Schaefer was brought to trial on September 17, 1973. He was tried in St. Lucie County before Judge Trowbridge. The
prosecution team consisted of Stone and Philip Shailer, assisted by Richard Purdy and Anthony Young. Schaefer was
defended by Schwartz and Bruce Colton, assisted by James Brecker. As the murders of Place and Jessup had been committed at a time when the
Supreme Court of Florida had declared capital punishment
unconstitutional in the state, prosecutors sought
life imprisonment for Schaefer. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, and frequently conveyed a distant and aloof demeanor throughout the official proceedings; often staring coldly at prosecution witnesses as they testified, or turning to smile at members of the press when a witness testified for his counsel.
Initial proceedings Although Schaefer did testify at the
pretrial hearing (in which he denied any culpability in the murders of Place and Jessup and claimed to be unable to recall his whereabouts on the date of their abduction and murder), upon the advice of his defense counsel and that the state expected the jurors to return "a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree as to both counts". Following the conclusion of Stone's opening statement, Schwartz requested the permission of the court to reserve his opening statement until the state had rested its case. This request was granted, with no
objection from the prosecution.
Testimony Prosecution The first witnesses to testify on behalf of the state were the two individuals who had discovered the dismembered bodies of Place and Jessup in Oak Hammock Park; both men recounted their discoveries, observations, and contacting of authorities. Their testimony was followed by that of Lieutenant Patrick Duval of the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office, who described the crime scene, the evidence retrieved, and the grave in which the victims had been buried. Duval also testified that the lack of
erosion of the grave indicated the grave had been "dug into" at least twice; he also identified several crime scene photographs. Place's parents also took the stand on the first day of the trial to formally identify Schaefer as the man whom they had seen their daughter and Jessup in the company of prior to their disappearance. Despite efforts to discredit their identification by the defense counsel, both testified as to their certainty that Schaefer had been the individual who visited their house on the evening of their daughter's disappearance, and with whom she and her friend had left their home. Jessup's parents and younger sister, Cheryl, also formally identified the distinctive suede purse found in his wife's possession as belonging to Jessup. Also to testify in the opening days of the trial was a clerk within a county courthouse, who revealed Schaefer's vehicle had been registered at his Martin Avenue address one month prior to the murders, thus proving the license plate Place's mother had noted indeed belonged to Schaefer. Next on the stand was Lieutenant David Yurchuk, who outlined the April 1973 search of Schaefer's mother's home and the evidence retrieved. Dr. Richard Souviron testified as to the autopsies he had conducted upon the victims, and their formal identification via dental records and distinctive healed bone fractures. Souviron withstood vigorous
cross-examination from Schwartz as to the actual caliber of firearm which had inflicted the gunshot wound to Place's lower jaw, remaining adamant the bullet used to shoot Place was .22 caliber and not a
.25 caliber cartridge. A Dade County medical examiner named Dr. Joseph Davis also detailed the restraining of the victims prior to their deaths, the dismemberment inflicted upon their bodies, and the numerous knife marks evident upon the victims' bones. Nancy Trotter and Paula Wells also testified as to their abduction and narrow escape from Schaefer during the first week of the trial. Trotter also recounted to the court a statement Schaefer had made to her after she had been bound to a cypress tree: that he could dig a hole in which to bury her and Wells, and that nobody would ever find them. Their testimony was followed by a video presentation depicting the girls as they had been bound
in situ at Hutchinson Island; this footage was admitted into evidence by Schwartz, who was eager to illustrate to the jury his contention there had been "no harm done" to the girls. Among the state's evidence presented before the jury were the actual tree limbs the victims had been suspended from and which bore sections of wearing upon the tree bark, indicating both girls had remained suspended at the murder location for a period of time sufficient to create these deep markings before their deaths. Also introduced into evidence were the actual tree roots upon which Place and Jessup had been forced to balance themselves to prevent themselves from being hung prior to their torture and murder. A microanalyst named Harold Nute testified the sections of clothing fibers discovered in the root were a precise match to one of the items of clothing at the crime scene, and that
hemp fibers within the sections of wearing upon the tree limbs had likely sourced from rope. Following the entry into evidence of a manuscript penned by Schaefer in which he detailed how to "properly execute" women, Stone announced the state had presented their case. Schwartz immediately called for Schaefer's
acquittal, claiming the state had not proven their case against his client and that all evidence presented was circumstantial. The court ruled against this motion.
Defense The strategy of the defense was to discredit previous witnesses' testimony regarding the identification of Schaefer, to contend one or both decedents had been alive after September 27, 1972, and to contend the gravesite had been dug on a date after Schaefer began serving his sentence in Martin County Jail on January 15, 1973. Several of these individuals—including Schaefer's sister and wife—testified as to his physical characteristics and attire differing from those described by Place's parents. Also to testify on Schaefer's behalf was a hunting companion named Edward Harris, who stated he always carried a purse similar to that identified by Jessup's parents and sister when the two went target shooting. One of the final witnesses to testify on behalf of the defense was a representative from the Fort Pierce City Water Plant, who testified as to the records the firm had retained of rainfall in an area close to Oak Hammock Park between September 1972 and April 1973. Upon cross-examination, this individual conceded the records presented related close to the vicinity of the crime scene, but not the vicinity of the crime scene itself.
Closing arguments The final defense witnesses to testify delivered their testimony on September 26. The following day, both counsels delivered their
closing arguments to the jury. Both counsels were granted two hours to deliver their argument. Prosecutor Philip Shailer delivered his argument first; he first referenced the fact the date of his closing argument was the first anniversary of Place and Jessup's disappearance before outlining the identification of Schaefer and his vehicle by Place's mother, the physical evidence linking the defendant to the victims, the evidence and
paraphernalia recovered in the search warrants, and the
similar fact evidence outlined, all collectively proving "not only beyond a
reasonable doubt, but a shadow of a doubt" of Schaefer's guilt. Referencing the similarities between the abductions of Trotter and Wells to the murders of Place and Jessup, Shailer remarked the one "glaring dissimilarity" between the two incidents was that "thank God, Wells and Trotter escaped". He finished his closing argument by referencing the
Constitution; outlining the fact Schaefer had received a fair trial, with legal representation, and the
burden of proof upon the prosecution to prove his guilt. Referencing Place and Jessup, Shailer stated Schaefer had shown "no presumption of innocence" for the girls, but had acted as the "prosecutor, judge and executioner" in the commission of their murders. Schwartz attempted to discredit much of the state's evidence and witness testimony in his closing argument. He dismissed the accuracy of Lucille Place's identification of Schaefer and his vehicle before referencing speculation as to the actual date of the victims' deaths, which he suggested may have occurred after January 15, 1973, or on a date Schaefer is known to have been out of state. With regards to the personal artifacts of the decedents introduced into evidence, Schwartz inferred towards testimony from his client's family that the artifacts had actually belonged to Schaefer himself. In reference to the grave in and around which the victims were discovered, Schwartz also alleged the grave must have been dug on a date after Schaefer's January 15 incarceration. To support this contention, Schwartz again referenced the "lack of erosion" at the burial site, despite over nineteen inches of rain having fallen in the vicinity between the date of the victims' disappearance and their discovery. Schwartz concluded his argument by contending the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt Schaefer's guilt. Emphasizing his client's presumption of innocence, Schwartz stated in the closing stages of his argument: "Ladies and gentlemen, they have got the wrong man, and I hate to think of that, because somebody did this, but I don't believe it was Gerard John Schaefer Jr." Schwartz ended his closing argument by formally requesting the jury return a verdict of not guilty.
Rebuttal Stone delivered his
rebuttal argument on the afternoon of September 26. He began by dismissing one of Schwartz's tactics in his closing argument: the illustration of the circumstantial evidence as not being definitive proof of his client's guilt and of simply accusing him due to similar fact evidence regarding the Trotter and Wells incident. Stone then stated that the prosecution's case was constructed from both physical and circumstantial evidence—all collectively illustrating Schaefer's guilt. Referring to those who had testified, he began by defending the testimony of Lucille Place; emphasizing the crucial role in her accurate recording of Schaefer's license plate to ultimately linking him to the murders before inferring to the testimony of numerous individuals who had also testified, substantiating her identification of Schaefer and his vehicle. Stone also hearkened toward the positive identification of Jessup's purse by her mother, sister, and friend, who had each positively identified the item as belonging to Jessup, before inferring the defense witnesses who had also identified the item had lied to protect Schaefer, stating: "How many of them picked it up, looked at it? The first thing they [all] did was say, 'Yes, I recognize it. He brought it back from Morocco in 1970.'" He then referenced the testimony of Schaefer's own wife, who had stated to the court she had been given the item by her husband as a gift in November 1972, and had never seen the item prior. When referencing the fact
ballistic testing had revealed none of the firearms recovered from Schaefer's utility shed had been a match for the .22 gunshot cartridge recovered at the crime scene, Stone referenced the testimony of Schaefer's brother-in-law, who had stated Schaefer also owned a .22 pistol he termed his "Saturday-night Special", which had not been found. Holding aloft and pointing toward one of Schaefer's handwritten manuscripts introduced into evidence titled
"How to Get Away with Murder", Stone stated: "I submit to you ... you will never find that Saturday-night Special, because it is in a canal with [the victims'] skulls." In conclusion of his rebuttal argument, Stone referenced a comment his colleague had earlier made in the state's closing argument regarding Schaefer being the "prosecutor, judge and executioner" in the murders, adding "I submit to you one [more word]: God! Because he decided whether he was going to let them live or die. He became God!" Stone concluded his argument by stressing the evidence presented negated the defense contention of Schaefer's innocence before requesting a verdict of guilty. ==Conviction==