During the deliberations, she continued, jurors were “split between murder one and murder two, with some strong murder ones and some strong murder twos.”
“The evidence was pretty clear,” added juror Pat Roland.
Roland noted that Susan hid her husband’s car at the commuter station and initially denied any role in the killing. But, unable to find premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, the panel ruled out first-degree murder.
Roland also said jurors found testimony from Susan’s middle son, Eli, unconvincing, noting there was “a lot of coaching” going on between Susan and her son. In contrast, all twelve panelists agreed that Gabriel Polk’s testimony was “pivotal” to the case. “He was the first one on the scene,” said juror, Bob Borkenhagen.
“He was fifteen at the time of the murder, and his first reaction after finding his father’s body was not to go and tell his mother, but to hide from his mother and call 911 and say ‘my mother shot my father,’” Somesse added. “That was very telling.”
Somesse admitted that jurors remain perplexed as to Susan’s motive for the killing. “I think we all speculated what the motive was and wondered about it a lot,” she said. “But we really don’t know. I think it was a controlling thing.”
Remarkably, jurors said that Susan’s provocative behavior in court did not sway their opinion of the evidence in the case—though they did find it “painful” at times. “Good or bad, I got to know who Susan Polk is, as a person, and there was a point where I looked at all the facts in the deliberation room, and I asked, ‘Could Susan Polk have killed someone?’ and because I knew her, I felt the answer was yes.”
“Oh, my God, my life is over.”
Susan’s voice rang through the empty courtroom, as she comprehended the jury’s verdict. She had waited until the last spectator had filtered out of the room before reacting, and now, with Valerie Harris at her side, the outcome hit home.
“We’re just starting another phase of the fight,” Valerie Harris assured her, but her words seemed lost on Susan.
Once she regained her composure, Susan asked that Harris talk to the jurors on her behalf. She wanted to know their responses to two questions: how they addressed her credibility as her own attorney, and what she did or said that suggested she should not be believed? Continuing to look at the situation with an element of pragmatism, she asked Judge Brady to advise her about legal options. Brady responded by informing Susan that she would need to file supporting evidence to be eligible for an appeal, prompting Susan to charge anew that county officials could not be objective in her case. “Throughout this trial, there has been fabricated and suppression of evidence by county officials,” she complained. “It would be preferable to appoint the state public defender’s office.”
Outside the courtroom, Sequeira said he was “ecstatic” with the verdict, although he admitted that facing off against Susan “wore me down.” Prosecuting her had been the most difficult task of his career, he said, adding that his courtroom opponent was “the most hateful” person he ever met. Sequeira said his only regret was that he had been unable to counter Susan’s punishing character assassination of her husband. While he had potential witnesses who would have painted a “better perspective” of Felix’s character, the district attorney’s office had chosen to center its case around Susan’s role in the killing—and not on the couple’s relationship.
Over the course of the summer, Susan’s sentencing date was postponed several times. In July, she announced her desire to be represented by counsel Charles Hoehn at her presentencing hearing, but when Judge Brady declined to grant attorney Hoehn’s request for an immediate transcript of the trial, the lawyer stepped down, leaving Susan with no representation. To further complicate matters, the Contra Costa County Bar Association’s Conflict Panel that assigns attorneys for defendants was unable to find anyone willing to take Susan’s case. Nineteen attorneys with homicide experience refused to represent Polk, citing conflicts of interest or jam-packed schedules.
In August, Valerie Harris requested a two-day delay to allow attorney Dan Russo to confer with Susan. But when the parties returned to court on Tuesday, August 15, the judge was informed that Russo was declining the case. He told Brady that Susan was “not completely comfortable with me.”
The lawyer told Brady that Point Richmond attorney Linda Fullerton, a member of the county bar association’s conflict panel, was interested in representing Susan, and the judge scheduled another hearing date. Outside court, Harris said Russo was “fabulous,” but that Susan needed a lawyer who could be available on a full- time basis to “hit the ground running.” They must also be open to the possibility of asking for a new trial, she said. As Harris said, “I’ve got a little laundry list of items to give to the next attorney.”
Meanwhile, Prosecutor Paul Sequeira accused Susan of stalling. He noted that almost two months had passed since her conviction and still there was no sentencing date.
“I’m going to ask for a reasonable date to be set,” he said. “The victim’s family has the right to a judgment entered.”
Susan faces incarceration at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla for a period of sixteen years to life. Opened in October 1990, the facility is located on 640 acres in Northern California and is the largest women’s prison in the United States. Susan would be sixty-two years old before becoming eligible for parole in 2020.
Sequeira raised doubts as to whether authorities would ever release Susan. “The parole board will only let you out after you acknowledge your guilt, say you’re sorry, and go through some therapy in prison,” he told reporters at a press conference. “I’ll let you figure out if any of those three things are ever going to happen.”
EPILOGUE
As this book goes to press, Susan awaits her sentencing by Judge Brady. Having found an attorney, Linda Fullerton, currently willing to handle her appeal, she received a six-month extension in August to obtain a transcript and file necessary motions for a new trial. While Susan’s decision to represent herself was a disastrous misstep, it is unlikely that the trial judge will determine that this obvious “ineffective assistance of counsel” will compel a retrial. The old adage, that anyone with himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client, may be true, but this poor decision is not legal grounds for a new trial. Despite the unorthodox proceedings, there does not appear to be any glaring errors that will ensure Susan receive another shot at an acquittal.
Susan has already been behind bars for several years. Interestingly, she seems to have adapted well to her regimented environment. Despite her assertions that Felix was an oppressive, controlling spouse, it may be that years of this relationship prepared her for her time in prison. She spends her time reading and writing, often isolating herself from the other inmates. Ironically, now she has plenty of time for the contemplative life she imagined leading in the wilds of Montana.
As tragic as her circumstances may be, they do not compare with the burdens her three sons may carry throughout their lives. The long-term psychological effects of their upbringing will manifest in myriad ways in the coming years. Ironically, eldest son Adam told me that he is contemplating a career in law. He should be able to get into a good program, having excellent grades as an English major and many accolades as one time student body president and head of the university’s honor society. He held down a job while achieving all of this and, at least outwardly, seems to be creating a semblance of normalcy in his world. Professing love for his mother, he nevertheless refuses to get sucked into an ongoing family drama now that the trial has concluded. However, he is the “father figure” now, and his two younger brothers will need his guidance.
The youngest son, Gabriel, was very lucky to have the Briners enter his life. A well-adjusted couple with big hearts, this duo is determined to help Gabe survive the trauma of his childhood. Their guidance and support will be critical, as he must have a healthy blueprint for families and relationships to heal these scars. As with the other boys, he is bright and capable, and with serious work, he may succeed in processing the emotional violence of his youth.
The one most in danger, I believe, is the middle child, Eli. Throughout the trial, he seemed to have adopted his mother’s delusions of conspiracy and her rebellious actions against anything that smacked of authority. He willingly chronicled a history to conform to her world despite so much evidence pointing to another reality. His own
