The Murder Trial of Rusty Sabich begins amid intense public attention and ends before the jury can deliberate: Judge Larren Lyttle dismisses the case, concluding that the evidence cannot fairly support a verdict. Through Rusty Sabich’s account, the trial becomes both a contest over circumstantial evidence and a test of whether the court can protect the accused from a prosecution built on unresolved gaps.

Opening and Jury Selection

The case is called for trial on August 18, a few days short of two months after Rusty’s indictment. Judge Lyttle presides, with Sandy Stern and Jamie Kemp for the defense and Nico Delia Guardia and Tommy Molto for the prosecution. Tom Glendenning appears as the prosecution’s case investigator. The courtroom is crowded with spectators and press, while the judge’s staff and armed bailiffs attend the unusually prominent proceeding.

Seventy-five prospective jurors are brought in, and sixteen are initially seated in the jury box. Judge Lyttle explains the case and the presumption of innocence before questioning begins. The final panel consists of twelve jurors and four alternates. The regular jurors include nine white people and three Black people, seven women and five men; the alternates are to hear the evidence but join deliberations only if a regular juror is excused. With the jury chosen, the trial is ready to begin early on the second afternoon.

Competing Accounts of the Evidence

In opening, the prosecution presents a case that depends on circumstantial evidence, including fingerprint evidence associated with a glass from Carolyn Polhemus’s apartment. Stern’s response is to direct the jury’s attention to what the prosecution cannot supply: the glass itself, a complete account of the evidence, and proof that rises beyond reasonable doubt. He also sets Rusty’s record of public service against the charge, presenting him as a senior prosecutor whose career involved pursuing criminal conduct rather than committing it.

The dispute over the glass becomes a concrete test of those competing claims. The physical exhibit cannot be produced, and the defense objects to testimony about the fingerprints without an opportunity to examine it. The prosecutors maintain that the chain of custody is uncontested and that testimony from Harold Greer, Dan Lipranzer, and the laboratory supervisor can establish that the prints came from lifts taken from the glass the day after the murder. Judge Lyttle admits the testimony, but says the missing exhibit and the defense’s inability to inspect it are legitimate grounds for skepticism. He notes longstanding careless handling and record keeping in the police evidence room, leaves open the possibility of bad faith, and says he will watch for further evidence of it. He also plans a strongly worded instruction to limit how the jury may use the testimony.

Judgment and Dismissal

After reflecting on the case for twenty-four hours, Judge Lyttle considers whether the evidence should be allowed to proceed to jury deliberations. He concludes that it should not. In his assessment, the prosecution has not established motive, concrete evidence of an intimate relationship, or effective proof that Rusty had sexual relations with Carolyn on the night she died. He acknowledges that the state might be entitled to infer Rusty was there, but finds no direct proof that he committed the murder. The missing glass remains part of the uncertainty surrounding the prosecution’s case.

The judge allows the defense motion for judgment of acquittal, discharges Rusty, and dismisses the case. Rusty understands that he is free as the people around him embrace him and the judge explains his decision to the jury. There is no jury verdict: Lyttle ends the prosecution before deliberations, judging that the evidence is inadequate and that Rusty should not remain under the burden of trial. He apologizes for what has taken place and calls it a disgrace to the cause of justice.

Significance

The trial’s ending separates suspicion from proof without resolving every question surrounding Carolyn’s death. The court’s decision turns not on a finding of what happened, but on the insufficiency of the state’s evidence to justify asking the jury for a verdict. The absent glass crystallizes that distinction: the prosecution is permitted to rely on testimony about fingerprints, yet the judge’s concerns about the missing physical exhibit and the handling of evidence persist until he concludes the case cannot fairly continue.