Susan Polk: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:09, 25 December 2007 editBOTijo (talk \| contribs)Bots398,373 editsm +DEFAULTSORT← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:19, 29 August 2024 edit undoGreenC bot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,756 edits Move 1 url. Wayback Medic 2.5 per WP:URLREQ#cbsnews.com/stories
(180 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|American woman convicted of second degree murder}}
	<!-- Image with unknown copyright status removed: ] -->
			'''Susan Polk''' (born '''Susan Mae Bolling''' in 1957) is an American woman convicted in June 2006 of ] for the 2002 death of her husband Dr. Frank "Felix" Polk.<ref name="Conviction">McKinley, Jesse. (June 17, 2006) . '']''. Retrieved 30-01-08.</ref><ref name="CBS5">CBS 5, San Francisco. (June 16, 2006) {{Webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071208062547/http://cbs5.com/local/susan.polk.2.443987.html \|date=2007-12-08 }} cbs5.com. Retrieved 30-01-08.</ref> Polk's trial, described by one correspondent as "circus-like", drew extensive media attention with its sensationalist elements.<ref name="Circus">AP. (June 16, 2006) CBS News. Retrieved 30-01-08.</ref><ref name="Lee">Lee, Henry K. (February 23, 2007). . '']''. Retrieved 31-01-08.</ref>
	'''Susan Polk''' (born '''Susan Mae Bolling''' in ]) was a housewife and mother of three who was convicted of murdering her husband, Dr. Frank "Felix" Polk. Dr. Polk was a prominent ] psychologist. He was found with numerous stab wounds in the pool house at the couple's upscale ] 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 ] agent) to elicit predictions of world events, including the attacks on the ], added to the sensationalism surrounding the case.

			Her case is featured on the show '']'', and the episode is titled "Deadly Desire".

	==Background==		==Background==
			Susan Polk met Dr. Polk, a psychotherapist, in 1972 when administrators at her high school recommended she see him to treat her panic attacks.<ref name="Circus"/><ref name="Pogash">Pogash, Carol. (September 18, 2 ''The New York Times''. Retrieved 30-01-08.</ref> Susan Polk later made the "undisputed" claim that Dr. Polk first had sex with her when she was 16 and still under his treatment, a violation of professional ethics in the relationship between therapist and patient, which is now illegal in California.<ref name="Pogash"/><ref name="Pogash2">Pogash, Carol. (June 15, 2003) {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060811194637/http://www.pogash.com/magazine.html \|date=2006-08-11 }}. Originally published in ''Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine''. Hosted at pogash.com. Retrieved 31-01-08.</ref> At the time, Dr. Polk had a wife and two children,<ref name="Pogash"/> but the couple divorced in 1982.<ref name="Pogash2"/>

			After graduating from high school, Polk attended Mills College and San Francisco State University, graduating magna cum laude. In 1982, she married Dr. Polk, who was then an instructor at the California Graduate School of Family Psychology and an occasional consultant as well as a private practitioner.<ref name="Pogash2"/> At the time of their wedding, Polk was age 24 and her husband age 50.<ref name="court">Sweetingham, Lisa. (February 23, 2007) {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080125112144/http://www.courttv.com/trials/polk/022307_sentencing_ctv.html \|date=2008-01-25 }} Court TV. Retrieved 31-01-08.</ref> During their marriage, the couple had three sons.<ref name="Crier">Tatko-Peterson, Ann. (March 9, 2007) . ''Oakland Tribune''. Hosted at bnet.com. Retrieved 31-01-08.</ref> In 2001, Susan Polk filed for divorce, a complicated and contentious proceeding during which each contacted police with allegations of domestic violence. When asked by police whether Ms. Polk had made threats or been violent, Mr. Polk said she hadn't.<ref name="Conviction"/><ref name="Pogash2"/><ref name="Sweet">Sweetingham, Lisa. (June 16, 2006) . CNN. Retrieved 31-01-08.</ref> In 2002, while Susan was living in Montana, Dr. Polk was able to petition the courts, ex parte, without providing Ms. Polk any form of official notice in advance. The courts then granted Dr. Polk sole custody of the couple's minor son Gabriel Polk and sharply reduced Susan's alimony. Dr. Polk also received sole possession of their house.<ref name="Dateline">Morrison, Keith. (May 19, 2007) ''Dateline NBC'' transcript. Hosted by msnbc.com. Retrieved 30-01-08.</ref>
	In 1972, Susan Bolling was living in Clayton Valley. A school counselor at ] in ], recommended that Susan see Felix Polk because she was cutting class.

			On Wednesday, October 9, Polk went to the home to retrieve her belongings and complete her dental procedure by having a permanent crown put on her tooth. On October 11, the eldest son Adam came home from UCLA to pick up his dog. On Sunday, October 13, Dr. Polk, Adam, and the youngest son Gabriel drove Adam and the dog back to UCLA. Dr. Polk and Gabriel returned home at around 9:30 pm. Dr. Polk, then 70, was found dead the next day, Monday, October 14, 2002.<ref name="Dateline"/>
	==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.

			==The trial==
	Susan went to ], an all-women's school nestled in the Oakland hills, before moving to ], from which she graduated. She stopped seeing Felix as a therapist, but the personal relationship continued.
			At trial, prosecutors sought a conviction of murder in the first degree, contending that Susan Polk planned the murder of her multimillionaire husband for money.<ref name="Circus"/> Susan Polk claimed self-defense, asserting that, after years of abuse, beginning with his therapy sessions, in which Dr. Polk performed "guided visualizations" (i.e., hypnosis), he brandished a kitchen knife against her.<ref name="Circus"/><ref name="Pogash2"/> She stated that she took control of the weapon and stabbed him instead.<ref name="Pogash"/> As an expert witness for the defense, ] Dr. John Cooper testified that Felix Polk's death was caused by heart disease and that his stab wounds were not life-threatening and were evidence that Susan Polk delivered them in self-defense.<ref>Dearen, Jason. (May 5, 2006) "Oakland Tribune". Retrieved 18/03/08.</ref><ref name="cooper">Court TV News. {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060712234703/http://www.courttv.com/trials/polk/docs/cooper.html?page=1 \|date=2006-07-12 }} courttv.com. Retrieved 18/03/08.</ref> Dr. Cooper failed to appear in court the following day to continue being cross-examined and to present documents he claimed to have received from Susan Polk, sending a written explanation to the judge.<ref name="cooper"/> He returned with the letters a week later to resume testimony.<ref>Dearen, Jeff. (May 16, 2006) ''Oakland Tribune''. Retrieved 17/05/08.</ref> Prosecuting attorneys dismissed Susan Polk's claim, arguing that she had no defensive wounds from her husband's alleged attack, which was disputed by expert testimony for the defense from Dr. Cooper.<ref name="Circus"/>

			The court was forced to declare a mistrial when ] of Susan Polk's then-counsel ] was murdered in an unrelated incident. Susan fired her attorneys to represent herself.<ref name="Sweet"/><ref name="Dateline"/> She supported her defense with allegations of a history of marital and professional misconduct, including claims that Dr. Felix Polk had drugged and raped her when she was a teenager, brainwashed the couple's children, and threatened to kill her if she tried to leave him.<ref name="Sweet"/> Susan Polk repeatedly requested a second mistrial, lodging accusations of conspiracy against the prosecutor and the judge.<ref name="Dateline"/>
	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).

			Each of Susan and Felix's children testified at the trial. The youngest son, Gabriel, who had found the body, testified that his mother had speculated about means of killing her husband in the weeks before his father's death.<ref name="Pogash"/> The oldest son, Adam, also testified against his mother, receiving widespread media coverage when he referred to her on the stand as "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs".<ref name="MSNBCAP">Associated Press. (June 16, 2006). . NBC News. Retrieved 31-01-08.</ref> The middle son, Eli, testified on Susan's behalf, that Felix was the aggressor, controller, manipulator and that he was responsible overall.<ref name="Sweet"/>
	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, including a statement to Judge Mary Anne O'Malley in court, that he believed Susan had acted in self defense.

			Jurors, obeying the judge's jury instruction order, disagreed that the crime was premeditated, finding her guilty of second degree murder.<ref name="Circus"/> Susan Polk was sentenced to prison for a term of 16 years to life. Her appeal was denied.<ref name="Dateline"/><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Susan-Polk-loses-appeal-in-husband-s-slaying-2376948.php\|title=Susan Polk loses appeal in husband's slaying\|date=2011-03-30}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/A117633.PDF\|title=FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.\|website=Findlaw}}</ref> Susan Polk was transferred to the California Institution for Women (CIW), a dorm-like prison, in Corona, California in December 2012, and she was eligible for parole in 2018. On May 29, 2019, Polk was removed from her parole hearing for being uncooperative, and she was denied parole. Polk will be eligible again in May 2029.
	In 2001, Susan Polk filed for divorce.

	== ~~Conviction~~ ==		==Further reading==
			*{{cite book \| last = Crier \| first = Catherine \| title = Final Analysis: The Untold Story of the Susan Polk Murder Case \| publisher = William Morrow \| date = February 20, 2007 \| url = https://archive.org/details/finalanalysisunt00cath \| isbn = 978-0-06-113452-4 }}
			*{{cite book \| last = Pogash \| first = Carol \| title = Seduced by Madness: The True Story of the Susan Polk Murder Case \| publisher = William Morrow \| date = May 29, 2007 \| url = https://archive.org/details/seducedbymadness00poga \| isbn = 978-0-06-114770-8 \| access-date = 2007-05-21 }}
			*{{cite book \| last = Smith \| first = Carlton \| title = Mind Games: The True Story of a Psychologist, His Wife, and a Brutal Murder \| publisher = St. Martin's True Crime \| date = July 31, 2007 \| url = https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Games-Psychologist-Brutal-Murder-ebook/dp/B003L1ZZS2/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=Mind+Games%3A+The+True+Story+of+a+Psychologist%2C+His+Wife%2C+and+a+Brutal+Murder&qid=1553463811&s=digital-text&sr=1-1-fkmrnull \| isbn = 978-0-312-93906-9}}

			==References==
	Susan Polk has been convicted of second-degree murder for the ], ], death of her husband in a cottage on the couple's $3 million estate in ]. She faces 16 years to life in prison.
			{{Reflist}}

			{{Authority control}}
	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, ], 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 ], ], but was declared a mistrial, because of the slaying of ], the wife of her lead attorney, ].

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

	On ], ], 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==
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*http://www.pogash.com/magazine.html
	*
	*
	*
	'''Catherine Crier's book on the Polk case: "Final Analysis: The Untold Story of the Susan Polk Murder Case'''

	{{DEFAULTSORT:Polk, Susan}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Polk, Susan}}
	]		]
	]		]
	]		]
			]
			]
			]
			]
			]
			]
			]
			]

Latest revision as of 20:19, 29 August 2024

American woman convicted of second degree murder

Susan Polk (born Susan Mae Bolling in 1957) is an American woman convicted in June 2006 of second degree (unpremeditated) murder for the 2002 death of her husband Dr. Frank "Felix" Polk. Polk's trial, described by one correspondent as "circus-like", drew extensive media attention with its sensationalist elements.

Her case is featured on the show Deadly Sins, and the episode is titled "Deadly Desire".

Background

Susan Polk met Dr. Polk, a psychotherapist, in 1972 when administrators at her high school recommended she see him to treat her panic attacks. Susan Polk later made the "undisputed" claim that Dr. Polk first had sex with her when she was 16 and still under his treatment, a violation of professional ethics in the relationship between therapist and patient, which is now illegal in California. At the time, Dr. Polk had a wife and two children, but the couple divorced in 1982.

After graduating from high school, Polk attended Mills College and San Francisco State University, graduating magna cum laude. In 1982, she married Dr. Polk, who was then an instructor at the California Graduate School of Family Psychology and an occasional consultant as well as a private practitioner. At the time of their wedding, Polk was age 24 and her husband age 50. During their marriage, the couple had three sons. In 2001, Susan Polk filed for divorce, a complicated and contentious proceeding during which each contacted police with allegations of domestic violence. When asked by police whether Ms. Polk had made threats or been violent, Mr. Polk said she hadn't. In 2002, while Susan was living in Montana, Dr. Polk was able to petition the courts, ex parte, without providing Ms. Polk any form of official notice in advance. The courts then granted Dr. Polk sole custody of the couple's minor son Gabriel Polk and sharply reduced Susan's alimony. Dr. Polk also received sole possession of their house.

On Wednesday, October 9, Polk went to the home to retrieve her belongings and complete her dental procedure by having a permanent crown put on her tooth. On October 11, the eldest son Adam came home from UCLA to pick up his dog. On Sunday, October 13, Dr. Polk, Adam, and the youngest son Gabriel drove Adam and the dog back to UCLA. Dr. Polk and Gabriel returned home at around 9:30 pm. Dr. Polk, then 70, was found dead the next day, Monday, October 14, 2002.

The trial

At trial, prosecutors sought a conviction of murder in the first degree, contending that Susan Polk planned the murder of her multimillionaire husband for money. Susan Polk claimed self-defense, asserting that, after years of abuse, beginning with his therapy sessions, in which Dr. Polk performed "guided visualizations" (i.e., hypnosis), he brandished a kitchen knife against her. She stated that she took control of the weapon and stabbed him instead. As an expert witness for the defense, forensic pathologist Dr. John Cooper testified that Felix Polk's death was caused by heart disease and that his stab wounds were not life-threatening and were evidence that Susan Polk delivered them in self-defense. Dr. Cooper failed to appear in court the following day to continue being cross-examined and to present documents he claimed to have received from Susan Polk, sending a written explanation to the judge. He returned with the letters a week later to resume testimony. Prosecuting attorneys dismissed Susan Polk's claim, arguing that she had no defensive wounds from her husband's alleged attack, which was disputed by expert testimony for the defense from Dr. Cooper.

The court was forced to declare a mistrial when the wife of Susan Polk's then-counsel Daniel Horowitz was murdered in an unrelated incident. Susan fired her attorneys to represent herself. She supported her defense with allegations of a history of marital and professional misconduct, including claims that Dr. Felix Polk had drugged and raped her when she was a teenager, brainwashed the couple's children, and threatened to kill her if she tried to leave him. Susan Polk repeatedly requested a second mistrial, lodging accusations of conspiracy against the prosecutor and the judge.

Each of Susan and Felix's children testified at the trial. The youngest son, Gabriel, who had found the body, testified that his mother had speculated about means of killing her husband in the weeks before his father's death. The oldest son, Adam, also testified against his mother, receiving widespread media coverage when he referred to her on the stand as "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs". The middle son, Eli, testified on Susan's behalf, that Felix was the aggressor, controller, manipulator and that he was responsible overall.

Jurors, obeying the judge's jury instruction order, disagreed that the crime was premeditated, finding her guilty of second degree murder. Susan Polk was sentenced to prison for a term of 16 years to life. Her appeal was denied. Susan Polk was transferred to the California Institution for Women (CIW), a dorm-like prison, in Corona, California in December 2012, and she was eligible for parole in 2018. On May 29, 2019, Polk was removed from her parole hearing for being uncooperative, and she was denied parole. Polk will be eligible again in May 2029.

References

^ McKinley, Jesse. (June 17, 2006) Conviction concludes bizarre trial for murder. The New York Times. Retrieved 30-01-08.
CBS 5, San Francisco. (June 16, 2006) Jurors find Susan Polk guilty Of 2nd Degree Murder Archived 2007-12-08 at the Wayback Machine cbs5.com. Retrieved 30-01-08.
^ AP. (June 16, 2006) Woman guilty of slaying husband-shrink CBS News. Retrieved 30-01-08.
Lee, Henry K. (February 23, 2007). Murderer Susan Polk loses bid for new trial. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 31-01-08.
^ Pogash, Carol. (September 18, 2 A California murder case raises troubling issues The New York Times. Retrieved 30-01-08.
^ Pogash, Carol. (June 15, 2003) No ordinary murder Archived 2006-08-11 at the Wayback Machine. Originally published in Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine. Hosted at pogash.com. Retrieved 31-01-08.
Sweetingham, Lisa. (February 23, 2007) Susan Polk, defiant at sentencing, gets maximum term for fatally stabbing her husband Archived 2008-01-25 at the Wayback Machine Court TV. Retrieved 31-01-08.
Tatko-Peterson, Ann. (March 9, 2007) New Crier book dissects Polk murder case. Oakland Tribune. Hosted at bnet.com. Retrieved 31-01-08.
^ Sweetingham, Lisa. (June 16, 2006) Polk guilty of killing therapist husband. CNN. Retrieved 31-01-08.
^ Morrison, Keith. (May 19, 2007) A murder trial that grew more bizarre with every turn Dateline NBC transcript. Hosted by msnbc.com. Retrieved 30-01-08.
Dearen, Jason. (May 5, 2006) Expert witness: Polk not guilty "Oakland Tribune". Retrieved 18/03/08.
^ Court TV News. Dr. John Cooper's letter to the judge Archived 2006-07-12 at the Wayback Machine courttv.com. Retrieved 18/03/08.
Dearen, Jeff. (May 16, 2006) Missing pathologist returns Oakland Tribune. Retrieved 17/05/08.
Associated Press. (June 16, 2006). Jury finds Polk guilty of 2nd-degree murder. NBC News. Retrieved 31-01-08.
"Susan Polk loses appeal in husband's slaying". 2011-03-30.
"FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions" (PDF). Findlaw.

Categories:

Latest revision as of 20:19, 29 August 2024

Background

The trial

Further reading

References