Jury gets murder case

Kim Smith

Thursday, April 26, 2001 | 11:12 a.m.

After hearing nearly 12 hours of closing arguments in a trial that lasted nine weeks, jurors in the Margaret Rudin case were to begin deliberating her fate this afternoon.

Prosecutors Gary Guymon and Chris Owens pounded home several "facts and circumstances" they say point to Rudin as the murderer of her millionaire husband -- too many, they say, to be a coincidence.

On the other side, defense attorney Tom Pitaro asked the jury repeatedly if law enforcement officers and the prosecutors were "thorough and fair" in their investigation and presentation of the case.

Rudin is accused of shooting Ronald Rudin in the head four times as he slept on Dec. 18, 1994. His decapitated and charred remains were found near Lake Mohave a month later.

Guymon used a large-screen TV and video presentation to methodically lay out the case against Rudin, 56. He jumped from point to point, hitting on such things as Rudin's odd behavior after her husband's disappearance to the two years she spent running from the police.

Pitaro used his booming voice and theatrical style to captivate the jury. He spoke about inconsistent witnesses who are up for rewards and the bias of those investigating and prosecuting the case.

Guymon reminded jurors that Ronald Rudin suspected his wife might wish him harm and went so far as to add a directive to his will. The directive told his trustees to investigate his death if it was by violent means and to cut the responsible party out of his will.

Ronald Rudin's attorney, Patricia Brown, testified that the original directive even named his wife as a likely suspect, Guymon reminded the jury.

"Ronald Rudin believed he may die of a gunshot wound, and Ronald Rudin was right. Ronald Rudin believed Margaret Rudin may be responsible. Ronald Rudin was right," Guymon said.

Guymon asked the jurors to imagine Ronald Rudin coming home to find that his wife cleared everything out of his bedroom while he was missing. There was testimony that within days of his disappearance his wife had removed his bed and TV and had even gone so far as to give away his house slippers.

"There comes a point where you have to say something stinks, something stinks about Margaret Rudin's conduct," Guymon said.

Rudin got rid of all of those items because she knew without a doubt her husband would never be coming home, the prosecutor said.

"He doesn't need the marital bed anymore and he won't need those slippers because dead men don't wear slippers," Guymon said.

Pitaro, however, said only someone with "unmitigated gall" would deign to dictate how someone should react while grieving.

Rudin wasn't the only person who instinctively felt that Ronald Rudin was dead, Pitaro said. Within three days his trustees were taking over his assets.

Margaret Rudin isn't guilty, Pitaro said.

"She isn't guilty because I say it or John Momot says it or Mike Amador says it," Pitaro said. "She's not guilty because the evidence says it."

Metro Police focused on Rudin from the start because Ronald Rudin's bookkeeper called Sheriff Jerry Keller's office after Ronald Rudin's disappearance and suggested Rudin as a possible suspect, Pitaro said.

The police then hooked up with attorneys for Ronald Rudin's trustees and Rudin didn't stand a chance, Pitaro said. She fled following her indictment in April 1997.

Pitaro accused the investigators of ignoring leads that didn't involve Rudin and he accused the prosecutors of presenting one-sided evidence.

As an example, Pitaro mentioned Donald Schaupeter, an antique dealer who denies selling the trunk that Ronald Rudin's body was cremated in. He denies it despite a middleman's testimony otherwise.

Pitaro said the state knew Schaupeter denied selling the trunk and yet they didn't tell the defense team that. The only reason they knew of his existence is because he came forward nine weeks into the trial to straighten out the issue.

"Thank God that guy came forward because he may save her," Pitaro said.

Defense attorney Michael Amador grew teary-eyed during his portion of the closing arguments. His voice choking with emotion, Amador said he was "humbled" by Rudin's drive to prove her innocence.

Owens, in his closing arguments, told jurors that Rudin is not the "deer-in-the-headlights romantic" portrayed by the defense.

"I'm not humbled by Margaret Rudin," Owens said. "The evidence in this case indicates Margaret Rudin is a murderer. The thing to be humbled by is our system of criminal justice and the fact that sometimes murderers can be brought to justice."