Trail of evidence

Harold Fish knew a guilty verdict could mean up to 22 years behind bars, and away from his wife and seven kids. But he believed a jury would understand that he shot Grant Kuenzli in order to defend his own life.

Harold Fish: I cannot today tell you that I would’ve done it any other way than what I did then.

And now Harold Fish was about to find out. After two days of deliberations, the jury had reached a verdict.

Verdict reading: We the jury do find the defendant Harold Fish guilty of the crime of second degree murder.

A guilty verdict for Harold Fish: The jury believed Harold Fish’s shooting of Grant Kuenzli was not self defense—they saw it as a tragic mistake for which the gunman had to be held accountable.

Meagan Elliot, juror:  We saw that self-defense was not your only option. 

John Larson, Dateline correspondent: You’re thinking the best bet is that Hal Fish overreacted.

Michael Nelson, juror: Yeah.

Elliot: Absolutely.

Larson: Maybe in a panic.

Elliot: Yes.

Larson: And had it been allowed to play out another 5, 10 seconds, it might not have been necessary to shoot him?                            

Nelson: Tragic, tragic accident.

We wondered if the jurors had known more about Grant Kuenzli’s past, would it have made a difference to their verdict?

Elliot: We still had the evidence of this incident, at this scene, at this moment.  And all those things, while damaging to Mr. Kuenzli’s character, have nothing to do with what happened on May 11^th, 2004 out in the woods between Mr. Kuenzli and Mr. Fish, and the evidence that was presented to us.

On sentencing day, the victim’s sister asked for the maximum sentence: 22 years.

Linda Almeter: There has been absolutely no hint of remorse, no apology, no attempt to make amends on the part of Harold Fish.

But Harold Fish’s wife Deborah told the judge their seven children needed their father at home.

Deborah Fish, Harold Fish's wife in court: It will be me and my children who suffer the most by not having their father and husband there.

Harold Fish, who did not testify during the trial, now had the opportunity to address the court.

Harold Fish: I feel that I am an innocent man that stands before you today. I do not think the trial was fair.

Fish responded to those who say he has not shown remorse for Kuenzli’s death.

Harold Fish: The first 24-48 hours after this shooting occurred were horrendous. I found myself in private shedding tears for a man who tried to kill me.

He says he’s not proud of what happened.

Fish told the court he could have left the scene but decided to stay and do what he thought was the right thing.

Harold Fish: Could I have left? Could I have just turned my back in callous fashion and just gone away? Of course I could. I knew no one had seen me. Maybe in the foolishness of my heart, I thought the truth would be a defense. I knew it was my word against a dead man’s.

After hearing all the arguments, all the testimony, the judge spoke candidly about the case.

Judge: This case does give new meaning to the word tragedy. I do believe he reacted out of fear and instinct when he shot and killed Grant Kuenzli. He made a split second decision with tragic consequences.

It was time for Fish to learn his sentence.

Judge: Mr. Fish, I do sentence you to the mitigated term of imprisonment of 10 years in the Department of Corrections for the death of Grant Kuenzli.

Ten years in prison: no possibility of parole.

Before the trial, Fish told us what a prison term would mean for his family.

Fish: If I go to jail or go to prison for ten, 15, 20 years, what good does that do my family? They know I’m innocent.  They know I’m in jail.  As long as I’m there, they’re always dealing with their father. 

“Where’s your father?”  “He’s in prison.”  “What’s he in prison for?”  “Second-degree murder.  But he didn’t do it.”

They were strangers on a trail. Fate had brought them together.

Now one would never see this beautiful place again, would never breathe the air. The other would have to serve his time.

Now their story was over. And out there in the wild, the paths remained— winding their way across the land.  Leading wherever they may.

Arizona law was changed recently, in part, because of this case. Now, instead of a defendant having to prove he acted in self-defense, the burden is on the prosecutors. They must prove a defendant did not act in self-defense. Arizona’s Supreme Court is expected to rule later this month on whether the new law applies to a similar case. That ruling could affect Harold Fish’s appeal.