Today Michael Griffin was sentenced to 55 years, minus 5 for “a probationary term” (more on this below). Given that he can receive two days off for every day served with good behavior, including the previous year of jail time, he’ll presumably be in prison for at least 24 more years. He plans to appeal the conviction.

Today’s proceedings did not take place in front of a jury—the only people present were friends and family of Michael Griffin, and (by my count) two Don supporters—so some of what was said wasn’t carefully explained and clarified as it had been during the trial. This means 1) that I didn’t fully understand all that was said, and 2) that I might need to add to or correct some of the following.

The sentencing began at 10:30 as lawyers from both sides testified that they had read and received the “pre-sentencing investigation report.” Michael hadn’t gotten a copy until arriving at the courtroom, and had been reading through it for the previous 20 minutes or so. After a few small clarifications about facts contained in this report, none of whose contents was read aloud, the defense lawyer (just one this time, I believe his name is Collins) called a variety of character witnesses to the stand to present mitigating circumstances. On being individually sworn in, most everyone said the same things: Michael Griffin was a peaceful person who avoided conflict; Michael Griffin was nonviolent; Michael Griffin was a good friend and a nice person. The first two witnesses, Corey Mullis and Madison McLean (both male), testified (in quiet voices) to having known Michael since middle school and having been long-time friends. Mullis presented the court with a handmade card that Michael made for him, using colored pencils, which was then passed around to the prosecution and judge as evidence of Michael’s good character. He testified that Michael was “for the most part a very level-headed individual,” implying near the end that Michael had lost but was trying to “find his way.” McLean, a former roommate of Michael’s, said that he couldn’t think of a time when Michael was pushy or violent, adding that he was nonviolent “to a fault”—whatever that means. The point seemed to be that Michael always tried to talk things through; much of the testimony overall had to do with “problems” and “solutions,” and Michael’s even-handed way of handling both.

A few bits of testimony stood out. The third witness called, Zachary Wagner, was dressed in a suit and had a small infant in tow. He testified that Michael—who has been “thrown some curveballs” in life—had been a best friend since middle school, was basically good, etc.; but then he added some of the following. I admit that this first point was fuzzy, but it had to do with the question of “premeditation,” and knives. The murder was not premeditated. He and Michael were “knife enthusiasts” for whom knives are considered “not weapons, but tools.” He then added something about the “philosophical significance” of knives, but I didn’t fully grasp his point and he moved on pretty quickly. Next he tried to show that Michael was a good father, but his approach was odd. He said something to this effect: “as many of you know, several people refused to be here today in support of Michael, claiming that if Michael had been thinking of his son he never would have done what he did.” Wagner said he agreed with them: Michael (a loving father) wasn’t thinking of his son when he killed Don; otherwise, it wouldn’t have happened. So: Michael is a terrific dad because (or despite the fact that?) he wasn’t thinking of his son that day. Like I said, the logic here was pretty strange.

The next witness was Michael’s sister, Rita Griffin, who after her testimony the prosecution lawyers thanked for her cooperation and general amiableness during the months leading up to, and during, the trial. She was asked by the defense to describe what it was like growing up with Michael as her brother. She immediately began crying, telling the judge that Michael was “amazing, amazing,” “the best brother anyone could ever have.” But then an odd thing happened: she launched into a story about being picked on by a bully when she was a kid in school, and how one day this bully came up to her, looking “roughed up,” to apologize. She later learned that Michael had confronted the kid, telling him if he ever needed to get to Rita he would have to go through him first. I for one found it bizarre that she would tell a story like this—about Michael’s having beaten up, or threatened, someone—when the whole point of this was to declare again and again that Michael was a nonviolent person always seeking “peaceful solutions.” No one batted an eye, though, and the judge later stated that she had heard the witnesses collectively testify to Michael’s calm level-headedness. Apparently the violence at the heart of Rita’s anecdote registered not at all.

Rita also talked about Michael’s time in Iraq, and a boy he “took a special liking to” there, who later died “in Michael’s arms.” We were reminded that Michael was temporarily deafened in this same incident, and carries shrapnel in his leg; we were told that on his return to the states Michael sought out the parents of the dead boy to deliver their son’s purple heart. Rita said that she knows her brother is “caring and compassionate” and will remain so no matter what happens; he will, she said, “do the right thing.”

Michael himself was next. The shackles clinked audibly as he made his way to the stand and was sworn in, dressed not in a suit this time but prison orange. He actually seemed somewhat testy toward his own lawyer, who began by asking him about a former teacher who had come to visit him a few times since his arrest. “He believes you are remorseful, correct?” his lawyer asked. “Yes.” But when the lawyer asked Michael to clarify, he responded, “What do you want me to say?” Surely he had planned his statement. The moment felt tense. It did, however, allow the lawyer to respond: “Whatever is in your heart.”

What was in his heart was, according to Michael, the following (I’m paraphrasing somewhat): “As we all learn in life, you cannot take back what you do; you can’t travel back into the past and change what’s happened there. Sometimes the paths you choose aren’t the right ones, and you make mistakes; but that doesn’t change who you are. I can’t begin to explain how I feel about what I’ve done. It’s with a heavy heart that I tell you I cannot justify my actions, have no excuses. But I won’t change. I won’t become ‘negative,’ even in prison, which I hear is a pretty unpleasant place. Some people don’t look for the positive in these kinds of situations, they let the system turn them into something they aren’t. I know who I am, I know what I am. I am a good person. That won’t change.”

Judge: are you remorseful?
Michael (tearing up): Yes. When you take a life you can’t take it back. People wish they could change the past (etc, etc.) but the best thing I can do to “make up for that mistake is to be a better person than I was.”

Darcie Winkle then called on Mara Miller, the only witness to take the stand on Don’s behalf. Some of Don’s supporters were under the impression that there would be other witnesses, or that prepared statements (from family members or friends) would be read, but that didn’t happen. I had assumed that one needed to be asked to testify for Don, but it seems that we were meant to volunteer. I was saddened to realize that Mara was the one person who had done so. Luckily, she read from a well-prepared written statement that covered most all of the bases (she will likely post some or all of that statement to this site, so only highlights appear below).

• Don was not vindictive, and we mustn’t be, either. Don must have cared very deeply for Michael Griffin to have become so close to him, and, she added, to have been so thoroughly hoodwinked by him.
• We cannot forget that the crime was “unusually vicious” and that Michael remains “very dangerous to others”: as his own friends testified, this act was “out of character” for him, which makes him “exceptionally dangerous”; who can say what might set him off the next time, or whether he is capable of doing the same kind of thing again?
• Do not forget that Don is the victim here. And he was, at the time of his death, emotionally and physically vulnerable. Mara said that she and Don often talked about the things that worried Don, bothered him or made him angry; the long and short of it is that Don was the one person proven to be non-adversarial here, a gentle soul who strived to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King and Buddhism, and who had a personal distaste for confrontational encounters. He didn’t want Mara defending him, she said, even after finding himself at the receiving end of racist behavior at the hands of mutual acquaintances.
• Don hated rejection. He would not have had sex with anyone who resisted. He would have gotten out of any situation if he felt the other person(s) involved were unwilling or uninterested.
• Ella Torrey, Don’s “adoptive” mother—a woman, now in her eighties, who took an early interest in Don, helping him get into good schools, into college, someone who spoke to Don daily until his death—told Mara to say that she “loved Don as one of [her] own children, and remains proud of his extraordinary achievements.” Ella has lost two children already; Don’s death made a third.
• Lastly, Mara began to discuss the impact Don’s death had on the Bloomington community, and on the LGBT community in particular, describing the anxieties caused by homophobia in general and acts of homophobic violence specifically. Can people kill with impunity gay or black men who scare them? she asked. At this point the defense objected that this was no place for “soapbox” lectures on cultural politics, and after he repeated the word “soapbox” several times for dramatic emphasis, the judge agreed (the prosecution did not, but were overruled). Mara was supposed to limit herself to describing how Don’s death affected her “personally,” the defense argued; the judge said that she cannot use the sentence to “send a message to a community.” Mara concluded with a brief discussion of the loss to the literary community, who will not get to read the books he never finished and never wrote.

At this point the legal language got a bit murky. Someone named “Ms. Anderson” was mentioned by the defense as having proposed a sentencing recommendation (we weren’t told what it was). The prosecution, led by Darcie Winkle, argued for the sentence as defined by the State, a “minimum presumptive” sentence of 55 years. Winkle reminded the judge of the aggravating circumstances: delinquent behavior in Michael’s past (unclear what this was) that, though minor, was still a factor; but most importantly, the “manner” and extreme “heinousness” of the murder itself, with 22 stab wounds, four of them possibly fatal, defensive wounds on Don’s hands, Don’s nearly-severed finger.

The judge then went through both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances once again, speaking directly to Michael. She listed out several more in the first category than in the second, even saying at one point that she believed that Don’s severed finger and hand wounds were consistent with Michael’s testimony of what happened—in other words, that they were wounds Don got by grabbing Michaels’ knife rather than by trying to fight him off (!). She implied that since Michael’s juvenile delinquencies were “minor” they too counted as mitigating circumstances (I found this extremely hard to swallow; can anyone explain?). She said she believed that Michael “probably” suffered from an “emotional disorder or disturbance” since returning from Iraq, adding, it “appears you may have substance abuse problems.” Apparently the judge’s own sensibilities on such matters turn them from unproven possibilities into mitigating circumstances (not sure why). She also spoke at length of the mitigating circumstance of Michael’s “honorable service to his country,” his military career, his purple heart.

The sentence came down to this: the minimum sentence possible was 45 years (taking mitigating circumstances into account), the maximum (with aggravation) 65 years, with 55 as the ordinary sentence given. The judge sentenced Michael to 55 years, with 5 suspended for drug/alcohol rehab and/or therapies necessary for re-entry into society. Here’s where I failed to understand exactly what happened: is the sentence reduced 5 years based on the understanding that Michael will be ordered to seek treatment (at the end of, or during, incarceration), and if so, why 5 years? Is he being ordered to seek 5 years of treatment? What does it mean to say that the “probationary term is appropriate on release for treatment,” and is this a term of 5 years? Like I said, I wasn’t quite clear on this. But Michael was sentenced to 50 years.

The judge then reminded Michael of his automatic right to appeal the court’s decision within 30 days, first to the Court of Appeals and then to the IN Supreme Court. Michael stated that he would appeal. The judge was still talking to Michael and his lawyer as the prosecution, and everyone else, began shuffling without fanfare out of the courtroom.

If I might be allowed my own “soapbox” moment, I would like to add that it continues to dishearten me every time I am reminded of how much emphasis was throughout this ordeal placed on something called “the personal.” That is: when Don first died, we were advised to mourn not collectively but privately, discreetly; when the trial began, we were assured by community leaders that “Don’s friends” would be in attendance, on the assumption (one assumes) that this is all one should expect; when Mara attempted to describe the larger impact of Don’s death on groups and individuals who did not know him personally, yet were and are affected by his killing, she was reminded (and the judge agreed) that this was no place to discuss such matters, that she should testify only to her own private grief. I suppose in the last instance there may have been legal reasons for making that call. Yet I would urge anyone who reads this blog, and who thinks, now or later on, about Don’s death and life, to remember what that celebrated thing called “community” is for: it is for showing up for people who are not your friends; it is for turning out even when the cause isn’t personally threatening to you and yours; it is for coalition-building, for finding and seeking out common ground with those who are not our mirror images, not our heroes and anointed saints, those we may never know, sometimes those we do not much like. It is for remembering that in order to be greater than the sum of our parts we must do what we can, when we can, for people without membership in our inner circles. There is tremendous value in the “impersonal.” It is called “community”: a thing most worth being a part of in those times when the losses grieved for and defended against are not merely our own.

A couple of thoughts as this all winds down. One seems fairly important. Of all the local news stories you have read, can you find A SINGLE ONE that mentions the fact that Michael Griffin said he does not remember Don assaulting him? This seems an important detail, and one that the Herald Times and other outlets have an absolute duty to report. It is our local media that the national media taps for its info, which means people around the country are simply assuming that this was a well-supported allegation.

My second thought is how extraordinary it is to me that people here sat side by side in the small courtroom, perfectly polite to each other, while hoping for different verdicts. I’ve never seen a murder trial before where the ’sides’ weren’t separated. And it seems fitting, given the number of people who knew and liked both parties, and given the atmosphere in Bloomington. It does seem possible to hold different opinions about ‘issues’ here without personal animosity.

We received a call shortly after 11 pm tonight that the jury had reached a verdict. So we got into the car and headed down to the justice building–just as they read their decision: Guilty of Murder.

One of Don’s friends described the car ride to the courtroom as the “longest ride of their lives” and it was a bit surreal…navigating through throngs of drunken undergrads partying for “Little 500″ week who were completely unaware of the other ‘big event’ here or the significance of that moment. The streets around the justice building itself were eerily calm, lit mostly by the large news trucks parked on the block.

Prosecutors stop for a picture directly after verdict was read, about 11:30 pm on 4/14/2011.

Don's friend and a prosecution character witness Mara Miller speaks to reporters directly after the verdict.

Not too many people made it back there on such notice, but there were some. A few people in the courtroom, presumably Griffin’s family members, screamed. Minutes later, after most reporters dispersed, the jurors silently exited the justice building, escorted by security through the mostly-vacant nearby streets. As jurors passed, a few people clapped for them and shouted “Thank You.”

it seems all that is left is whether jurors recognize that just about all violent crimes have anger and many other feelings involved. that the dividing line between murder and manslaughter is certainly not ‘feelings’.

“Sometimes death means death.” These are the words Michael Griffin spoke to his girlfriend Jessa after he killed Don Belton, and they are the words Prosecutor Darcie Winkle used to open her closing arguments at the end of the trial.

Griffin was referring to the tarot card reading he gave Don on Christmas Day 2009, when he pulled the ‘death’ card and Belton became concerned. Griffin said he tried to re-assure Don that the cards aren’t always literal, that the death card can mean change or transformation. Two days later he would enter Don Belton’s home and stab him repeatedly.

Today the state presented its case for why it had proven murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It then went on to talk about why it had successfully *disproven* beyond a reasonable doubt that there were mitigating ’sudden heat’ factors to lessen the conviction from murder to manslaughter.

The state’s evidence:

For ‘murder’, the state had to prove–
1) Michael Griffin
2) Knowingly
3) Killed
4) Donald Belton

The above really weren’t all that difficult. Michael himself testified it was him, autopsy and friends positively identified Don, and Don’s DNA is on Michael Griffin’s knife.

The state did spend some time talking about the “knowingly” part of the crime, during which it also tried to emphasize the amount of time Griffin had to think about everything before he went over to Belton’s house.

Use your common sense, said prosecutor Darcie Winkle. Have you ever done something repetitively 22 times and not known it? Autopsy shows that there were 22 stab wounds, 4 of which independently would have been fatal. Many of the wounds appeared to be directed at key places on the body to cause death. One chest wound by the artery shows that the knife was plunged in, *twisted*, and pulled back out. There was an attempt at slashing his throat. And there was a wound to the back of the liver. Michael Griffin stabbed Don in the back.

She noted that Griffin deliberately selected this large knife before leaving his house, was trained in how to use it, and was stronger than Don–he didn’t even need it should a physical confrontation arise. When he got to Belton’s house he deliberately parked blocks away near an alley on a street that had plenty of off-street parking, to go to a house that had a driveway. He was not going there just to talk.

When he arrived, Griffin testified, Don smiled at him. Invited him in. Asked how he was doing. Got him a glass of water. Griffin followed Don to the kitchen, where the stabbings began.After the killing, Griffin wiped his knife on Don’s pants, threw his clothes away, returned some videos, got some water at Bloomingfoods, thought about how to cover up what he’d done, decided to leave a voice mail message for Don so that the police wouldn’t think it was him. Winkle said all of this points to Griffin knowing what he was doing.

Let’s also walk through the details, she said. Why is it that Michael Griffin remembers every little detail before and after the alleged sexual assault and subsequent killing, but nothing about the events themselves?

Michael himself does not claim to remember any kind of sex with Don Belton or any assault, Winkle reminded the jury. “Now he says (the allegation) is because of what (his girlfriend) Jessa was saying,” said Winkle. And by her own testimony she was the most intoxicated of them all.

Using a PowerPoint presentation based on Griffin’s testimony (and some police interviews, which defense successfully objected to), Winkle showed that, before the alleged sexual assault on Dec 25th, Michael remembers:

*he was not drunk at dinner
*he played ‘Apples to Apples’–a game that requires intellectual engagement–and did quite well at it
*he did a Tarot card reading for Don
*he remembers how much Don was drinking
*remembers where Don was sitting
*remembers what everyone was wearing

..and suddenly, doesn’t remember anything that happened shortly after that.

After the alleged assault, Michael remembers having coffee with Don, he remembers his girlfriend dropping Don at home, and then he remembers having sex with his girlfriend 5 times. Winkle noted that he never called the police or reported the assault or sought medical attention. He washed the sheets where the alleged assault took place, thereby destroying any possible evidence. He remembers telling his sister about the assault, although his sister testified that he didn’t.

Winkle’s next slide showed that Before the murder on Dec 27th, Michael remembers:
*parking the car
*encountering Don
*Don taking a phone call
*being offered water
*what they talked about
*he remembers being pushed
*he remembers pulling the knife
*he remembers the exact hand with which Don tried to grab the knife

then–Nothing. Winkle’s “Murder” slide was blank, trying to demonstrate that it was a little too convenient to suddenly forget everything. Then, “Poof,” said Winkle, “the minute he leaves Don’s house he gets his memory back.”

Directly after the murder, Griffin remembers:
*cleaning his knife on Don’s pants
*returning videos
*getting water
*etc etc etc

To address “sudden heat” specifically the state emphasized that too much time had passed between the alleged assault and the confrontation for sudden heat to be related to the events of Dec 25. The ’sudden heat’ should be judged, Winkle said, based upon the events of Dec 27.

Sudden Heat is defined as a mental state sufficent to obscure the judgment of an ‘ordinary person’ that would render the defendant incapable of ‘cool reflection’ prior to acting.

“[Griffin] told you he took that time,” Winkle reminded jurors. In the days after the alleged assault, he got to go on a scenic drive. He had breakfast. He met up with friends. He went for a hike with his dog. “He told you he took time to process it,” said Winkle. “He told you he didn’t want to do anything rash.”

Then, said Winkle, *he* decided to seek Don out. He knew Don was going to Hawaii–he didn’t have to see him if he didn’t want to. He thought about what knife to bring. He told Jessa not to come with him. He went to the house angry.

Griffin was also trained to use that knife against insurgents and trained to react calmly in all kinds of volatile situations, said Winkle. She told jurors she was certain that insurgents in Iraq would have attempted to agitate him and fight back, and yet he left that war without harming anyone. And if he had really not meant to stab Don 22 times, she said, why didn’t he call 911 upon realizing what he had done?

If the ’sudden heat’ was provoked by Don pushing Michael on Dec 27, said Winkle, is that really how it works? I push you, you push me, “and now I get to stab you 22 times?”

The state did not get into previous testimony about Michael and Jessa’s sexual threesomes and the like. The idea was not to disprove any rape allegation but to stick to the legal case for murder.

* * * * *
After a very strong defense presentation yesterday with an emotional, likeable Michael Griffin on the stand, Defense closing arguments today did not go so well. There was perhaps a useful reminder that the jury gets to determine the facts and the law in the case according to the instructions given. Some of the closing sought to simply insult people. There was the final swipe at Don Belton. There was what appeared to be an attempt to appeal to any possible ‘town vs. gown’ divides in the jury, with an initial comment from Collins that he did not have ‘all the fancy electronic stuff’ (a screen and slideshow) that the prosecution did, followed by a mockery of the autopsy doctor’s credentials, who ‘probably didn’t think of himself as an ordinary person,’ but who would definitely claim to be an ordinary person if he were faced with what Griffin faced.

Some of the closing said it didn’t make sense for the prosecution to ask jurors to believe only some of the things Griffin said. Collins said Griffin voluntarily offered info about the crime that “he didn’t have to tell anybody”–and we are supposed to believe that, but not believe what he said happened on Dec 25 or Dec 27.

To support heat of passion, Collins pointed to the number of times Belton was stabbed. “22 times—Gee, could that invoke any thoughts of anger, passion, or rage?”

Collins also said that if this were a woman claiming sexual assault we would never be having a murder trial.

Then Collins attempted to tell a personal story of when he was in the Marines. The prosecution objected, and they sidebarred outside the courtroom. Clearly flustered, Collins never got to tell his story but he did say this: He knows where Griffin is coming from, and when you’re in a situation like he was in with Don Belton on Dec 27, “The [Marines] training just kicks in. You just react. That’s what happened Dec 27. And that’s what Michael is trying to tell you.”

* * * *
The state had the final word, with Winkle saying it was absolutely “not true” that a woman would not be facing murder charges if she stabbed her alleged rapist 22 times. Think of all the women–and men–who are victims of sexual assault, she said, and did not stab their attacker. Think of all the marines walking amongst you, trying to re-adjust to society, she said, who have not resorted to violence.

From Defense Attorney David Collins today in his closing arguments for why Michael Griffin deserved manslaughter:

“Even good people can do bad things. That’s what we have here.
We never said Don Belton was a bad person. What he did was bad.”

* * * *

I would like to reiterate that no evidence was presented to show that Michael Griffin was sexually assaulted by Don. Michael claims he remembers nothing and got all of his information from his girlfriend. Girlfriend says she was the drunkest of all of them and blacked out several times.

In addition to voluntary manslaughter, the defense yesterday also asked the judge to consider involuntary manslaughter and *battery* as possible convictions on which to instruct the jury. The prosecution appeared shocked and off-guard. Defense named some case law to support their claim, prosecution said they had not prepared any case law because it never occurred to them that someone would actually try to put these defenses on the table for a crime like this.

The judge gave the prosecution a little time to argue against this. This morning we are supposed to learn whether, indeed, lesser crimes like ‘battery’ will be on the table.

looks like they took it off the table already—judge this morning denied ‘involuntary manslaughter’ and battery did not seem to come up during jury instructions.

…I’d like to know. On day one of the trial, the defense says that if it raises a new issue in order to qualify for a lesser conviction, the burden is on the state to *disprove* this. Judge Harper yesterday said the event that triggered a possible “sudden heat” defense was Don’s alleged push/shove in response to Griffin grabbing his shoulders. Is this what the state has to disprove?

Key themes of this trial

Tomorrow is probably the last day. Shortest murder trial I’ve ever seen. Below are some key themes as reported by our note-takers at the trial.

1) the ‘age difference’ between Don and Michael—raised by the defense. They are trying to emphasize the angle that it was somehow inappropriate for a 50-something person to be friends with 25-year-olds. In cross examination of Don’s character witnesses, the defense repeatedly asked for witnesses’ ages and then made a point to say it ‘made sense’ for them to be friends due to being age-appropriate peers.

Many of us in Bloomington have all kinds of cross-generational friendships, so it’s not clear why prosecution did not want jurors to hear from these examples or perhaps even hear from other younger people who had healthy relationships with Don and other older people. Nevertheless the defense is trying everything it can to raise questions about Don’s character.

2) Jessa’s role –> raised by the defense as well as the prosecution. Griffin’s girlfriend is proving to be a key figure in this case. It is she who claims to remember seeing Don and Michael having sex at her house, in between moments when she had blacked out. Michael does not remember anything happening between himself and Don.

3) Don as a predator–> raised by the defense. Ties in to #1. In cross-examination of one of Don’s character witnesses, the defense noted that the witness said Don was not a violent person. Would her opinion change, defense wanted to know, if she knew that Don had non-consensual sex with a person half his age. The witness said Don was not capable of that, and defense reminded her about JOHN WAYNE GAYCY (and how none of Gacy’s circle was aware of his dark side either). Comparing a slain English professor to a notorious child molester and killer = CLASSY!!

4) Nobody really knew Don. –raised by defense. A *very* clever moment came when Michael was describing confronting Don at Don’s house. Michael had put his arms on Don and Don reportedly pushed him away, then Michael brandished his knife to ‘keep a distance’ between them. What the coroner says are ‘defensive wounds’ on Don’s hands, Michael says are the result of Don trying to grab the knife by the blade. Such an aggressive outburst from Don, said Michael, took him by surprise. I’m paraphrasing here–but essentially this suddenly aggressive Don was ‘not the Don I knew’ according to Michael.

In many instances Michael deliberately made a point to predict and agree with what the character witnesses would later say about Don being a good person. And in this instance he simultaneously attempted to pre-emptively invalidate those testimonies, because he was here to say that none of us could have predicted this side of Don that he saw.

5) PTSD.–> raised (but not raised) by the defense. It’s not explicit—and maybe that’s because they could not get an official diagnosis to work in their favor—but the defense is introducing all kinds of subtle post-war trauma hints, including Michael’s inability to remember anything, his “disassociation,” his training, and a well-written “insurgent” narrative designed to tug at heart strings. More on this later.

6) Michael’s inability to remember anything. Unclear who will get the most mileage out of this one. On one hand, we have a decorated marine in great physical shape whose only explanation for not being able to fend off someone twice his age and easily winded is that he was completely out of it. One minute he was having dinner with friends, the next minute he woke up with a sore butt.

Let’s be clear: Michael Griffin on the stand is not claiming to remember being assaulted at all. In fact he is claiming the opposite. “I felt drugged,” he essentially told the jury today, indirectly introducing yet another Don-as-predator possibility—Don the bartender of the evening who had control of the cocktails, we were reminded again and again without any specific accusation, just a planted seed. Then, a couple days later, the same amnesia, exactly at the most important moments, again. One minute he is arguing with Don, the next moment he realizes Don is on the ground in a pool of blood. Again, an indirect nod to PTSD, though they can’t actually come out and say it.

You’d have to be a major jerk not to feel sorry for Griffin, an emotional wreck on the stand, a guy who stands to never see his young son again, who seems genuinely remorseful for what he has done. There does seem to be some kind of larger script or strategy that he’s not always following, but if enough emotional identification is made with him it may not really matter.

In many cases this memory loss would be a sure win for the prosecution. It’s unclear, for instance, how Griffin managed to black out for both of the most important moments in this entire case, something not typically believed by jurors. There was also great discrepancy between his police interview –during which he claimed to remember being assaulted by Don and remember much of the killing–and his testimony today.

And finally, there was this bizarro exchange: The prosecution pointed out that in previous interviews, Michael remembered enough to say that during non-consensual anal sex, Don did not ejaculate in one encounter but did ejaculate in the other encounter. Today, however, Michael attributed that detail to Jessa. It was she who knew when Don did and did not ejaculate, and it was Michael who took her word for it (despite her testimony that she, too was basically unconscious).

7) ‘Alternative Lifestyles’ – Raised by defense as well as prosecution. In the early days of ‘gay panic’ a defendant would likely claim that a crisis of masculinity set him off. Such a claim is rarely so overt anymore. Here we are seeing a *little* of that –Michael says he was embarrassed to go to the police about his alleged assault due the masculine expectations of him. But mostly the defense rests on the faith that there is still enough societal bias to allow a sexual assault allegation to be enough to get someone off the hook for killing a gay man.

Still, defense attorneys are making it clear that the couple had ties to alternative communities including the LGBT community, although Jessa made *very* clear that despite the couple’s sexual encounters with other women, she was heterosexual.

Prosecutors certainly did not let jurors forget that the couple is sexually experimental. While I’d hate to see any verdict come down to bias against the sexually unconventional, it’s a strategy that probably makes sense, to remind people that this scenario would not be entirely off-limits for them as much of the public may have assumed until now. Certainly there are valid critiques of this strategy: if a woman was claiming rape, would she have ‘asked for it’ based upon her past behavior? But that analogy works the other way too: If a heterosexual had been killed two days after his alleged assault, how many defendants and defense attorneys would actually believe that incident was a viable defense?

8 ) HETEROSEXUALITY. Per the defense, Please do not view anyone involved in this case (except Don) as even the tiniest bit queer. If the couple’s past sexual behavior leaves any doubt whatsoever, please note that hours after Don allegedly assaulted Michael (after the three had coffee together), Michael and Jessa had sex FIVE TIMES, taking breathers only to lay around in bed and process what had happened with Don.

9 ) Mixed messages. Mostly from the defense. See above. Also interesting is that while Jessa and Michael are allowed to have sexual fluidity as heterosexuals, Don’s gay identity made him interested in one thing and one thing only.

At some point soon a transcript of our combined notes will follow—without commentary—for those who simply want to wade through the events of the past couple of days.

You should know that Judge Teresa Harper did agree with the defense request to provide jury instructions for the possibility of manslaughter, a lesser offense, based upon the evidence she heard. What’s interesting, however, is that the “sudden heat” she is allowing is not exactly related to the ’sexual assault’ allegation against Don but to the alleged ‘push’ that Don gave Michael after Michael (by his own testimony) put his hands on Don at Don’s house. The prosecution argued that even if it were to accept Michael’s version of events, it was Michael himself who acknowledged touching Don first during that confrontation. But Judge Harper said the testimony indicated that Griffin was “not angry” until Belton pushed back. So that’s the incident that allegedly caused the ‘heat of passion’ from Michael.

The residents of Bloomington, Indiana are deeply saddened by the loss of Don Belton, a gifted writer and a warm, generous man who was loved by everyone who met him.

A memorial service will be held Friday, January 15, at 5 p.m. at the Unitarian Universalist Church at 2120 North Fee Lane.

photo courtesy of IU

Belton, 53, was stabbed to death by a friend and was discovered in his own kitchen on the morning of December 28, 2009.

A candlelight vigil took place at the Courthouse Square, January 1 at 5 pm. Hundreds of people braved below-freezing temperatures to honor this extraordinary man. There are many pictures and coverage of the Don Belton vigil. The Pourhouse Cafe, which was closed for the holiday, donated hot drinks to participants.

Additional memorial services are being planned for the coming weeks.

We remember Don as a kind person and a caring person. He was hilariously funny and often the life of the party. He was excited to be in a new tenure-track position as a professor of creative writing at Indiana University, a job that finally gave him some security for the work he had been doing for years. Yet Don was someone who did not limit his relationships to campus: He preferred to be a real part of the entire community in which he lived, was a friend to many people of all backgrounds and ages, and in his short time in Bloomington had already planted some substantial roots.

Police have arrested 25-year-old Michael James Griffin in Belton’s death. This Web site hopes to honor Don Belton’s memory, but it’s also a place to monitor the progress of the criminal case and the media coverage of this horrific act of violence against a member of our community.

In these early days after Belton’s death, we are concerned by the way the story is taking shape*.  Hateful, racist, and homophobic remarks have been circulating on messaging boards under articles about Don’s murder. Don was African American and openly gay, and much of his creative work dealt with the intersections of those identities.

Griffin, who is to be arraigned on Wednesday, December 30, has alleged that Don Belton sexually assaulted him—twice—on Christmas day in Griffin’s home. Two days later, Griffin reportedly went to Don’s house—with his knife–to demand an apology. The Herald Times is reporting that When Belton would not accept Griffin’s accusations, Griffin stabbed him several times, “until he quit moving.”

While we do not wish to polarize the community, we do want law enforcement to understand that there is a long, established history of suspects invoking a claim of sexual assault and/or a “gay panic” defense to get charges reduced or to win over a jury when the victim was a gay person. This is a tactic that has had some success over the years but is increasingly being recognized for what it is: a defense that plays to societal bias and prejudice and is not a justifiable excuse for murder.

We are urging Bloomington Police and the District Attorney to reject any notion that Griffin’s claim of sexual assault weakens their case for murder.  Please note: we have been informed that Prosecutor Robert Miller is the best person to contact with info regarding the case. He can be reached at rtmiller@co.monroe.in.us and needs to hear from people who can testify to Don’s character and non-violent nature. Anyone with information about Don’s relationship with Michael Griffin should also contact Mr. Miller.

We aim to connect Bloomington law enforcement with prosecutors who have successfully tried similar cases and with anti-violence groups and advocates familiar with the nuances of this type of violence.  We also hope readers will write letters and make calls to local law enforcementurging them to remain vigilant about collecting evidence and exploring all possible motives, including a bias-related motive. By legal definition, Hate crimes do not only happen among strangers; often there is a pre-existing relationship and other factors involved. (it should be noted that Indiana does not have a hate crimes statute).

Our intent is to help educate Bloomington law enforcement so that they are in the best possible position to protect their citizens. If such scenarios become acceptable defenses for murder, then nobody in the Bloomington is safe. Our hearts go out to the family and loved ones of Michael Griffin. That Michael felt he had no other recourse but to commit murder is a tragedy.

We also hope to fill in the gaps about the real Don Belton. Because this crime occurred over the holidays when many people were out of town–and because Don had just moved to a new neighborhood a few blocks from where he used to live—early news articles seemed to suggest that he was not as well-known and well-loved as he was. Contributors to this site may recall and post their memories of Don here; they will show up underneath this informational page. Please note: updated news will appear under this post, so readers should scroll down for more recent info.

Some news articles also seem to imply that Don and Michael were simply acquaintances. The Herald Times recently published an article describing Don Belton and Michael Griffin as having a “brief, conflicted” relationship, an inference that is not supported by evidence.  Many people remember Michael and his girlfriend developing a strong bond with Don Belton as long ago as last summer. The couple, who sometimes did yard work for English faculty, often remarked to Don’s colleagues that they were fond of him and that he was becoming a good friend. This bond is demonstrated by the fact that they invited Don to their home on Christmas Day, and this type of committed friendship was typical of Don.

Additionally, reporting or providing sound bites that “an incident occurred” between the men on Christmas Day is not responsible journalism. Don is not here to tell his story. The media needs to be aware that how they report on this story is critical to ensuring that justice is done.  This is not the sensationalized story of a man who had a chance encounter with a random person. This is the story of a promising writer with many friends who was unfortunately betrayed by one of them.

[* as one commenter has mentioned, media coverage has become much more balanced recently. Though not always entirely accurate in summarizing friends' points of view, we appreciate the effort.]

The public should know that despite previous media reports, Don’s biological family is alive and has been reached thanks to the work of his local friends. The family loved Don very much and they are hoping to have their voices heard and stories told.

Hundreds of people braved the below-freezing temperatures on New Years Day to honor Don Belton at a candlelight vigil at the Monroe County Courthouse.

Below is some coverage of the event:

WTHR article about candlelight vigil

Herald Times photo gallery of vigil

Herald Times article about vigil

Channel 8 coverage

Thank you to everyone who attended. It was wonderful to see so many people there.

We think it’s worth noting that while Indiana University has issued a statement about Don Belton’s “death,” the university still has not publicly acknowledged that he has been killed.

A memorial service for Don Belton will be held Friday, January 15, at 5 p.m. at the Unitarian Universalist Church at 2120 North Fee Lane. Friends also hope to have an event in the spring that focuses exclusively on Don’s literary life.

The latest IU Newsroom release not only acknowledges that Don Belton was killed but features some great photos from the candlelight vigil.

As far as we know this comes through the university communications dept., not from any particular IU office.

Thank you ever so much to photographer Kip May for forwarding along these very recent photos of Don Belton.

Kip May took a series of pictures of Don on Dec 26, 2009. Don had met with Kip at Kip’s studio to learn how to use his brand new camera, which we imagine he had intended to take to Hawaii with him. Edited to add: according to a friend, Don purchased his camera for a new writing project he was working on. He was going to take pictures and write stories about them.

Don Belton on Dec 26, photo by Kip May

Don Belton, Dec 26, photo by Kip May

Although the IU English Dept. had already issued an early statement about Don, it has since posted a new and powerful statement on the front page of its web site which can be found here.

An official statement from the IU provost was released Monday, January 11:

Dear Faculty, Staff, and Students,

As the campus begins the new semester, we must acknowledge a terrible loss.
Some of you may just now be returning to campus after the holidays, and I am
very sad to inform you that the Indiana University community lost a dear
colleague during the semester break.

Don Belton, a faculty member in the English Department, was slain at his home
in Bloomington on December 27. (An arrest has been made in the case.)

In his relatively brief time at IUB, Professor Belton earned the admiration
and affection of his colleagues and students.

Continue Reading »

A few people have passed along or mentioned this Inside Higher Ed column, which discusses and references Don’s work, life, and death.

Also, there is a piece at historiann.com that discusses the response to Don’s death, the nuances that get lost in such responses, and the concept of ‘justice’ and what it may mean for Don.

There has been some smart discussion recently about what ‘Justice’ may mean for Don. This website is but one response, and hopefully will serve as a clearinghouse for various voices who were touched by Don. We recognize that speculation is simultaneously natural and somewhat pointless. We do believe the concept of ‘Justice’ is up for discussion and hope that we have in some small way, rather than reducing him to a ‘case’ or ’cause,’ allowed the real Don to shine through, regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

See you at the memorial on Friday.

A memorial service for Don Belton will be held tonight, January 15, at 5 p.m. at the Unitarian Universalist Church at 2120 North Fee Lane.

Sometimes, things go wrong.  But remember: you don’t have to go with them.

At Friday evening’s memorial service for Don Belton, held at the Bloomington, IN Unitarian Universalist Church, this advice sat at the center of a story relayed by Don’s brother, Wayne.

It was a story about the move to Hollins College—from which Don received an M.A. in 1982—and the unexpectedly long road it took to get there, with a sports car up front and a hitched U-Haul trailer (“full of Don’s myriad collection of books”) pulling up the rear.  Wayne, standing tall and elegant with a red handkerchief tucked snugly into his suit pocket, explained:  it might have been that someone gave them bad directions; it might have been that they followed good directions badly.  Either way, a six hour trip turned into one lasting “more than twelve,” with the remarkable result that it was deemed, by everyone, not just a memorable but even a pleasing, an enjoyable, a good trip.  What ought to have been a fiasco had turned into something other than.  Things go wrong.  But you?  You can go otherwise.

more about the memorial service…
Continue Reading »

This just in from commenter Andy:

Dear Family, Friends and Colleagues of Don Belton,

There is a tribute schedule for Philadelphia on Wednesday, February 24th from 6-8pm. The tribute with be held at The Moonstone Arts Center, 110A S. 13th Street, between Chestnut and Sansom Streets in Center City, along with the support of Art Sanctuary. Please show your support by spreading the word.

Thank You.

admin note: there may be other memorials planned for this area; we will update as information comes in.

In the coming weeks, we know that many of us will be reading Don’s work for the first time, or returning to our favorite of his pieces, or those we remember having liked but perhaps haven’t read lately.  A commenter wrote in to say that a group of people in San Francisco were gathering to read and discuss Don’s work together.  Another has issued a call for papers for a conference panel, to be devoted to Don’s work at next year’s MLA conference in Los Angeles.  Here in Bloomington, a public reading of Don’s work is planned for later in the semester.  This weekend, the Bloomington Pride Film Festival was dedicated to Don.

His picture appears in the Festival program, and yesterday afternoon (Saturday), a panel discussion convened, after a screening of the film “Out in the Silence,” so that we might come together as a community to consider how and why different GLBTQI people inhabit, thrive, survive, and die in small towns.

Things on this site have slowed down a bit, but I know that for many of us, Don is constantly in our passing, and more concentrated, thoughts.  I write to encourage you to share your thoughts of Don in the coming weeks, those that will bring both the memorial service in Philadelphia (see previous post) and Michael Griffin’s trial.  If you find yourself reading Don’s work and have thoughts to share, we invite you to share them here.  If you have thoughts about the way in which Don’s life and death resonate in larger conversations, other stories and circumstances, this might be a place to share those.

It is our hope that the site continues to be a place for vibrant conversation, even as the immediate shock, outrage, and grief over Don’s death begins to shade into some other complex set of feelings, attitudes, and emotions.  I know many of us still want to talk about Don, and remember him. But this site might also be a place for those of us who never met Don to meet him now–through his work.

If any of you have links to Don’s work or other materials available–either by Don or about Don’s literary legacy and life–I urge you to post them here (I have heard of an interview in which Don is a participant but haven’t been able to locate it).

With thanks to everyone who has already visited this site.

…Bloomington’s famous theater, the Buskirk-Chumley, featured pictures of Don in its glass window to publicize the fact that this year’s PRIDE film festival is dedicated to his memory.

Hundreds more people, including those who traveled from neighboring cities, got to learn about Don Belton this weekend.

I.U. English Department graduate student, Caroline Diggins, will be reading from Don’s essay “Voodoo for Charles” at the Black History Month Art Fair, Wed. Feb 10^th 2010 from 6:30-8:30 p.m. in the Indiana University Neal-Marshall Black Cultural Center Grand Hall.  The theme for this event is “Expressions of the Soul.”  For more information, contact the center at omsld@indiana.edu

Yesterday, Don’s family and friends were to have held a planned memorial service for Don.  I assume, and hope, that everything went off as expected, and that it was a memorable event.  If any of this site’s readers were able to attend and would like to share their impressions here, we would welcome news of that event, and any other information about upcoming events that celebrate Don’s life and work.

I want to add as a personal note that, yesterday, one of my current students, who was also one of Don’s former students, came by my office hours.  We were chatting about other things when the conversation turned to Don.  This particular student is having a difficult go of things this semester, in large part because she deeply misses Don, who was (no surprise) an important mentor for her, who encouraged her work and, as she put it, changed her life forever by being one of her favorite instructors.

At one point, this student wondered aloud whether or not Don considered her “just another student.”  This immediately struck me as impossible.  Did Don consider any of us “just another” anything?  I have to say that I really don’t think so, and I don’t think I am idealizing Don’s memory by saying so.  I don’t know that I would say it about many people, but it does seem to me that Don probably did celebrate his students, each and every one, a little more than most.   His absence on this campus continues to be felt.

We spoke with Prosecutor Bob Miller today to find out more about the pre-trial conference happening at the Monroe County Courthouse on Monday, March 1.

It is scheduled for 1 pm and is open to the public. Anyone attending should ask a bailiff which courtroom it is in.

A pretrial conference is “just a status conference,” according to Miller. “It’s unlikely that anything of import will transpire.”

Miller said the prosecutor’s office is still collecting evidence, going over the coroner’s report, and scheduling depositions, etc. “It’s still very early in the process,” he said.

Monday’s pretrial conference is simply ” a report to the court that we’re making progress,”
after which another conference will be set for about 6 weeks later.

Miller estimates that the entire conference will take no more than 5 minutes.

We wanted to alert you to the availability of some documents and websites of possible interest:

Most important, the resolution entered into the minutes of the Bloomington Faculty Council is available online:

http://www.indiana.edu/~bfc/docs/circulars/09-10/B11-2010.pdf

In addition, the following materials (rather dated at this point, but worth archiving here) appeared in the immediate weeks following Don’s death.  Those of us in Bloomington will likely want to keep these (mostly national) news organizations aware of the trial proceedings as they develop.

GLAAD blog:

http://glaadblog.org/2010/01/04/indiana-university-english-professor-don-belton-stabbed-and-killed-vigil-held-in-his-honor/

Democracy Now (clip):

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/4/headlines

NPR:

http://topics.npr.org/article/0bTs73FazQgPg

Midwest Marines:

http://midwestmarines.posterous.com/?tag=donbelton

A public reading of Don’s work has been tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, May 5th, from 6:00-9:00 p.m.  The reading is currently scheduled to take place on the IU campus in the Lilly Library.

The administrators of this site will post again to confirm the date and time of this reading as soon as they receive confirmation.  More details to follow.

Next week, Wed. May 5, there will be a Celebration of Don Belton’s Life in Literature. This event, organized by Don’s students and Christoph Irmscher, will be held in the Slocum Room of the LILLY LIBRARY, from 7-8 on the IU Bloomington campus.

The celebration will consist of readings from Don’s published and unpublished writing.  A reception will follow.

It’s a strange thing to just go on with life, as one has to. Although this site may not always have constant activity, Don remains on our minds and in our hearts. We did get a comment about a memorial service on April 29 in Shippensburg, but it had been designated as spam, and I wasn’t able to find it / publish it in time. If anyone there would like to email us or post about the service we’d love to see it.

A Marine veteran charged with stabbing Indiana University professor to death in his kitchen last December appeared in court Monday afternoon for a hearing that lasted just minutes.

Special Judge Vi Taliaferro presided over the pretrial hearing, during which nothing happened —except that a new hearing was set for 1:30 p.m. Aug. 16.

Thanks to Christoph Irmscher who sent this today:

An update on Don’s papers and books: We have sorted through Don’s vast library, which the family kindly left to the English Department. While the English Department will create its own library in Ballantine Hall devoted to his memory, the many, many first editions and signed copies in his library ( with moving dedications from bell hooks to Edmund White) are now at the Lilly Library, which has also independently acquired Don’s manuscripts, especially the invaluable journals he has left.

It will take a considerable amount of time to process and catalogue all these materials, of course, since there are just so many of them. But the good news is that everything will be publicly available at some point in the future. Thanks are due to Breon Mitchell, Director of the Lilly Library, who was involved in all the negotiations and spent days at the office of the the family’s representatives reading Don’s manuscripts ; Joel Silver, the Lilly’s Associate Director and Curator of Books; and Cherry Williams, the Lilly’s Curator of Manuscripts–as well as Alita Hornick and Alex Teschmacher, who helped me go through the books, and, of course, Ross Gay, who brought many of the boxes over to the Department in the first place.

It’s heartening to know that Don’s literary legacy will now be preserved at one of the finest Rare Books and Manuscripts libraries in the world. It’s also one of the most accessible ones: the Lilly’s collections are open to everyone, with or without a research agenda. Anyone with an ID can walk in and ask to see Don’s manuscripts once they’ve been treated conservatorially and catalogued. I will keep the users of this site updated when new information becomes available.

Christoph

Thanks to those who have let us know about some recent trial news.

Here is the latest, according to the Herald Times:

More than 20 news articles and reports on WTIU have so biased the public against a former Marine charged with killing an Indiana University English professor last year that the accused killer cannot get a fair trial in Monroe County.

That was the argument presented Wednesday morning in Monroe Circuit Court, where paralegal Noah Williams from the public defender’s office requested a change of venue, citing “inflammatory publicity,” to assure that Michael J. Griffin’s case is heard by impartial jurors. “Because of community prejudice and bias against Mr. Griffin and the amount of prejudicial pretrial publicity,” Williams argued, the trial should not be held in Monroe County.

This, of course, is incredibly ironic.

Let’s back up to why this website was created. Don had been killed. Very few people were in town. The only news coverage for days had effectively painted him as the bad black gay perpetrator who had allegedly assaulted a decorated marine. Don had effectively been put on trial. And, as his friends and colleagues pointed out, the justification given for his killing was a familiar excuse that, no matter what did or did not transpire between the men, is designed to appeal to societal prejudice against victims like Don. That excuse was an instant success, silencing many locals who might otherwise have condemned this senseless killing.

There is a long and established pattern of victims like Don being put ‘on trial’ themselves. Pointing this out and asking for balanced coverage is not what is unfair. What’s unfair is the original bias in the first place–the bias that assumes certain killings are still justified or that victims like Don were in the wrong.

What’s unfair is that Don continues to be on trial every time a news story runs and repeats an allegation he will never be able to defend himself against.

What’s biased is the collective body of news stories and online comments that continue to publicize opinions against Don. Note to the Herald Times, while we’re at it: Stating an opinion –( More than 20 news articles..have so biased the public against a former Marine..that the accused killer cannot get a fair trial in Monroe County)–and then later attributing it to someone else is a transparent old tactic used to package reporter bias.

And of course, it would be biased–and reliant upon societal bias–to move the trial to a venue where the only coverage would have very little input from Don’s community.

That some media outlets may have balanced their reporting to include people who spoke against violence and lit candles for a dead man is hardly biased against the suspect. Even this website–perhaps the only local site that actively prohibits hateful comments against Don–has never officially called for any particular sentencing outcome for Michael Griffin. Even many of Don’s friends have asked that our call for ‘justice’ for Don not be dependent upon criminal punishment.

It’s Don who continues to be smeared in the media and online, because even balanced news stories repeat allegations against him that he can never speak to. It’s Don who is not around to speak for himself. And it will be Don’s dear friends, who, robbed of their relationships with him, will be robbed of their ability to stand up for his life and bear witness to the trial if it is moved out of Monroe County. Aside from his body of work and our memories, that’s all we have left right now. To take that away would just be cruel.

* * * *
full article here: Venue-change-requested-for-murder-trial-of-man-accused-of-stabbing-IU-professor[1]

One year later, many of us have gathered together privately to honor our memories of Don.

We were lucky to know him.

After many delays, the trial is underway. Jury selection begins Monday 4/11. According to the Herald Times, more than 100 Monroe County residents are expected to be called for jury duty Monday and Tuesday when Michael Griffin goes on trial for murder, charged with stabbing to death Indiana University English Professor Don Belton.

Also of note: “Griffin’s lawyers indicated they would argue the killing was committed in the heat of anger and was not murder, but voluntary manslaughter instead.”

I would encourage any and all of Don’s friends and supporters to attend the trial this week, in room 313 of the Hall of Justice, at 7th and College. Opening arguments begin tomorrow (Tuesday) at 8:30 a.m.

According to the prosecution they expect to wrap up their side of the case by Wednesday (!!), so this entire trial could be done within the blink of an eye. It is important for community members to bear witness and be there on behalf of Don. We cannot rely upon local media to accurately report everything or to pick up on some of the nuances of minority life in a small Midwestern town. Somebody has to be there to record what is happening as our friend and colleague is spoken about.

Notes from a couple hours of jury selection are below. I think it’s important to have a record of the things that are said and done in the name of justice in this trial. It’s important for Don –and for everything that he was. And it’s important for the world at large—people are watching us, and how we react to this case will make a huge difference in the lives of many people.

* * * * *
During his questioning of jurors, defense attorney David Collins wanted jurors to understand that he was not disputing the fact that Michael Griffin stabbed Donald Belton to death. But he did want to emphasize that certain factors meant that this killing could mean manslaughter instead of murder. Early on this became a point of contention with Judge Harper. The judge told Collins that she would *not* allow him to raise specific criminal defenses that may not even be available to the defendant and which would not be clear until evidence was presented. So Collins raised the issue as a ‘concept’ – telling jurors that if he raised an additional issue then the burden was on the state to disprove that issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

Collins wanted jurors to understand that killing is not always murder. “What is murder?” he wanted to know—and most jurors said an element of premeditation or intent was involved.

In fact that is *not* Indiana law, the prosecution later made clear, pointing out that certain things have to be proven to get a murder conviction, but premeditation or intent is not a part of that.

“When is killing not murder?” Collins asked the jurors, and many responded that a crime of self defense, or perhaps rage, *could* convince them to convict on lesser charges. Special cases aside,”Are any of our soldiers in Iraq being charged with murder?” Collins asked one juror. “No? Why not?”

“Because that’s what they’re expected to do,” the juror responded.

Collins raised other hypotheticals–What about if a spouse comes home and says, ‘honey I’m home’ and finds the spouse in bed with another person? What about if a guy walks into a bar, [insults] another guy, and the insulted guy takes a swing and kills the person? What if that insulted guy had a long history of being insulted and it was a sore spot and he just snapped? What if a young woman drinks too much, asks her guy friend for a ride home, and he thinks, ‘I’ve always wanted to have my way with her..now is my chance’. He sexually assaults her while she is too drunk to do anything about it, and when she confronts him about it later he laughs and says ‘You liked it’. If she kills him–is it murder?

Collins asked jurors to imagine that it was their family member on trial—wouldn’t they want to deliver a fair and impartial verdict? The prosecution then reminded jurors that if their family member was on trial they wouldn’t be seated on the jury and their verdict wouldn’t be impartial.

Collins also asked the jury to define their version of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Many at first said “100 percent sure” of something, to which the prosecution again stepped in to respond that is *not* the definition.

At one point, Collins actually produced grisly photos of Don Belton’s body, in an attempt to gauge juror reaction to the images. The prosecution objected and the judge admonished him for introducing evidence during the jury selection process. The parties approached the bench, where Collins argued that he had to know now how jurors would react to the photos. It was again repeated that he could not show them. As he walked away from the bench he nevertheless held the photo outward facing the jury box; this was the first time I caught glimpse of it as he put it away in the envelope.

The prosecution did raise the issue of Don Belton’s sexuality in order to gauge any potential bias. But the questions were fairly simplistic, not really testing the idea that an ‘unwanted sexual advance’ by a gay person would of course result in violence, which appears to be the crux of the defense’s case even if not overtly just yet.

Also surprising–the prosecutor used the word “Lifestyle” to describe homosexuality. Anyone trained in diversity would know that such a word is loaded with baggage, often used by anti-gay groups to promote stereotypes and conjure up images of a universal gay behavior centered around reckless sex. there’s no way to use this word impartially, without evoking an image or a judgement.

“Even if it’s not necessarily a lifestyle you would choose for yourself..” the prosecutor asked jurors, did they have problems with homosexuality or did they understand that homosexuals have equal protection under the law.

It seems that if the prosecution doesn’t want the jury to have anti-gay bias, then using ‘lifestyle’ is not a good choice of words, unless there is a strategy there I’m not seeing.

Each side was given a couple of strikes during each round of questioning. By 3 pm, six people had been seated. An hour and a half later another six plus two alternates were chosen.

Dismissed include: the older lady who said ‘it’s a tragedy either way’; the man who stammered uncomfortably when he said he knew some gay people; the lady who said Collins made her feel like she was on trial herself; the lady who said she was on a death penalty case in the 1980s and did not want to go through that again. Most jurors present said they very much wanted to be there.

By my initial count it seems that 4 men and 8 women* are on the jury, with 2 male alternates. It is not visibly apparent that there are any people of color on the jury, but that could be incorrect. And my gaydar is broken.

* Other media outlets report 5 men and 7 women on the jury. One of those butches must have been a man after all. I told you my gaydar was broken.

Below are the impressions of someone who attended a portion of Tuesday’s hearing (but who wishes to remain anonymous). The “girlfriend” testimony referred to below is that of Jessa [last name redacted]. Michael’s sister is named “Rita.”

*************************************************************************************

I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours today at the first day of testimony in Don Belton’s murder trial. I’m not particularly proficient with blogging as a means of communication, but several people have asked for updates, so I’m going to give it a shot. I also tweeted from the trial, but I was reacting really strongly to what I was hearing, so that’s much more reactive than it is informational.

I wasn’t able to go to the opening statements because I had class, but as I understand others’ reports this is the general gist of the defense: the defendant (Michael Griffin) is not contesting that he stabbed Don Belton in a manner that resulted in his death, but is asking for a reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter because the stabbing occurred during an argument over an (allegedly non-consensual) sexual encounter. During the hours I was able to be there, we heard testimony from Griffin’s girlfriend and his sister.

The defense used his girlfriend’s testimony to try to establish several facts:

1.) On the night that the sexual encounter in question occurred, both Griffin and his girlfriend were extremely intoxicated, while Don Belton was not. A lot of time was spent discussing how he claimed to be drunk, but no one remembers seeing him drink anything after like 5:30. (Forget the fact that if they were both as wasted as they claimed, then their memories of exactly what Don was doing are probably not reliable…)

2.) Griffin never tried to stop the sexual encounter at any point, but he was too drunk to give consent. There was much confusion about whether or not his girlfriend was involved at any point, but if she had been, she was too drunk to give consent as well. She kept arguing that even though she didn’t remember, she didn’t think she was- she said that Don wouldn’t have been interested in her because she “wasn’t a homosexual man.” (This portion of the testimony raised some really interesting questions about alcohol and consent… how does consent function when all parties involved are under the influence? Or, in this case, when one party is no longer alive to speak to his experience of the event…)

3.) Griffin is a kind, gentle, loving man, who has never displayed any violent tendencies. (the prosecutor was VERY CAREFUL to steer clear of any potential link between Griffin’s status as a veteran and his potential for violence, so this line of testimony was left as-is for the most part)

4.) Griffin always carried multiple knives on his person, including several different kinds of pocket knives and a “long one that sits in the leg of his pants.”

I actually thought that for the most part, the defense lawyer was trying pretty hard to steer clear of anything that might look too much like gay bashing. However, during some of the girlfriend’s testimony, her contempt was palpable. She spat out the words “homosexual” and “transvestite” like they were poison, and got extremely defensive when asked about her own sexuality. She clung very strongly to a heterosexual identity, and claimed to have “curiosity” or “bisexual experiences” but [insisted] that she was not bisexual. At one point the court stopped for like 15 minutes while the lawyers argued about whether or not she could be questioned further about her sexual orientation/experiences, and they finally settled on asking her a yes or no question about whether she and Griffin had ever had a threesome. She was clearly very uncomfortable talking about her sexuality, and at one point even said that she was really embarrassed to admit publicly that she had sex with women in the past.

The sister’s testimony basically corroborated those four points from the girlfriend’s testimony. She also talked about running into Michael on the day he stabbed Don, and talked about how freaked out and anxious he was.

* * * *

They are laying the groundwork for the gay panic defense. This makes me angry, scared, and sick to my stomach. Seriously. It is 2011, and this kind of bullshit is still admissible in court?! I actually don’t know a whole ton about consent laws in Indiana, but I would love to hear from somebody who does. I know that in most states alcohol removes your ability to give consent, but how does that work if all parties involved are drinking (they can’t prove that Don wasn’t)? Is this “I didn’t say no but I was too drunk to say yes” line of defense even viable? Or even if it would be viable for a rape case, surely SURELY this can’t be a justification for murder?! I don’t know. I want to say smart, analytical things about this; but I’m still really worked up. I am going to try to go back to the trial late tomorrow morning, so if people are interested in another update I will post one then.

Here (slightly edited) is the statement written and read by Mara Miller, Don’s friend of 8-10 years, at Michael Griffin’s sentencing hearing.
****************************************************

1. Legal justice in this case cannot begin to do justice to Don Belton and all of us who have been victimized by our loss of him and his future writing. Nothing can set right the wrong that has been done to Don, to his community, and to the world. But Don was neither violent nor vindictive; we must not be either. And particularly with regard to this man, Mr. Griffin, whom he must have cared for very deeply.

Don was not naïve. He’d thought long and hard about varieties of masculinity, about male violence and its apparent necessity, about homophobia. He had written about these things—and published them—and taught them. And yet he was taken in, hoodwinked, by Mr. Griffin —if Mr. Griffin could deceive DB so thoroughly, this can only mean that Mr. Griffin is very dangerous to others. We cannot assume is was only Don who set Mr. Griffin off (for whatever reason).

2. And so it is especially important that we protect the community from Mr. Griffin, who is an exceptionally dangerous person, because:

a. This act was apparently out of character—no one anticipated this violence from him—and Don would have avoided anyone he thought would be violent;
b. It was done in cold blood;
c. It was unusually vicious—22 stab-wounds with a double-edged fighting knife;
d. He chose a victim who was very vulnerable—physically & emotionally. & finally,
e. it was done to someone who could not have provoked such violence.

This brings me to my 3rd point:

3. You—& even the jury & the prosecutors—cannot know what I know about Don, so I want to make a few points about Don & the allegations that were made against him. Before I do that, I’d like to explain HOW I know these things. We were very close friends over 8 or 10 years, & discussed all kinds of things but especially the things that bothered him—made him angry or self-righteous, sad, or scared; that humiliated him; worried him. I saw him handle all kinds of situations, including nasty racial ones.

So when I tell you what I know about Don, my evidence is:
a. Seeing his behavior when he had been given reason to be angry, a number of times over the many years of our friendship. I was able to see his immediate reactions and also his follow-up behavior and thinking.

b. Discussing with him possible courses of action when he was in situations he didn’t like (both on-going and immediate, work and personal), and hearing his analyses. He NEVER chose an adversarial position if it could be avoided–much less anything that could be construed as an “attack.”

c. Even in private conversation with me, he would not even swear at those who were doing wrong by him or acting like racists, would not use bad language, never used expressions such as “I could kill him” that many of us consider harmless when they’re purely verbal.

What I know is that:

1. Temperamentally, Don was gentle, a peaceful person.

2. As an African-American he was made aware of injustice, which he had experienced personally & witnessed over and over; as an African-American committed to justice and civil rights for all people, he followed Martin Luther King’s teachings and was politically, morally, and personally committed to peaceful resolution of all kinds of disagreements.

3. He also had a religious commitment to non-violence: he was a Buddhist (with a daily meditation practice)–and therefore committed to non-violence for religious reasons, and also therefore was supported by the wealth of Buddhist teachings on non-violence, including how to avoid violence, how to become more peaceful oneself, etc.

4. Don strongly believed (as I do) in the use of rational analysis to amend social injustice (and other evils). He believed in persuasion of others toward one’s point of view–NEVER in violence to get people to do what you wanted. We talked over many times how to get bullies in the workplace to back down—

5. Because Don & I believed in correcting situations that are wrong or unjust, in persuading people—in a non-adversarial way, Don and I have for years studied—and practiced—ways of confronting people about such situations without being adversarial.

6. But he also avoided confrontation whenever possible, out of personal preference—much more than I. When someone acted with racial bias against him, & it made him very uncomfortable, he did NOT want me to confront the person—even when it was someone I knew personally, or someone I had business with.

7. He also hated any possibility of being rejected. Even with me, if he wanted something, he was very careful to avoid rejection in the way he asked. He would never have “come on” to someone sexually if he wasn’t sure of being accepted. If Mr. Griffin had at any time given the slightest indication that he did not want Don’s advances—IF he made advances—Don would have been away from him in a flash.

8. I never saw any sign that Don was attracted to violent men as sexual partners (or in any other way). (There are still those old myths lingering about gay men & violence—that did NOT apply in this case.)

Finally, I would like to point out what’s been lost in this case. The first 2 or 3 are the usual:

1. Don’s life, irreplaceable—to Don.

2. And to his students, his colleagues, his friends. Don’s life-long friend & second mother Ella Torrey in Philadelphia, who also lost two of her natural children in their prime, wrote to me: “I loved Don as one of my children…and we grew into an adult friendship which I will always cherish…I miss him every day and am so proud of his extraordinary achievements.”

You may remember that my husband Scott Robertson, who wanted to be here but couldn’t make the trip from Hawaii—Scott & I were the friends Don was packing to go visit in Hawaii. When we moved there we bought a tiny condo on Waikiki instead of a big place inland so we could go to the beach every day. And we haven’t been able to bring ourselves to go to the beach the past 15 months, because that’s where we were going to take Don when he joined us. It has just made us sick to go to any of the places we’d planned on taking Don. I cannot tell you what it was like to live for those first few weeks in that place that Don was supposed to be—without him.

But such losses are typical, if you will. And the losses here in this case are not just those of the typical murder. There are also:

3. The sense of terror such a crime brings to the Gay & Lesbian & Bi- & Transgender communities, & to African-Americans and other people of color. Please remember to think about the various impacts such a murder has on communities—Can we ever feel safe again? Do we start to think it’s OK to kill gay men–or at least, those who provoke us?, etc.

There are stunningly similar cases, such as that of Prof. Linden Barrett, the African-American history professor at the University of California at Davis, also killed by a younger white working-class man within a sexualized context.

Loss 4. And whether you realize it or not, you—all of us—personally are deprived by not having Don in the world–the ripple effect of having such a good person in the world means they suffer from the loss of his presence—these are losses not only to beloved friends, students, colleagues, but also the whole wider community of Bloomington, where Don affected many people

Loss 5. In cases like Don’s and Prof. Barrett’s, we—the whole United States—whether we ever read Don’s books or not, we also lose an important cultural asset—a force for understanding and knowledge and wisdom in the world—by someone who contributes to all of us things that most people cannot contribute. This murder is a terrible loss to his readers—and his wider public—those in Ireland and the Ivory Coast, in Italy and Brazil—who heard him speak or would have in the future.

6. Finally, murder is always dreadful. But in this case, the loss is especially terrible & deep, because in addition we suffer from the loss of the work Don will never complete. This is a terrible deprivation—again to the whole world, and whether they would read him or not.

He was growing so much recently–as a person and as an author. He read me over the phone one night a long passage from an essay he had been struggling with for months. I’d like to go on record as saying that that passage was as good as anything I’ve ever read—as good as the very best that has ever been written in English—or any other language I’ve read. As he read it, my knees got wobbly. It was jaw-droppingly good—the kind of thing that makes you thing, “You can DO that in language?” Other people have written as well as that—as beautifully, as powerfully. But no one will write better.

One of our worst losses is of all the work he did not live to write.