Thomas Breen photo
Lt. Rahgue Tennant (center) with defense attorney Jamie Alosi on Friday.
A judge sent the jury home Friday afternoon after it apparently came close to rendering a verdict in the domestic-violence criminal case of ex-Lt. Rahgue Tennant.
State Superior Court Judge Jon Alander handed that case to a six-member jury panel earlier Friday afternoon in a fifth-floor courtroom at the state courthouse at 235 Church St., after lawyers for both sides presented closing arguments.
The jury began deliberating at around 2:15 p.m., then broke at 5 p.m. for the weekend.
Before they adjourned, shouting could be heard in the courtroom outside the door of the room where the jury deliberated. The jurors also sent the judge five notes seeking clarification on different matters of law and portions of witness testimony.
Thomas Breen File Photo
Judge Alander.
Just before 5 p.m., right before the judge planned to adjourn for the weekend, one of the jurors said that the panel was almost done with its deliberations. The six jurors were hung up on one remaining issue out of the three criminal charges Tennant faces, and they wanted the judge’s guidance before they could wrap up and deliver a verdict.
Judge Alander conferred with the prosecution and defense attorneys, and then told the jurors that that last question — which had to do with whether or not a second-degree breach of peace charge requires a finding of intent or just creating a risk — would require further legal research. So he sent the jurors home for the weekend, with instructions to return Monday.
After hearing four full days of evidence presentation and a morning’s worth of closing arguments, the jurors are tasked with deciding whether or not Tennant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of one felony count of second-degree assault, one felony count of risk of injury to a child, and one misdemeanor count of second-degree breach of peace.
The state filed those charges against the 48-year-old former New Haven police lieutenant, who once oversaw the Dixwell policing district, after he was arrested in September 2018 for allegedly assaulting his wife, holding his family hostage, and threatening to shoot up his East Shore home.
In their separate closing arguments on behalf of the prosecution, Assistant State’s Attorney Kelly Davis and Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Jason Germain sought to frame the case as one involving a violent husband who wielded his power as a police officer to intimidate his then-wife into staying in an abusive relationship, and who then intentionally harmed her in the presence of their children when he threw a Lysol can at her head on the night of Aug. 30, 2018.
“This case is about control and fear and manipulation,” Germain told the jurors.
Defense attorney Rick Silverstein addresses the jury.
Defense attorney Rick Silverstein, meanwhile, used his hour-long closing argument to paint Tennant as an ambitious man from humble beginnings who dedicated his life to a dangerous and often thankless form of public service. He accused Tennant’s ex-wife of making up or exaggerating claims of domestic violence in order to intentionally sink her then-husband’s career. He blamed the evolving “lexicon” of domestic violence law as unfairly siding with alleged victims before all of the facts of an individual case have been borne out. And he argued that Tennant’s trial is largely a “one-witness type of case” in which the jury is being asked by the state to convict his client primarily on the testimony of the ex-wife.
“She presented as a demure, young lady with great manners. That’s the part she wants you to see,” Silverstein said about Tennant’s ex-wife, who testified on Monday and Tuesday about a pattern of alleged escalating physical and emotional violence she suffered at the hands of her then-husband.
“She wanted to present as a victim. She did a pretty good job of that.”
But, he said, the ex-wife told the officer who took her original statement the night of Tennant’s arrest that she didn’t think he would intentionally hurt her — and the jurors should believe her when she said that.
Alander explained to the jurors that they must consider the evidence as presented over the course of the trial against the law as explained by him during the so-called “jury charge.” They must deliberate on each of the three charges separately, and they must deliver a unanimous verdict of guilty for him to be convicted on each. If they believe Tennant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must find him guilty. If not, then they must find him not guilty.
“A Crime Done In Secret”
Prosecutor Kelly Davis.
State prosecutor Kelly Davis was the first lawyer to present her closing argument, at around 10:30 a.m. Friday.
She pulled up on a nearby monitor a photo of the ex-wife’s bruised and swollen face, which the ex-wife said she took after she was assaulted by her husband.
Davis said that, thanks to the prevalence of cellphone videos, it’s much easier now to see when a police officer abuses his power and acts inappropriately while on the job.
“Hopefully we can work to eradicate those bad apples,” she said. “But what happens if the apple is rotten in his own home?”
Domestic violence is not a “police crime,” she said. “It’s an intimate crime. It’s a crime done in secret.”
She spoke about three prior instances of “uncharged misconduct” in which Tennant allegedly choked and punched his wife multiple times between April and August 2018 in the run-up to the events that led to his arrest.
She spoke about the domestic-violence expert who testified during the trial about how it can take complainants between seven and 10 times to actually leave an abusive relationship.
She spoke about the BHcare and state Department of Children and Families (DCF) employees who testified during the trial about their own interactions with the ex-wife as she tried to find a way out of her abusive relationship; and about how much more complicated putting together a “safety plan” can be when one’s alleged abuser is a police officer.
And she spoke about the “huge hematoma” and blood on the ex-wife’s face, about how — even according to Tennant’s own testimony — it is “undisputed” that a Lysol can that he threw at her caused that injury.
“Who do you turn to when the helper is the one who’s hurting you?” she asked. She implored the jury to “use your life experience and your common sense.”
If you believe what the ex-wife said during her day and a half on the witness stand in this trial, Davis told the jurors, “you should find the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“Do The Right Thing"
Silverstein, with the help of a chalkboard, makes his closing argument.
During his time before the jury, Silverstein rolled out a chalkboard to emphasize some key legal concepts he wanted the jurors to keep in mind: equal protection under the law and presumption of innocence.
His hour-long closing statement was filled with literary, historical, and even religious allusions to bolster his case that Tennant is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Coming from a rough stretch of North Philadelphia and rising to the highest ranks of the New Haven Police Department, Tennant led a life reminiscent of the “Horatio Alger story” of someone pulling himself up from humble beginnings to success, Silverstein argued.
“That’s an American story, That’s his story.”
He quoted former Yale President Kingman Brewster’s definition of presumption of innocence as “not just a legal concept. It’s that generosity of human spirit that expects the best, not the worst, of a stranger.”
He quoted 18th century British satirist Jonathan Swift’s saying: “A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its pants on.”
And he called back to the Book of Deuteronomy (“Some people know the Bible, I guess,” he said) when he said that “no man should be put to death on the testimony of one witness.”
Allusions aside, Silverstein grounded his closing defense of Tennant by using his profession as a police officer to bolster his credibility, and by going after the credibility of the ex-cop’s ex-wife — and after domestic-violence criminal law more broadly.
“People are not very happy with the police these days,” he said, “but they are absolutely essential to our society.” Later on, he said of a police officer, “he is the one you go to when kids are getting killed. He is the one who goes toward the danger.”
Tennant’s and his then-wife’s relationships had been on the rocks for years before the incidents that led to his arrest, Silverstein said. “They knew that the relationship was falling apart, and neither one of them knew how to fix it. So she made plans to end it her way.”
He said that her account of what happened was “uncorroborated” in regard to the alleged assault at the center of this case — that is, the throwing of the Lysol can at her head — along with that of the three other instances of alleged choking and punching.
“Forget the three instances of uncharged misconduct,” he said. “It’s prejudicial. It’s uncharged.” Those instances didn’t result in Tennant’s arrest. “Where is the corroboration?” he asked.
“It’s sad” that this is how their relationship ended, Silverstein continued. It’s sad that Tennant hasn’t seen his kids in nearly four years. “It’s sad that she feels the way she does,” he said about the ex-wife.
He also noted how the police arrested Tennant on Sept. 6, 2018, when the SWAT team was deployed to his house a week after the alleged assault — and when Tennant came out of his house unarmed and was driven, without handcuffs, by friends and fellow officers to 1 Union Ave.
“It’s not a stretch to say that the NHPD reluctantly arrested my client,” he said.
He argued that domestic violence law as defined by state statute includes too many “charged” terms, like “lethality assessment” and “intimate partner violence.”
And he dismissed the seriousness of the breach of peace charge’s accusation of causing annoyance or inconvenience — particularly when viewed in the context of any marriage’s ups and downs.
“My whole life has been breach of peace. As my wife pointed out, I’ve already breached the peace nine or 10 times today, and it’s not even 12 o’clock,” Silverstein quipped.
He closed his argument by asking the jurors to “do the right thing.” You can’t give Tennant back his career or the time he’s been away from his kids, he said, but “you can give him back his reputation” and his ability to pursue future employment in law enforcement.
“This Isn’t A Fun Game Of Catch”
State prosecutor Jason Germain.
In the final closing argument made to the jury Friday midday, state prosecutor Germain argued that the key facts alleged by the ex-wife and the state about the Aug. 30 assault have indeed been corroborated.
They were corroborated by Tennant when he took the witness stand on Thursday, Germain said.
Tennant corroborated that there was an argument between him and his then-wife the night of Aug. 30. Tennant corroborated that he threw the Lysol can at his then-wife. Tennant corroborated that the can hit her her in the head and caused an injury as documented in the photos the ex-wife took of herself at the time.
While “Mr. Tennant is trying to blame everyone else for what was done,” Germain said — accusing his then-wife of starting the fight, accusing his then-wife of throwing out hints first — he corroborated some of the most important actions and facts at the center of the assault charge.
Germain argued that Tennant’s ex-wife was not deliberately trying to scuttle Tennant’s police career. That’s why she wore concealer to hide her bruise and downplayed the severity of her injury. That’s why she didn’t come forward to the police after so many instances of physical and emotional violence. That’s why, when she did reach out to tell someone, it was by calling a domestic violence hotline to try to find an emergency shelter for herself and her kids.
“She was just trying to set up an escape route to get out of this abusive relationship,” Germain argued.
The ex-wife felt held hostage that week between Aug. 30 and Sept. 6, 2018, because “he has control over her,” Germain said. “Because he has guns. Because he has access to police department information.”
Because of the alleged choking and punching incidents that took place between April and August 2018, he said, “the intent is clear” of the Aug. 30 assault. “This isn’t a fun game of catch.” Tennant intended to hurt his then-wife when he threw that can, Germain said. And he succeeded.
“He achieved his intent.”
2.5 Hours Of Deliberations, 5 Jury Questions
Alander sent the six-juror panel into the jury deliberation room at around 2:15 p.m.
Over the next two and a half hours, they passed five different notes to a judicial marshal, who then passed those notes along to the judge and the lawyers.
In between passing the Post-it-note questions out to the court, the jurors could be heard speaking loudly — sometimes even shouting — from within their deliberations room.
The questions included:
• What day did Tennant’s ex-wife say that Tennant sat on his bed and loaded a magazine with bullets while his AR15 lay on the bed in front of him?
The judge told the jurors that the ex-wife did not identify a specific date when that happened. Rather, she said it occurred sometime between Aug. 30 and Sept. 6, 2018.
• Can “intent” be defined as the action only?
The judge explained that one can “infer” intent from evidence presented that deals with a defendant’s actions, statements, and state of mind.
• What was the “action date” of the safety plan that Tennant’s ex-wife put together?
Sept. 6, the judge said.
• Can the jury have a copy of the police report that details the incidents leading to Tennant’s arrest?
Neither side submitted a police report as evidence during the evidence-presentation portion of the trial, the judge said, so there’s no police report they can review during deliberations.
• Does a second-degree breach of peace charge require a finding of intent, or just creating a risk?
That will require further legal research, the judge said. And then he adjourned the trial at around 5 p.m. and told the jurors to come back on Monday to pick up with their deliberations.
See below for previous articles about Rahgue Tennant’s arrest and criminal case.
• Day 4: Tennant Takes The Stand
• Trial Day 3: Rick Silverstein Goes For Broke
• Ex-Top Cop Trial, Day 2: Police-Domestic Violence Risks Take Center Stage
• Ex-Top Cop Trial, Day 1: Alleged Domestic Abuse History Revealed
• Slow Start To Picking Ex-Cop’s Jury
• Ex-Top Cop Gambles On Trial
• Ex-Top Cop Seeks Diversionary Program
• Top Cop Retires, Heads To Trial
• Top Cop Rejects Battering Plea Deal
• Arrested Top Cop Keeps Running Out Clock
• Top Cop Benefits As Case Drags On
• Top Cop’s Domestic Violence Case Continued Again
• Accused Wife-Beating Top Cop Staying Sober
• Top Cop Domestic Violence Case Continued
• Cop’s Alleged Threats, Violence Detailed
• Cops Suspend Lt. After Armed Standoff
A picture of a battered woman's face is worth a thousand words. Tennant had to come up with some kind of story to explain that picture. Playfully tossing a Lysol bottle at someone's head does not result in a battered face. Why would the ex-wife want to sabotage his career, which would result in less income for him, or no income at all, and hence no child support, no alimony, nothing for the ex-wife. Why would the ex-wife want to live in witness protection, far away from friends and family? Silverstein is obviously making juror nullification arguments by quoting Biblical law and arguing that the domestic violence laws are unfair. The State should have objected, a lawyer cannot tell the jury to ignore the law and acquit the defendant because the law is "unfair."