The high-profile murder trial of Robert Durst, the eccentric New York real estate heir, took a dramatic turn Tuesday as a Los Angeles judge rejected a defense motion for a mistrial. The request, stemming from a three-month hiatus due to the coronavirus pandemic, was denied by Judge Mark Windham, who asserted that Durst’s right to a fair trial remained intact. The trial, focusing on the 2000 murder of Susan Berman, is slated to resume next month in a larger Inglewood courthouse to accommodate social distancing protocols.
Defense attorney David Chesnoff argued vehemently via teleconference that the pandemic jeopardized Durst’s legal representation. Citing health concerns, Chesnoff explained that Durst’s lead counsel, Dick DeGuerin, along with two other lawyers on the defense team, were advised against appearing in court due to their age and pre-existing health conditions. The limitations imposed by the virus on jail visits further hampered DeGuerin’s ability to prepare Durst for his potential testimony, a crucial aspect of the defense strategy.
Health Risks and Trial Logistics in the Age of COVID-19
Chesnoff further emphasized the health risks posed by the courtroom environment. He expressed concern about the potential exposure of jurors, court staff, prosecutors, and spectators to COVID-19 within the courthouse, including restrooms, elevators, and the cafeteria. The health of Durst himself, a 77-year-old with a history of serious health issues, was also highlighted as a significant concern. Chesnoff pointed out the irony of Durst potentially contracting the virus after months of isolation, forced to return to a public setting for the trial.
Deputy District Attorney John Lewin countered these arguments, suggesting the defense was engaging in a strategic maneuver to secure a retrial. He dismissed the defense’s concerns as insincere, implying their true motive was to delay the proceedings. Judge Windham, taking precautions himself by wearing a face covering and using hand sanitizer, acknowledged the seriousness of the health risks. He emphasized his reluctance to repeat the arduous jury selection process, which had previously taken several weeks to assemble a panel of 23, including 11 alternates. He stated that the trial would proceed cautiously, prioritizing the safety of all involved.
The Accusations Against Robert Durst: A Complex Web of Suspicion
At the heart of this case is the accusation that Durst murdered Susan Berman, his longtime confidante, in her Los Angeles home. Prosecutors allege that Durst killed Berman to prevent her from revealing information about the disappearance of his first wife, Kathleen Durst, in 1982. While Durst denies involvement in both deaths, the defense has admitted he penned a cryptic note alerting authorities to Berman’s “cadaver.” Kathleen Durst’s body has never been found, and Durst has never been charged in connection with her disappearance.
Legal Maneuvering and the Path Forward
The prosecution’s strategy includes the use of videotaped testimony from older witnesses unable to travel due to the pandemic. Chesnoff highlighted the apparent contradiction in allowing such testimony while restricting Durst’s legal team. Lewin, however, speculated that if Durst chooses not to testify, the defense might later use this as grounds for a mistrial or an appeal if he’s convicted.
The Trial’s Uncertain Future
Judge Windham scheduled a hearing for July 17 to assess the need for further delays. If the trial proceeds as planned, it will recommence on July 27. The judge indicated he might dedicate time to address any juror concerns about continuing their service, allowing attorneys to present one-hour statements to the jury and potentially rereading previous testimony to refresh their recollections. The case against Robert Durst remains fraught with complexities, further compounded by the unprecedented challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic.
The Stakes: Justice Delayed or Justice Denied?
The Durst case has captivated public attention for decades, fueled by documentaries, investigations, and Durst’s own eccentric behavior. The trial’s resumption carries significant weight, promising potential closure for the families of the victims while navigating the uncharted territory of conducting a high-profile criminal trial during a global pandemic. The court’s decisions will set a precedent for balancing the demands of justice with the imperative of public health. The world watches as the legal drama unfolds, eager to see whether justice, albeit delayed, will ultimately be served.
