RALEIGH -- The family of Elena Shapiro, a ballerina killed in a 2009 car wreck, and Raymond Cook, the doctor on trial for causing the crash, have a weekend of uncertainty ahead.
The jury in the second-degree murder case - seven women and five men - deliberated for three hours Friday afternoon before the judge sent them home for the day. They are to return Monday and continue to weigh the evidence from the two-week trial.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed in passionate closing arguments Friday that the crash ending Shapiro's life on Sept. 11, 2009, was "no accident."
They differed, though, on whether Cook was guilty of second-degree murder.
Jeff Cruden, the assistant district attorney who shepherded the case through trial, tried to persuade jurors that Cook acted with malice when he consumed alcohol and got behind the wheel of his Mercedes in an inebriated state. Cruden contended that Cook then zipped along North Raleigh streets at speeds of 75 to 100 miles per hour before slamming into the back of Shapiro's silver Hyundai as she turned from Lead Mine Road onto Strickland Road.
"He's a doctor, which comes with certain privileges, for sure," Cruden said. "But it also comes with certain responsibilities. This is not an accident. This is inevitable."
Defense attorney Roger Smith Jr., who got the final argument, urged jurors to try to set aside the sadness they feel for the Shapiro family and to rise above their anger at Cook. They must judge the case by the law, Smith said.
"The laws apply to all of us," he said. "It doesn't matter whether you're unemployed or a doctor."
Smith acknowledged that Cook was impaired that night and traveled at higher than the posted speed limit.
"This was no accident," Smith said. "Of course, this wasn't an accident. This was not murder, either."
As jurors continue their deliberations Monday morning, their debate could turn on the definition of "malice."
"We are two weeks into a trial, and it all turns on one word," Cruden said in his 80-minute argument.
To prove malice under law, prosecutors must show that the defendant intended to drive in a reckless manner that reflected knowledge that injury or death would likely result.
The jury's options
Judge Osmond Smith, in his instructions to the jury, offered several options.
Jurors were asked to weigh second-degree murder, which includes an element of malice and the possibility of a 91/2- to 24-year prison sentence. They also could find the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter, bringing a lesser prison sentence and possibly probation. Or they could find Cook not guilty.
The prosecutors were the only ones to put on evidence in the two-week trial. By not calling witnesses, the defense team assured itself the final argument with jurors.
The defense challenged blood tests done in the hospital the night of the accident that showed Cook's blood-alcohol content as 0.24, three times the illegal limit of 0.08. The hospital lab tested a more concentrated blood serum, not the whole blood that law enforcement tested. Law enforcement tests showed Cook's blood-alcohol content at 0.19.
"We contend right now he was impaired," Smith said. "This man was impaired, but I want you folks to analyze this case on the real facts."
Who saw him drunk?
But was Cook stumbling drunk and staggering, as prosecutors contended?
Only two people, Smith said, testified that Cook was stumbling and staggering at Piper's Tavern, the last place he was before the collision. Piper's, Smith pointed out, was packed that night.
"Where are all the people to confirm stumbling and staggering?" Smith asked.
Cruden argued that Cook had not asked in the hours after the accident whether Shapiro was alive. He said Cook's efforts to resuscitate the aspiring dancer were something a judge could consider in sentencing and offer relief there.
But Smith argued that Cook is not a murderer.
"The burden remains on the state to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a malicious killing," Smith said.
