WOODLAND, CA – The domestic violence trial of Harry Henry Stanley saw final arguments and went to the jury Monday morning at Yolo County Superior Court.
Stanley is facing three felony charges: threatening a crime with intent to terrorize, inflicting corporal injury on spouse/cohabitant and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, with an enhancement for circumstances in aggravation.
The Davis Vanguard has been following this case and last covered the second full day of trial which consisted of testimony from a medical professional who indicated there was “no physical evidence of neck strangulation that could have directly led to the death of the alleged victim, Stanley’s wife, Megan Marie Duncanson, days before she was found dead in their shared home.”
Deputy District Attorney Michelle Serafin began her closing argument charging Stanley should be found guilty on all three counts beyond a reasonable doubt. DDA Serafin also touched on the theme of power and control, stating, “Understanding this dynamic of power and control is important in understanding this case.”
DDA Serafin first covered the LinkedIn messages between Duncanson and her friend, one specifically written the morning of the 911 call where Duncanson writes, “I wanted to be strong for him. I was too weak and selfish and scared. Strong in all the wrong ways. I know I gave everything I could, it was far from perfect, but it was genuinely what I could give.”
DDA Serafin explained how this was a woman who wanted to be what her husband wanted her to be and “convinces her failure to attain whatever he’s looking for is her fault…that the beatings are her fault.”
DDA Serafin also went over how sorry Duncanson was about seeking help, both with the 911 call and the medical personnel where she told the nurse she “deserved to be assaulted because her husband told her she deserved it and she loves him, if only she loved him more then this would not have happened.”
Overall, DDA Serafin said Duncanson would not lie to her friends on the LinkedIn messages, the 911 call, or the medical personnel. DDA Serafin then played the 911 call recording for the jury, where Duncanson states, “My husband…is threatening to kill me.”
DDA Serafin told the jury, “That threat placed (Duncanson) in sustained fear and that fear was reasonable.”
DDA Serafin continued the sustained fear argument by referencing messages Duncanson had with the 911 dispatcher where she stated multiple times, “Please don’t tell him I called” and “Please say it was the neighbors.”
DDA Serafin cited Duncanson’s comments made to the 911 dispatcher about having a concussion from her husband beating her for days, telling the medical staff about her injuries, the marriage license which proved her marriage to Stanley, and lastly, photographs which were projected for the jury displaying bruises over her arms.
The prosecutor moved onto the last charge, assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, about which she emphasized “this charge pertains specifically to Mr. Stanley grabbing her (Duncanson’s) neck.”
DDA Serafin explained, “For this charge, an injury is not required…it’s just a movement towards what could cause great bodily injury.” DDA Serafin stated the evidence of the force applied to her neck was the neck pain comments and her inability to swallow.
DDA Serafin said the accused knew that the act was an application of force and was “doing it on purpose and (knew) what he’s doing (grabbing) grab her by the neck to make her think she’s gonna die but not kill her at that moment.”
The prosecutor concluded, “You will soon begin deliberating and this case and this charge and each element of each charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt I’m asking you find Mr. Stanley guilty on all three counts.”
Deputy Public Defender Monica Brushia confirmed, in her closing arguments, the elements for Count 2 pertaining to inflicting corporal injury on spouse/cohabitant were all met beyond a reasonable doubt stating, “No one saw Mr. Stanley harm (Duncanson) but what you have is she called for help and had the bruising on her arms to back her statement.”
Yet, DPD Brushia, when referencing Count 1 (threatening a crime with intent to terrorize) stated there were six elements that needed to be proved, and, “Where was that evidence? Did anyone testify to that?”
DPD Brushia noted DDA Serafin cited the 911 call and text messages with the dispatcher as evidence but claimed Duncanson’s statement “my husband is going to kill me” may have been “her belief through the domestic violence.”
DPD Brushia noted the 911 dispatcher’s line of questions to Duncanson did not include asking her when her husband specifically made the statement.
DPD Brushia also questioned Duncanson’s text message where she writes “he says I deserve to die because I am a vial worm,” noting, “That’s mean but is that a threat?”
DPD Brushia examined element 4, which stated that the threat needed to be clear, immediate, and specific, insisting, “That message tells us nothing. How is he going to kill her? When is he going to kill her? By what means? Again where was the oral threat?”
When referring to text messages between Duncanson and her friend, DPD Brushia maintained the text messages were approximately two hours before the 911 phone call, and didn’t satisfy element 4.
“If this was a clear, immediate threat, why would she tell her friend ‘don’t do anything for me unless I ask’…there was no immediacy.”
DPD Brushia ended her argument on Count 1 reminding the jury to “follow the law even when it gets hard.”
Regarding Count 3 (assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury), the public defender said, “What evidence is there of strangulation? Did she text her friends she had been strangled? No. Did she text the 911 operator saying she had been strangled? No.”
Brushia recalled to the jurors testimony from witnesses who saw no bruising around Duncanson’s neck and citing the CT scan conducted at the hospital which showed nothing out of the ordinary to Duncanson’s neck.
Duncanson’s friend stated, noted the DPD, Duncanson had trouble drinking a smoothie she made for her, but charged that was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
DPD Brushia challenged other statements, including when Duncanson’s friend said she had to assist Megan out of the car and up the stairs…”yet we saw her on video running to the officer… at another point she walked or ran from the fire department…at the hospital with no swelling on her legs and was pacing and walking with no issue. It shows us there are differences to what Duncanson says happens and what the physical evidence proves what happened.”
DPD Brushia concluded her argument reminding the jury there was no evidence of strangulation and this was a difficult case but the jurors must follow the law and they must only convict based on the evidence presented.
DDA Serafin told the jurors “you don’t have to have physical evidence,” and reminded the jurors of the dynamics of the relationship Duncanson was in and her desperation to receive help as “that threat (to kill her) was so immediate and specific.”
DDA Serafin concluded, “Circumstantial evidence is not second-class evidence” and a specific oral threat to kill can be proven beyond reasonable doubt by circumstantial evidence.
Judge Dyer then sent jurors off to deliberate.
