Susan Polk - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eappwr (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 18 December 2007 (→Trial: added ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:12, 18 December 2007 by Eappwr (talk | contribs) (→Trial: added "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Susan Polk (born Susan Mae Bolling in 1958) was a housewife and mother of three who was convicted of murdering her husband, Dr. Frank "Felix" Polk. Dr. Polk was a prominent Berkeley psychologist. He was found with numerous stab wounds in the pool house at the couple's upscale Orinda, California home on Oct. 13, 2002. The murder trial of Susan Polk drew wide-spread media attention because the testimony in the case pitted brother against brother and sons against mother. The media interest also centered around the 26-year age difference between the couple and the fact that Dr.Polk had been Susan's therapist during her adolescence, before becoming her lover and later husband. Susan's claims that she was a psychic, who was being used by her husband (who she alleged was a Mossad agent) to elicit predictions of world events, including the attacks on the World Trade Center, added to the sensationalism surrounding the case.

Background

In 1972, Susan Bolling was living in Clayton Valley. A school counselor at Clayton Valley High School in Concord, California, recommended that Susan see Felix Polk because she was cutting class.

Life with Felix Polk

Felix Polk began seeing Susan in 1972, when she was 14 years old. Within a year Felix Polk violated the doctor-patient relationship and entered into a sexual relationship with Susan. Susan claimed that Felix had drugged and raped her.

Susan went to Mills College, an all-women's school nestled in the Oakland hills, before moving to San Francisco State University, from which she graduated. She stopped seeing Felix as a therapist, but the personal relationship continued.

In 1982, Polk divorced his wife, prominent concert pianist Sharon Mann, and married Susan. They have 3 sons: Adam (1983), Eli(1985), and Gabriel(1987).

Susan claimed that he was a domineering and manipulative husband, obsessed with controlling her life and the lives of her children. Felix Polk would see his wife and sons in his home office regularly for therapy sessions which he led himself. He would use hypnosis, guided visualizations, execute IQ tests, etc. Adam and Gabriel testified that Susan was mentally unstable and habitually spoke of murdering their father. However this was after Adam and Gabe accepted a $300,000 insurance payoff. Prior to that payoff, Adam had been a supporter of Susan and stated on several occasion that he believed Susan had acted in self defense.

In 2001, Susan Polk filed for divorce.

Conviction

Susan Polk has been convicted of second-degree murder for the October 13, 2002, death of her husband in a cottage on the couple's $3 million estate in Orinda, California. She faces 16 years to life in prison.

Prosecutors argued that the killing of Felix Polk was a cold, calculated attempt by his wife to gain control of his multi-million dollar estate. When Susan Polk permitted others to represent her, the defense attorneys argued that Susan Polk had long been controlled, abused and battered by her husband, and she acted in self-defense when he flew into a rage and attacked her. Susan's former defense attorney, Daniel Horowitz, claimed that she had long been a battered wife under the physical and emotional control of her husband.

Trial

Susan Polk was originally released on bail, however it was subsequently revoked. Polk has remained in custody since that time.

The trial began on October 17, 2005, but was declared a mistrial, because of the slaying of Pamela Vitale, the wife of her lead attorney, Daniel Horowitz.

On January 20, 2006, a judge removed her lawyer Daniel Horowitz after he said he had a conflict of interest. On January 31, 2006, after a two-hour hearing, Judge Laurel Brady set Polk's trial date for February 27, 2006.

On February 27, 2006, jury selection began in a jury assembly room where 300 prospective jurors arrived. Judge Laurel Brady has said the trial may last as long as 2 1/2 months.

On May 24, 2006, Eli Polk was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor battery against an ex-girlfriend, violating a restraining order and violating probation in connection with two arrests in March at the home where his father died.

On May 25, 2006, the prosecutor began cross-examining Polk.

On June 12, 2006, both sides gave their closing arguments to the jury.

On June 16, 2006, Susan Polk was found guilty of second-degree murder. The jury would later comment that neither Susan Polk nor her son Eli were credible witnesses.

On January 30, 2007, a MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; MOTION TO MODIFY VERDICT was filed in the Contra Costa Superior Court. The motion claims that Judge Laurel Brady allowed prosecutor Paul Sequeira to illegally dismiss prospective jurors because they were women; that members of the jury were prejudiced against Polk because of the extensive media coverage of the case; that there is evidence that the jurors were exposed to media coverage of the trial, and in fact, one juror told reporters immediately after the verdict was read, "Sometimes the media was making stuff up;" that Brady improperly reprimanded Polk in front of jurors and appeared to favor the prosecution; that Judge Brady failed to instruct the jury on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter; and that Polk's right to represent herself was hampered by her treatment at the jail and by the claim that on several occasions she was prevented from consulting with an attorney and her legal assistant, etc, etc, etc.

On February 23, 2007, the MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; MOTION TO MODIFY VERDICT was argued by both the defense and prosecution. The motion was denied, and Mrs. Polk was immediately sentenced to 16 years to life.

"May 7th, 2006

Honorable Judge Laurel Brady California Superior Court, Contra Costa County A.F. Bray Building, Department 31 1020 Ward Street Martinez, California 94553

Dear Judge Brady:

In view of the hostile behavior of the prosecuting attorney following my testimony on Thursday, culminating in his refusal to proceed with cross-examination, I am hereby withdrawing from any further participation in People v. Polk.

It is regrettable that I was unable to completely fulfill my designated role in the case during the week I had set aside for it. It was my privilege to appear in your courtroom, and none of what follows is in any way intended to reflect unfavorably upon the Court. I hold Mr. Sequeira completely responsible for last week’s debacle. Perhaps he has forgotten that justice isn’t always about winning.

Allow me please to review the facts as I see them: Susan Polk is on trial for murder, because Dr. Brian Peterson, a county contractor, saw fit to present a distortion of the autopsy evidence to the Coroner, to the District Attorney’s office, to the Grand Jury, and ultimately to the trier of fact in a murder trial. Not only has Mrs. Polk been indicted on false pretenses, but she has also suffered from protracted false imprisonment and estrangement from her sons as a result of Dr. Peterson’s false representations.

My purpose last week was to provide a thorough exposition of the physical evidence, in sufficient detail and clarity that everyone…. Including the jury, the Court, the prosecuting attorney, the media and ultimately the public…. Would not merely find a reasonable doubt as to the charges, but would actually see that the evidence fully exonerates Mrs. Polk. Moreover I wanted everyone to see this for themselves, rather than asking them to rely upon the opinion of one expert witness versus that of another. I have no doubt that I succeeded in this. However, normal procedure would have afforded me opportunity to further solidify my testimony by responding to cross-examination questions about the evidence, and would have allowed Mr. Sequeira an opportunity to try to create doubts about the testimony, if he chose to do so. He chose not to; instead, he created a dramatic smokescreen about some discovery issues that have no bearing on the physical evidence, and certainly have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that an innocent woman is being held on false charges.

Mr. Sequeira is in an untenable situation, so I understand why he would want to postpone dealing with the evidence. He must either take the unconscionable path of pursuing a conviction, or the politically impossible path of dropping the charges and, in effect, admitting to the taxpayers that it was all a big mistake. I don’t expect him to do either, I expect him to opt for the more astute strategy of provoking a mistrial, one which can be blamed on a defense expert and will not reflect adversely on the Court or the District Attorney’s office. Thus the innocent defendant goes free, while the county saves face. This is what I believe Mr. Sequeira is leading up to. Whether this is proper or not, it is certainly clever, and potentially may serve the cause of justice.

Given the corner Mr. Sequeira has been backed me into I have no choice but to withdraw from the case. Here are my reasons:

1) I set aside one week for this trial, and I have other obligations that will not allow me to return to Martinez before the trial wraps up. The nature of the evidence is not responsible for the delay; neither, certainly, are Susan Polk or myself. The Court decided not to allow postponement of testimony of a local, captive witness in consideration of two out-of-state witnesses, and the prosecuting attorney elected to launch into histrionics over irrelevant discovery issues, rather than getting on with his cross-examination. I have made myself very adequately available to this trial, in good faith, but legally binding obligations elsewhere will now not allow me to make myself further available than I already have. 2) Mr. Sequeira has placed me in an impossible situation by goading the Court into ordering me to perform a feat I had already declared myself-under oath-unable to perform, and without giving me any further opportunity to protest. This forces me to choose to either fail to comply with a court directive, or to make compliance moot by removing myself from the case. 3) Knowing the difficulties of an in-demand expert witness making himself available for a trial halfway across the country, Mr. Sequeira is attempting to circumvent fairness in these proceedings by delaying cross-examination of a key witness sufficiently long enough to make further participation not feasible. The issue he has concocted to disguise this tactic is altogether phony. In the first place, the contention that I relied upon anyone’s statement in arriving at my opinions is completely out of line, as none of the opinions to which I testified had anything whatsoever to do with whether or not Susan Polk’s version of the events was truthful. Indeed, I was expressly forbidden to express any such opinions. My statement that her version of the events was fully consistent with the autopsy evidence was a statement of fact, not opinion. Were this not so, you would have ordered it stricken from the record. Moreover whatever discovery materials Mr. Sequeira desired were a matter for the pre-trail period, and it was highly improper for him to decline to ask for anything and then attempt to portray me as a secretive, uncooperative witness for not providing it. My concerns that Mr. Sequeira would have resorted to dirty tricks to prevent me from testifying, had he known how decisively exculpatory my testimony would be, were evidently very well founded. Nor am I under any legal obligation to bring anything whatsoever to court if nothing has been subpoenaed or at least requested, particularly when everything upon which I relied in reaching my opinions, or about which I intend to testify, is already on exhibit. I have never brought anything with me to the witness stand, and this has never been questioned. Mr. Sequeira’s contrivance constitutes obstruction of justice. His insistence on irrelevant, non-discoverable and previously un-requested materials, going to the extreme of demanding that the court send me across the country to retrieve said materials, under threat that he will not proceed with cross-examination otherwise, constitutes an unwarranted delay in the proceedings and an abuse of criminal procedure. All of this is obviously designed to deprive the defendant of the benefit of a key expert witness. Mr. Sequeira’s machinations are improper and underhanded, and it causes me great concern to see that they have been tolerated to such an extent by the Court. 4) Finally, I am outraged by Dr. Peterson’s irresponsible, unprofessional and, to my way of thinking, immoral conduct. For your information, I also have detailed knowledge of cases in which Dr. Peterson or members of his group have participated in covering up gross medical or nursing care negligence, wrongful death and, in one instance, even homicide. I refrained from discussing his connection with these incidents on the stand, because I wanted to maintain the focus on the evidence in the Polk case. The evidence of deceitful presentation of evidence by Dr. Peterson in this present case is conclusive, and I am profoundly disturbed about it. I consider this man to be nothing less than a public menace. Combining this highly charged issue with having a defendant without proper counsel, I find myself feeling and acting more like an advocate than an impassive witness. Mr. Sequeira’s exceptionally belligerent manner really brought this out. Since I believe that any hint of advocacy or emotionality on my part could adversely impact upon Mrs. Polk’s defense, I believe I ought to withdraw, even if it were only on these grounds alone.

In summary, I have compelling reasons for resigning from this process. I signed on to help all parties concerned arrive at a just conclusion to these proceedings, and I believe I have done my best in this regard. However now that Mr. Sequeira has contrived to make my record-keeping the central issue instead of continuing to prosecute the case based on the facts in evidence, my continued participation can only be an impediment to the cause’ of justice… and this is morally unacceptable to me. Moreover his stalling tactics have caused me to run out of time to participate in this trial.

I will not be answering my phone this week, since I intend to make myself inaccessible to the media until this matter is resolved, and also I must travel, but any message left on my answering machine by your office will receive the most prompt attention possible. If you still want the file, then of course I will send it, but I cannot imagine it will be of much use if I am not available to testify as to its contents.

Respectfully yours, John T. Cooper, M.D."

External links

Catherine Crier's book on the Polk case: "Final Analysis: The Untold Story of the Susan Polk Murder Caselink title

Categories: