SLEEPWALKING MURDER TRIAL
				Should the court show mercy? Discuss on our message board June 14 Update June 15 Update June 16 Update June 17 Update June 18 Update (Morning) June 18 Update (Afternoon) June 21 Update June 22 Update June 23 Update (Prosecution Closing Arguments) June 23 Update (Defense Closing Arguments) June 24 Update June 25 Update June 25 (The Verdict) June 25 (Post-Verdict Reaction) Jan. 10 (Sentencing)

PHOENIX (Court TV) — As the murder trial of the Arizona man who claims he was sleepwalking when he stabbed his wife 44 times resumes this week, defense attorneys will have to decide whether the scientific testimony of noted sleepwalking experts alone will convince jurors to acquit or whether Scott Falater will have to testify on his behalf.

Falater, who faces the death penalty, is accused of murdering Yarmila, his wife of 20 years, on January 16, 1997. Falater stabbed his wife 44 times at the home, dragged her into their pool and then held her head under water.

The murder was as puzzling as it was brutal: the Falaters appeared to be happily married, and Scott appeared to have no motive to kill. Friends and colleagues of the defendant were shocked that Falater, an engineer who had a reputation as a mild-mannered loving husband, could murder his wife.

Falater's defense attorney, Michael Kimerer, does not deny that his client killed Yarmila. But he insists Falater could not have committed murder because he was sleepwalking at the time and could not have formed the intent to kill.

During the three-week trial, various experts, relying on Falater's history of sleepwalking and his claim that he was asleep during the slaying, have told jurors that they believe Yarmila saw that her husband was sleepwalking and tried to either wake him up or bring him back to bed.

Experts such as Dr. Roger Broughton of Canada and Janet Tatman have testified that Falater's stress on his job left him severely sleep-deprived on the night of the murder. Before falling into a deep sleep, they said, Falater had unsuccessfully tried to fix a water pump in his backyard pool. Once he was in a deep sleep, the experts testified, Falater began to sleep-walk and resumed his attempts to fix the water pump.

Broughton and Tatman have suggested to jurors that Yarmila's attempts to bring her husband back to bed may have triggered a violent reaction in him that led to her death. They have testified that attempts to interfere with a sleepwalker's physical activity could lead to violent reactions. Falater's sister testified that he once threw her out of his way during one sleepwalking episode.

Still, the testimony of a neighbor and Falater's post-slaying actions present problems for the defense. Greg Koons, who heard Yarmila's screams, told jurors that he saw Falater go back into his house after he placed his wife in the pool. Falater, said Koons, then turned the lights on and off.

Furthermore, said the neighbor, Falater put on a pair of gloves before dragging his wife to the pool. With Yarmila's body left in the now-crimson pool, Falater discarded his bloody clothes, put them in a plastic container, and threw them in a garbage cab before finally placing them in the trunk of his car before heading back inside the home.

When police arrived and confronted Falater, he appeared to be in shock and did not know what had happened. But Arizona prosecutors claim that Falater was not sleepwalking and was really trying to cover-up the murder. If Falater was really sleepwalking, prosecutors argued at trial, how could he be aware enough to put gloves on before moving the body? And why did he discard his bloody clothes? How could an allegedly oblivious sleepwalker stab a victim 44 times?

So far, Drs. Broughton and Tatman have had no explicit explanation for Falater's actions. But Broughton has suggested that the very peculiarity of the killing proves that Falater did not commit premeditated murder. Falater would not have left Yarmila's body in the pool, stashed his bloody clothes so near the crime scene, and then gone back to bed after the attack and feigned bewilderment to investigators if he intended to commit — and get away with — premeditated murder, according to Broughton.

"If one were going to commit a homicide, much of the activity that's documented makes no sense to me," Broughton has testified.

In addition, the defense may be hampered by the proposed testimony of Falater's former colleague, who prosecutors claim heard the defendant talk about a similar sleepwalking murder trial weeks before his wife's death. In that trial, which occurred in Canada in the 1980s, a man who claimed to be sleepwalking when he killed his wife was acquitted and Dr. Broughton was a key defense witness. Judge Ronald Reinstein still has to rule on the admissibility of this testimony.

To get his client acquitted, Kimerer only has to convince one juror that Falater did not intend to kill his wife. Although casting the seed of doubt is the key to the defense, Falater may have to testify to humanize himself and convince jurors that he loved his wife and had no reason to kill her. He must convince them that he is truly sorry for his actions.

Falater is expected not to recall anything from his alleged sleepwalking episode. But that alone may not save him from a conviction.

— Bryan Robinson