gun, hollow point bullets and caused his death. That’s murder.

Harold Fish’s future was now in the hands of eight people. The jury would decide whether this father would go home to his seven kids, or off to prison for up to 22 years.

We sat down with two of the jurors—the jury foreman, an information technology director, and a teacher.

When the jury first sat down to deliberate, they recalled, the room was split.

Michael Nelson, juror: It was about four/four.               

John Larson, Dateline correspondent: Four for acquittal, four for guilty?

Nelson: Yeah.

The jurors told us each side had made a persuasive case. Character did turn out to be a big issue in this trial. These jurors say the panel believed the defense’s argument that Harold Fish was a good guy.

Meagan Elliot, juror: He was a very serious man.  A very dedicated man to his family.  To his career as a teacher. 

And they did take note of the witnesses who said Grant Kuenzli had a reputation for aggression.

Larson: A number of people testified that Grant Kuenzli was a violent, aggressive person.

Nelson: Right.

Larson: What did you make of that testimony?

Nelson: I believe it.  I believed he could be in certain circumstances.

Still, the jurors also bought the prosecutor’s argument that this case was about behavior, not character.

Elliot: It wasn’t about Mr. Fish’s character as a good guy. It’s not about Mr. Kuenzli’s character as a bad guy. 

The jurors knew to find Harold Fish acted in self-defense, they had to believe that a reasonable person in fish’s situation would have done the same thing.

Elliot: We spent many hours on that trying to decide “Well, is he reasonable?  Are we reasonable?  What do we think?  What is the definition of reasonable?”  We were having a hard time with that.

Larson: Looking from the outside, I mean, he seems like a reasonable man. He’s led a reasonable life.

Elliot: Right. I think that’s what the defense was doing with a lot of his character is proving to us this is a very reasonable man. 

Nelson: One of our jurors, and I counted her as kind of the voice of reason there, she brought up, “You know, if this isn’t self-defense, then what is?”

The prosecution painted Fish as a calculating liar. The jurors were easier on him.

Elliot: I never thought he was lying or being evasive.  I thought his memory—he made mistakes, or some of the things he said, that maybe he told Mr. Kuenzli or Mr. Kuenzli told him, were things that went through his head, but didn’t necessarily come out his mouth.

Larson: Which might be understandable, under the situation.

Elliot: Absolutely.

Larson: —regardless of how it went.

Elliot: Absolutely. Plus, if they had all been the exact same, then I’m gonna have a lot bigger problem thinking he’s rehearsing his story and he’s planning it. 

However they did wrestle with whether the incident unfolded exactly as Fish had described. Did the two men exchange heated words?

Elliot: I don’t think there was time for there to be an angry standoff. I think he looked up, saw a man running at ‘em, and shot.

Several jurors were also concerned about the way Fish changed his story about what time the shooting occurred.

Nelson: I don’t think that he was calculating.  But I think he was strategizing.  He was devising a strategy for how he’s going to handle the situation.

Larson: So, you think that discrepancy on the time, 5:30, 6:15 p.m., is important?

Nelson: Yeah.

Elliot: Mm-hmm (Affirms).

The jurors believed Fish did the right thing in helping Kuenzli after the shooting, but some were troubled about whether he could have done more.

Nelson: Why didn’t he try to stop the bleeding?  Why didn’t he try to pack the wound?  He was a scout master. 

And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me.  That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible.  It’s designed to kill. 

Finally, all of the jurors reacted strongly to the testimony of the medical examiner.

Nelson: He made a very specific statement saying that it was very unusual considering the nature of those wounds, that they could have occurred while walking or running.  So my explanation is; he stopped.

Larson: So this idea that he may have been stopped, that these may have been defensive wounds, played huge?

Elliot: Absolutely.

Nelson: It was major.

In this room, for two days, the jurors went back and forth over every argument. Then they sent a note to the judge: