One witness, Byron Shannon, had said that hed seen
Following him came several forensic experts. The machete was a key piece of evidence, even though no blood had been found on it and it did not fit the wounds of the first victim discovered. The prosecutions expert described the kinds of cuts that such a weapon could leave on a surface, and he said that other victims who had been too decomposed for wound analysis nevertheless could not be ruled out as having been cut by such a blade. In a way, he left it open for the defense to prove otherwise, which was not Hawks job, so Hawk turned the tables back around. He had only to prove reasonable doubt, he later told reporters.
A ballistics expert said that the bullet removed from the only victim who had been shot, William Kamp, while not traceable to
A pathologist testified that the knives found in
Stains found on clothing in
Another blood expert, Dr. Ruth Guy, said that bloodstains from Coronas van had indicated at least three types, so even if a witness was produced who would say he had been injured and transported in the van (and none was so produced, despite Hawks promises), it would not negate the possibility that the van had transported murder victims. The same could be said about blood types found on the knives and in
Teja had also found some handwriting experts to indicate that samples of
A third prosecutor, Ronald Fahey, entered the case in November. He had plenty of trial experience and he used it to go after Hawk, with both attorneys seeking any excuse to undermine the other. While it evened the playing ground somewhat, the judge often had to break up their petty squabbles. In short, the case got cluttered and unwieldy, but neither side had a clear advantage, according to those authors who were keeping track, so these attorneys were reduced to personal attacks and to promoting themselves among the press corps.
After 113 witnesses and months of testimony, the prosecution rested its case. Then Hawk got up and shocked the court. First he asked for a directed verdict that would essentially dismiss the case. He wanted an acquittal, based on the fact that there was no evidence to support the charges. When he did not get what hed requested, he told the judge that he, too, rested his case. He had no witnesses to call, despite promising in his opening statement to name the true murderer. He apparently believed that the prosecution had done a sufficient amount of bungling that there was no need to do anything but allow the jury to condemn them for it. Kidder suggests that he felt over-confident about reasonable doubt because the press had often been on his side and because one witness who had been dismissed had told him that most of the others were not impressed with the evidence. In any event, it was a bold move.
Looking back at Hawks opening statement, writes Kidder, it seems to some extent that he tailored his strategy to his ambitions rather than the circumstances.
Both sides summarized their cases in closing arguments, and Cartel indicates that Hawks took only seven minutes, but Kidder says it went over the course of two days, with a lot of side excursions about the law. Essentially, Richard Hawk offered an alternate suspect, but did not address the fact that no one had been able to place Natividad in the area during the time in which the murders had occurred. He had been in
After Fahey gave the final rebuttal, the case went to the jury. Their first ballot, says Cartel, was
But it was not yet over. The case was appealed and



