Lawyers give closing arguments to jury in Jordan Brown civil trial

It’s not about whether it was a perfect investigation.

It’s not about guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or determining who actually killed Kenzie Houk and her unborn baby on Feb. 20, 2009, inside a Lawrence County farmhouse.

Instead, the attorney representing the Pennsylvania State Police said Wednesday morning, all the jury must determine is whether investigators had enough probable cause to make an arrest.

She says they did.

“Yes, Jordan Brown was 11 years old,” Nicole Boland said. “Yes, this was tragic.”

But, she continued, “there was enough probable cause to arrest Jordan Brown for the crime.”

Boland spoke for 30 minutes during her closing argument in the civil trial against the four state troopers who led the investigation against Brown nearly 16 years ago.

Brown was arrested, accused of criminal homicide, about 3:30 a.m. the day after the body of Houk, his father’s fiancee, was found. He was adjudicated delinquent for first-degree murder and murder of an unborn child and incarcerated for seven years.

Released at 18, Brown, who has maintained his innocence, continued to pursue his appeals, and, in July 2018, the state Supreme Court vacated his conviction, finding there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two years later, Brown sued Troopers Janice Wilson, Jeffrey Martin, Troy Steinheiser and Robert McGraw, who has since died. He alleged malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence.

The civil trial began Dec. 4, with the plaintiffs spending much of their case focused on two areas: the multiple interviews of Houk’s then 7-year-old daughter the day of the shooting and what they saw as an inadequate investigation into Houk’s ex-boyfriend, who had a history of being violent with her.

The eight jurors — fewer than the 12 required in a criminal case — deliberated for about four hours Wednesday before asking to be released for the night. They will return Thursday to continue their work. The verdict must be unanimous.

During closing arguments, both sides used lists on the jurors’ video monitors to try to sway them.

For the state police, Boland’s list provided all the reasons why the state police believed Brown was the killer.

• Brown was the last person to see Houk alive.

• He admitted to being in Houk’s bedroom that morning — and in an armoire where the ammunition was stored.

• The 7-year-old girl he thought of as his stepsister told state police she saw him with two long guns that morning and then heard “a big boom” before they left for school.

• Brown told police he saw a black truck on the property that morning, but witnesses said there were no tire tracks in the freshly fallen snow to corroborate that.

• Houk was killed with a shotgun, and police found a 20-gauge youth model shotgun in Brown’s bedroom that smelled as if it had been recently fired.

• Brown went to the nurse’s office that morning with a stomachache.

• He changed his story to the state police about the truck he saw.

• He lied about the last time he fired his shotgun, telling troopers he hadn’t shot it in a month, even though he used it in a turkey shoot just a few days earlier.

Boland told the jury that evidence — which the investigators had before them that day — was enough to establish probable cause for the boy’s arrest.

The troopers did not have to resolve every inconsistency in the case, provide every witness interview or eliminate all other areas of inquiry before submitting their affidavit of probable cause for arrest, Boland said.

They just had to show that there was evidence to believe a crime had been committed and that Brown likely committed it.

Boland discounted Brown’s contention the state police manipulated Jenessa Houk’s statement in her fourth interview that day to fit their theory of the case.

Jenessa Houk, the lawyer continued, had no reason to lie then and no reason to lie now.

“Nothing was fabricated,” Boland said. “If this was an intentional act to frame Jordan Brown, they are the worst conspirators ever.”

Brown had easy access to weapons in the house, Boland said, and was proficient in firing them.

“Mr. Brown got a shell just as easily as he got his socks that morning,” Boland said. “Jordan Brown had the means, the ability, the opportunity, and there was a credible witness.”

A burden of proof

In his closing, Brown’s attorney, Alec Wright, told the jury the affidavit of probable cause in a criminal case is the gatekeeper to freedom — or the loss of freedom.

In submitting that document to a district judge to obtain an arrest warrant, Wright said, law enforcement officers are required to include all the information relevant to an investigation — including anything that might be exculpatory to the suspect.

In Brown’s case, Wright said, the state troopers failed to include several details for the district judge who signed off on the arrest warrant:

• Jenessa Houk had been interviewed four times that day, with the final one coming after midnight.

• Her first two statements provided an alibi for Brown.

• Her fourth statement was inconsistent, in that, at the time she said she heard the big boom, she said Brown had already taken the guns back upstairs. Wright called it “inherently unreliable.”

• Houk’s and Brown’s statements to troopers that morning corroborated each other.

• Houk told investigators she and Brown had a good relationship.

• Houk told troopers Brown was excited about the baby.

Wright also told the jury the evidence investigators found during the autopsy was inconsistent with the shot having been fired by a 20-gauge shotgun. The ammunition found in the house had 225 pellets in each round, but, during the autopsy, only 26 pellets were recovered, and none was found at the scene, Wright said.

He also noted there was no blood evidence found on Brown’s shotgun or on him when he left for school.

Wright then turned his attention to Houk’s ex-boyfriend, reminding the jury of the troopers’ decision not to interview a number of his friends and failing to follow up on several statements the man made that were inconsistent with information provided by Houk’s loved ones.

Wright also spent several minutes of his closing describing for the jurors what is required to reach a verdict in Brown’s favor.

In a civil trial, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, a slight shifting of the scales — “only by a grain of salt or a feather,” Wright said.

“In this case,” he added, “it’s much more than that.”

To reach a verdict in Brown’s favor on the malicious prosecution claim, the jurors must determine there was no probable cause for an arrest and the troopers acted with malice.

To reach a verdict on the fabrication of evidence claim, Wright said, the jurors are required to find the troopers offered incorrect evidence, material falsehoods or withheld evidence.

Wright said all three things happened.

“That’s how they were able to arrest Jordan and change the course of his life forever.”

Jenessa Houk testifies

Earlier in the day, Jenessa Houk was the final witness in the liability phase of the case.

Her testimony was similar to what she told the state police when she implicated Brown but provided more detail than had been given previously.

In her fourth interview with state police about 12:30 a.m. Feb. 21, 2009, Houk said she and Brown were home that morning getting ready for school when she saw him go up and down the stairs of the house carrying two long guns.

Then, she told them, she heard “a big boom,” and, after a little while, Brown joined her in the laundry room, and the two left for school.

But, during her testimony Wednesday, Houk claimed she saw Brown put the guns on the couch in the living room and that he pushed her as they were leaving.

“Jordan was running up and down the stairs bringing guns and putting them on the couch,” she testified. “When I was in the laundry room, I heard a boom. … Jordan came running into the laundry room, pushing me out because we were going to be late.”

According to testimony throughout the trial, Houk had never mentioned to the state police during any of her four interviews anything about the couch or Brown pushing her, though she did give the same information while being deposed for Brown’s lawsuit.

Houk also told the jury that, as the two of them ran down the driveway to catch the bus, she saw something else.

“I saw him throw something out of his pocket,” Houk said.

During Brown’s juvenile court hearing, state police said a shotgun shell had been found the morning after the shooting a few feet from the middle of the driveway under leaves that were frozen and covered by ice and snow. The trooper characterized the shell as “pristine.”

During the civil trial, Chris and Jordan Brown testified they often shot at targets in their yard. They also told the jury there were rules in the household that the children were not allowed to touch the guns in the house.

Jenessa Houk testified Wednesday she remembered no such rules.

Houk’s direct examination lasted 12 minutes and was marked by a series of questions in quick succession by Boland.

“Did the police coerce you to give that statement about Jordan Brown?” the lawyer asked.

“No.”

“Did you hear the boom that morning?”

“Yes,” Houk replied.

“Do you have any reason to lie about what happened that morning?” Boland concluded.

“No.”

During cross-examination, Wright, whose questioning style during earlier parts of the trial could be aggressive, spoke softly to Houk.

She said she did not remember the substance of any of the interviews with the state police the day her mom was killed, but she did recall speaking to troopers.

Wright gently revisited Houk’s testimony about the couch, the push and seeing Brown throw something that morning, asking her if that was what she told investigators then.

Houk, now 23 and a registered nurse, said it was.

“That was my memory.”