Widow Accused In Poisoning Awaits Fate

(CBS/AP)  Jurors who will decide whether Cynthia Sommer fatally poisoned her Marine husband in order to get at his $250,000 death benefit were to begin their second day of deliberations Monday.

Before beginning deliberations Friday, they were confronted during closing arguments with the same question by attorneys for both the prosecution and defense: How does someone who just murdered their spouse behave?

With no smoking gun to show that Sommer was the source of the arsenic detected in her husband's liver, both sides depended heavily on circumstantial evidence to sway the Superior Court jurors.

Prosecutors argued that Sommer wanted more than she could afford on the $1,700 monthly salary Sgt. Todd Sommer brought home, and saw the military life insurance policy as a way to "set herself free."

Sommer's friends and co-workers testified during the trial that Sommer threw wild parties, got her breasts enlarged and had casual sex with multiple partners in the weeks after her husband's collapse.

But, reports The Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman, defense lawyers stress there's no physical evidence linking Sommer to the arsenic found in her husband's body, and they say the 911 tape shows she was trying to save his life.

Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn asked jurors to use their common sense to find Sommer guilty.

"The defendant has wrongly imagined that if no one could tie her to the poison, she could never be prosecuted," Gunn said. "She gave the general impression of a grieving widow but certain things she said or did betrayed her."

Sommer, 33, sat quietly in a taupe pantsuit, occasionally taking notes or whispering to her attorney's assistant during the daylong closing arguments.

She nodded slightly as defense attorney Robert Udell recounted for jurors how she had gone home and cradled her toddler son while staring at a picture of her dead husband on the day of his collapse.

"The things she did were consistent with innocence," Udell said. "Not a thing consistent with guilt."

Earlier, Gunn argued that Sommer, who worked a minimum-wage job at a Subway restaurant, had an "ah-ha" moment in early 2002, shortly after her husband's small trust fund ran out.

Rather than living within her means, Gunn said, Sommer decided to poison Sgt. Todd Sommer with arsenic in order to cash in on his $250,000 military death benefit.

"She may have been crying and acting upset and tearful, but the best evidence of what was going on in her head is what came out of her mouth," Gunn said, reminding jurors that witnesses testified the defendant asked about the life insurance and tax loopholes just hours after the Marine collapsed and died in their home Feb. 18, 2002.

"What was going on up here and in here," Gunn said, pointing to her head and heart, "was a big calculator."

Co-workers testified during the trial that the new widow didn't grieve quietly in the weeks after her husband's death but, reports Kauffman, the defense said she was simply in a vulnerable state.

Jurors heard plenty of colorful evidence about her spendthrift ways and party lifestyle, but less evidence was presented actually linking her to the arsenic.

Gunn recognized in her argument that she did not have a "hard, demonstrable link" to prove Cynthia Sommer bought arsenic or gave it to her husband, but asserted that the defendant was the only person with the motive and access to poison the Marine.

Cynthia Sommer, 33, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder with special circumstances of murder by poison and for financial gain. She faces life in prison if convicted.

Todd Sommer was in top condition when he died at the couple's home on the Marine Corps' Miramar base in San Diego.

He had spiked a 103-degree-Fahrenheit fever days earlier, but his widow testified that he was well enough that weekend to drink beer during a family trip to the Knott's Berry Farm amusement park in Orange County.

His death was initially ruled a heart attack. Tests of his liver later found levels of arsenic 1,020 times above normal. Expert witnesses for the defense raised questions about why arsenic wasn't detected in similarly large concentrations in his other tissues.

Cynthia Sommer's in-laws testified that she objected when they asked her to put her husband's $250,000 death benefit in trust for herself, their baby and her three children from a previous marriage.

She cried when called to the stand Jan. 17, dabbing her eyes as she recounted her husband's final moments.

But she also said during cross-examination that she hadn't been able to envision her future with the Marine. The pair married in 1999.

She is now engaged to a former Marine she met two months after her husband's death. She was extradited last March to California from her current home in West Palm Beach, Fla.

[jabardelli]

15. What evidence was introduced, if any, that served to establish that the Defendant was capable of committing a crime of this magnitude and/or what evidence did the defendant's attorney introduce that served to establish that she was incapable of even formulating such a thought let alone "pulling the trigger."

This case raises the distinct likelihood that a travesty of justice convicted an innocent person be condemned not because of evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. To the contrary, the evidence is problamatic, circumstantial, and represents, at best, aberrant behavior that is easily explained to the satisfaction of any jury through an effective and experience behaviorial psychologist.

[jabardelli]

12. What steps were undertaken to trace the purchase of any arsenic within the local and within a three to six month period by either the prosecution and/or defense counsel? What prove was offered that the arsenic was consumed orally versus ingested through other means including work place contamination, breathing through environmental contamination, and other means of ingesting arsenic. We all have levels of arsenic and other toxicities without our systems ... America is a contaminated nation and becoming increasingly more so through the weakening of environmental legislation thanks to years of Republican Administration and an adoption of laissez fairism with respect to business environmental practices.
13. Was a behavioral psychologist called in by defense counsel to explain the Defendant's non-grieving behavior in terms of a sedative approach to her own personal grief?
14. What impact does the psychological and predominate role of "envy" have on the juror's decision to convict another due to frivolity?

Paragraph 15 to Follow:

[jabardelli]

9. It seems to me that if the decedent had 1,020 times above normal the amount of arsenic in his system and the arsenic caused his death ... he would not have lingered for two weeks. What are the signs and symptoms of arsenic poisoning? General Principles: Poisoning: Merck Manual Professional.
10. Did the prosecution explore precisely where this soldier was stationed while serving and whether or not he was exposed to arsenic or working with it ... were his military medical records examined to see if he had other similar complaints of stomach pain or other symptoms suggestive to chemical or toxic exposure? If the prosecution did not explore these options, the prosecuting was on its own vendetta and willing to hang anyone remotely close to the decedent and, tragically, that person happens to be the wife of the decedent.
11. Were forensic toxicologists and/or physiologists engaged by the defense to provide any defense and/or explanation of the cause of death consistent with non-arsenic related causes?

Paragraphs (12) through (15) to follow:

[jabardelli]

4. How many women have breast augmentation every day in the USA and the world at large? Again, does a woman undergoing breast enlargement equate to the requisite twin elements of mens rea and actus reus? Of course not --- it is so remote --- and should never have been allowed to come into evidence that a conviction should be reversed ON THE ALLOWING OF THIS BIT OF EVIDENCE STANDING ALONE! Why was this evidence allowed under any circumstance?
5. Does "not acting agrieved" rise to the level of proving the requisite elements of mens rea and actus reus? By itself, it could be explained away but I understand that there were multiple instances of evidence offered to the contrary, i.e., that the defendant was, in fact, undergoing grief as the result of her husband's death.
6. What did defense counsel do to establish that others had a motive or vendetta against her husband and/or did the defense counsel show that the prosecution did not explore such possibility raising reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors?
7. The official cause of death was originally stated to be a heart attack ... why did the coroner find that he had a heart attack and what caused the coroner to change his/her mind?
8. Can arsenic cause a heart attack? What evidence was introduced to show that the decedent had died from a heart attack and, again, why was the coroner's mind changed?

Pargraphs (9) through (16) to follow:

[jabardelli]

3. How far do we carry this non-sense about serving, supporting and/or protecting the troops ... by alluding to it in any manner, shape or form during the course of a trial where, in essence, a person is being tried and whose life is literally on the line? Has the alleged murder of a young marine been proven through establishment of the mindset and the actually means employed in fulfilling the mindset is what has to be proven through evidence introduced by the prosecution. How tempered was this jury to avenge the death of the marine? I wonder if the prosecution utilized the flag, honor and country in her closing argument to whip up the frenzy of this jury to want to hang anybody for the taking of a soldier's life ... including the soldier's wife. If she did engage in such conduct, it is prosecutorial misconduct, and if the judge allowed it over a properly made objection by defense counsel, then that fact standing alone should be sufficient to form the basis for a court of appeals to reverse the guilty verdict handed down by this jury.

Pararaphs (4) through (16) to follow:

[jabardelli]

1. What young woman ... or young man ... does not have debts? Does debt equate to the twin elements required to convict one of murder --- mens rea and actus reus?
2. Why did the judge allow such evidence of sexual promiscuity to be part of this case even if evidence was advanced of grieving and the defendant going to church? The prosecution should not have been able to advance that evidence as a neutralizing force. The test to be employed is not "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." The test is whether the prejudicial impact of such evidence is greater than the relevancy of the evidence sought to be introduced. If the evidence is deemed admissible, one must ask: What percent of young woman are promiscuous and engage in casual ***? Does casual *** following the death of a husband equate to murder? Does casual *** equate to the establishment requisite twin elements of mens rea and actus reus? The answer is NOT BY A LONG SHOT!

Paragraphs (3) through (16) to follow:

[YourDecision]

If her name Scotti Peterson, and her husband's name was Laci, it would be a different story from people. It has become a fashion statement to kill men and then pretend they didn't do it, or, the old stand-by, "he abused me".

[dommino02]

i don't see any evdince that links her to the death ove her husband ifeel that the *** *** she have never been allowed in the judge was wrong on this issue i feel this is a whitch hunt and that the prousctor is avindictive person win at all costs this should have never come to trial there is aboustley no evdience linking her to her husbands death if she is convictied than i know ther is no justice is this contry it is a judgement on which lawyer puts on the best show not about the evdience iwant to see real evdience

[mrassekh]

Maybe she just has horrible judgment. Maybe she couldn't stand the sight of her husband any longer. Maybe she always wanted bigger boobs and to party every night. Maybe she hated her husband so much that she can't even fake sorrow. That still doesn't mean she killed him. It just means incredible luck - - good that he was nice enough to die and leave her all the money; bad that she got charged with murder. Maybe.

[michaure]

here some other facts about this KILLER that wasn't posted in this:

Earlier, Deputy District Attorney Laura Gunn argued that Sommer, who worked a minimum-wage job at a Subway restaurant, had an %u201Cah-ha%u201D moment in early 2002, shortly after her husband's small trust fund ran out.

that witnesses testified the defendant asked about the life insurance and tax loopholes just hours after the Marine collapsed and died in their home on Feb. 18, 2002

Rather than going into seclusion, she got her breasts enlarged, her co-workers testified. Instead of donning somber colors, she allegedly joined wet T-shirt contests at nightclubs and had casual *** with other military men.

Prosecutors claim Sommer could not have afforded new breasts before her husband's death and that she wasn't the type to wait for something she wanted

His wife made at least four remarks about money in the first five hours of his death, Gunn reminded jurors

Only one person had the opportunity to poison him and the motive to poison him,"

But she also told the jury that she did not see her future with the marine, who she married in 1999.

Wells said Sommer was drunk, dancing on a balcony in a nightclub and competing in a "thong contest".