Closing Arguments Zero In On Accuser’s Motive

When the state’s key witness accused Tashaun Fair of killing Mitchell Dubey, what reason would he have to lie?

Prosecutor Jack P. Doyle and defense attorney Tom Ullmann gave different answers to that question Wednesday morning as they spoke their final words to 12 jurors weighing Fair’s fate.

Fair, who’s 20, is accused of fatally shooting Dubey, a popular 23-year-old downtown bike mechanic, during a robbery in Dubey’s Newhallville home on March 24, 2011. Wednesday marked the eighth day of the murder trial in Judge Jon C. Blue’s fourth-floor courtroom in state Superior Court on Church Street.

Both sides agree that the whole case hinges on the testimony of one key witness, who goes by the nickname Paulio. Paulio has thrown both sides for a loop throughout the trial: After a dramatic recantation and attempted escape from a police van, Paulio Monday returned to his prior accusation that he accompanied Fair to Dubey’s house, then waited outside while Fair went in the house, fired a bullet, and fled.

Fair took the stand Tuesday and denied any involvement in the crime. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of felony murder, first-degree robbery, home invasion, and carrying a pistol without a permit.

Jurors, who were set to begin deliberating shortly after 2 p.m., are now left to ponder whom to believe, Fair or Paulio.

“I Care About That Guy’s Father”

In his closing remarks Wednesday, Doyle stood straight-backed in a black suit in front of the jury. He directed jurors’ attention to a Power-Point he had prepared. He conceded that the state has no DNA, fingerprints or other physical evidence linking Fair to the crime. Eyewitnesses inside Dubey’s home could not ID the killer because he had his face mostly covered.

“The state’s case should come down to why you should believe [Paulio],” Doyle said. He asked jurors to consider a key question: ​“What motive have you seen for [Paulio] to falsely accuse this defendant?”

Doyle argued that Paulio came forward, without any ​“deal” from the state and at great risk to his own safety, based on his own good conscience.

Doyle said a videotaped statement showed in court on Friday reveals that Paulio’s accusation came from his heart and good conscience.

Doyle said Paulio’s initial denial that he was at the scene, and his reluctance to name Fair as the killer, stemmed only from his fear of retribution. In the interview, Paulio states several times that he’s reluctant to make an accusation because ​“they’ll look at me as a snitch,” Doyle noted.

Doyle added that Paulio testified Monday that Fair’s friends have threatened to kill him if he testifies in court against Fair.

“He has to be labeled as a snitch or a rat for the rest of his life,” Doyle said. ​“He’s going to have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.”

Doyle argued that despite that risk, Paulio felt compelled to come forward, perhaps because of his empathy as a new father.

“There are points where [Paulio] is crying” in the videotaped statement, Doyle said.

“I’m telling you all because I care,” because ​“I got feelings and I care about that guy’s father,” Paulio told police, according to Doyle.

A state prosecutor testified that Paulio was given no special reward for his cooperation with police when the state tossed out several other cases Paulio faced in Superior Court, Doyle said.

“There wasn’t” a deal, Doyle asserted. But even if he did get one, Paulio has already been sentenced on those other cases. ​“It’s over. What kind of incentive would he have to come in here and tell you” that Fair did the crime?

Doyle added that Paulio could easily have testified Monday that Fair didn’t do the crime.

“Unreliable”

Ullmann, the chief public defender in New Haven, approached the jury using a cane, as he has for the duration of the trial, due to a fracture in his left knee. He read from handwritten notes.

Ullmann dropped his original theory, which was that Paulio had motive to ID Fair as the killer because Paulio actually killed Dubey himself. That theory fell apart when it became clear that Paulio, who’s dark-skinned and very thin, does not fit the description of the killer that eyewitnesses gave police.

Instead, Ullmann argued that Paulio’s motive for blaming Fair stemmed from being threatened and offered promises by police, and because he needed to get out of trouble with police.

In the videotaped interview with police, Paulio ​“was bullied and threatened,” Ullmann said.

“The threats were real,” Ullmann said. Cops claimed they had witnesses who placed Paulio at the scene of the crime; they told him he could go to jail for life if he didn’t testify as a witness. They also threatened ​“you’ll never see your child,” who was due to be born in just three months.

“Some could look at the interrogation as appeals to better conscience,” Ullmann said. The defense attorney, however, said he doesn’t see it that way. The extent of Paulio’s moral compass, Ullmann said, is ​“how do I get out” of trouble?

Ullmann proposed that Paulio testified Monday against Fair because Paulio had just gotten himself in trouble by attempting to flee a police van that was transporting him from court Friday to lockup at 1 Union Ave.

“If he tries to escape and gets caught, he’ll do a 180 in court and testify” against Fair ​“because he knows he’s in trouble,” Ullmann argued.

Tashaun v. Paulio

Ullmann gave two main arguments in his client’s defense: Fair is a more trustworthy witness than Paulio. And the description eyewitnesses gave police doesn’t match Fair.

Ullmann opened by calling the murder ​“a tragedy of immense proportions.” Someone went into the house and shot an innocent man dead — but ​“that someone is not Tashaun Fair.”

Ullmann called Paulio ​“totally unreliable and untrustworthy.” Paulio has ​“total contempt of court proceedings,” Ullmann said. He ​“slumps in the chair. He doesn’t look you in the eye.” He ​“disregards and defies court orders,” as evidenced by his many failure-to-appear charges on other cases, and his refusal to comply with a subpoena to show up in court last week until cops dragged him in.

Ullmann noted that Paulio flip-flopped on his testimony in court. On Thursday, he testified that ​“I wasn’t at the crime scene” and that he doesn’t even know Fair. On Monday, he said he was at the scene and saw Fair go into the house.

On the stand, Paulio ​“smirks,” Ullmann said. ​“He could care less about anything.”

Further, he said, three facts Paulio gave police don’t match eyewitness accounts: First, Paulio said he saw a ​“fat, white man” go into Dubey’s home at 29 Bassett St. shortly before the crime. Second, he said Fair told him he saw a woman ​“going up the stairs” in the house. Third, Paulio said Fair told him Dubey ​“came at” the shooter. Those three facts don’t fit, Ullmann argued: Dubey’s friends testified that everyone was in the house for two hours before the crime took place. One female roommate testified that she was upstairs at the time of the shooting, and entered the staircase only after the shot was fired. And Dubey didn’t ​“come at” the shooter; he put his hands up, sat on a couch, and said, ​“Dude, put the gun down,” according to eyewitness testimony.

Doyle later replied that it’s possible the shooter could have seen the female roommate on the stairs; she could have been too stressed by the situation to recall exactly when she walked downstairs.

Ullmann posited that perhaps the police told Paulio details of the crime during early interviews, including a two-hour interview that was not taped and whose only record is less than one page of notes.

Ullmann asked jurors to consider an important event in their lives, such as hiring a babysitter to watch their kids. ​“If you had to make a decision to hire” Paulio for the job, ​“you wouldn’t do it,” he argued — he’s not to be trusted.

Fair, by contrast, was ​“respectful” on the stand, ​“listened carefully,” and ​“testified with dignity in the face of hostility,” Ullmann argued. 

He called Fair a true victim of the injustice, an innocent man who should never have been arrested or brought to trial — the kind of man for whom public defenders are put on this earth to fight.

“Tashaun Fair is the reason we do what we do,” he said.

“Look At That Nose”

Ullmann argued that Fair did not do the crime because the descriptions Dubey’s friends and roommates gave do not match Fair.

They described the shooter as ​“heavy-set,” 220 to 250 pounds, between 27 and 31 years old, and having ​“freckles” or ​“mottled skin” or ​“bad skin.”

Fair, by contrast, was 18 at the time of the killing and weighs 160 today. (It’s not clear how much he weighed two years ago.) And Ullmann spent much time during the trial trying to show Fair does not have freckles.

“Whether it’s freckles, speckles, mottled skin … Tashaun Fair doesn’t have it,” Ullmann said.

Doyle countered that an assistant police chief who knows Fair’s face testified he believes Fair has inconsistent pigmentation in his face. And, Doyle argued, other parts of the description of the shooter do match Fair. The description did say the shooter was light-skinned and about 6 feet tall, both of which match Fair.

Doyle directed jurors to compare Fair to a sketch a police detective drew of the shooter based on an eyewitness’s description.

“Look at those eyebrows, look at those eyes, look at that nose — then look at the defendant,” Doyle said, turning dramatically towards Fair.

Fair, wearing a dark suit, a tie and a green dress shirt, looked back with the same calm composure he has maintained for the duration of the trial.

The Ruby Theory

In his remarks, Ullmann called Doyle ​“desperate” for proposing a new theory Tuesday. Doyle’s theory goes like this: Fair ​“freaked” and pulled the trigger because he heard Dubey’s roommates calling back their dog, Ruby — the same name as Fair’s mother, a name Fair has tattooed on his neck.

Doyle unveiled the theory during a heated cross-examination of Fair.

“How desperate did Mr. Doyle get during his cross-examination?” Ullmann asked the jury Tuesday. Just ​“because [Fair’s] mother’s name is Ruby, and because he has a tattoo of Ruby” on his neck, ​“he fired the gun? … That’s grasping for straws.”

Doyle later called the theory reasonable. He said when Fair went into the house to commit a robbery, Fair ​“didn’t anticipate there would be so many people; didn’t anticipate there would be a dog; didn’t anticipate the dog would be Ruby.”

He said Fair had tried to disguise himself by pulling his T‑shirt over his neck, where he has the tattoo of his mom’s name, Ruby. When he heard someone call to the dog, ​“Ruby, get back,” he panicked, Doyle posited.

“That’s my mother’s name. Where did that come from?” Fair must have thought, Doyle hypothesized. ​“I’m trying to disguise me. Did they see this big Ruby on the side of my neck?”

“That’s a logical inference that needs to be drawn,” Doyle said.

Doyle also cast doubt over Fair’s alibi, that he was in his home playing Playstation 3 at the time of the crime. His house at the time was just a block away from Dubey’s. Fair said his mom came into his room when she heard a noise and asked what was going on.

“Who can verify that?” Doyle asked. If it’s true, Doyle argued, why didn’t the defense bring Fair’s mom to the stand?

(The answer is that Fair’s mom had told police that she had heard rumors of her son’s involvement in the crime; the defense didn’t want her to be asked about that on the stand.)

Doyle brought tears from the victim’s supporters — and, it appeared, from one female juror — as he described the last moments of Dubey’s life.

He recounted how Dubey’s friend ​“watched his best friend get shot down in front of him,” then crouched on the floor next to Dubey, who was shot in the chest. The best friend and another roommate held Dubey and told him, ​“I love you, hang on.”

Doyle said ​“not every case is going to have a plethora of witnesses coming in,” but Paulio’s testimony is solid enough to prove that Fair did the crime.

Doyle asked the jury to find Fair guilty of all four charges: felony murder, first-degree robbery, home invasion, and carrying a pistol without a permit.

Jurors — five men and seven women — were set to begin deliberating after a lunch break. To find Fair guilty, they should be ​“firmly convinced” of his guilt beyond a ​“reasonable doubt,” Judge Blue directed the jury during 40 minutes of instructions.

If they have a ​“reasonable doubt” that Fair did the crime, Blue said, they should find him ​“not guilty.”

Previous Independent stories on the case:
• Fair Testifies He Didn’t Kill Dubey
• Star Witness Describes Death Threat
• Video Reveals Police Powers Of Persuasion
• Top Cop Testifies He Never Forgot That Face
• The Sketch Doesn’t Match
• 2 Families, 2 Worlds — & A Quest For Justice
• Does Tashaun Fair Have Freckles?
• State Seeks Informant’s Name; Feds Seek To Hide It
• Defense Attorney Files Speedy Trial Motion In Mitch Dubey Murder Case
• Freckles, FBI Reports Spark ​“Innocent” Claim
• Supporters Emerge For Dubey Murder Suspect
• Dubey’s Killer Allegedly Panicked, Shot