MARTINEZ, Calif. — Murder defendant Susan Polk appeared to be making headway Wednesday as she cross-examined a detective she claims failed to thoroughly investigate her husband's death.

But then her questioning took a bizarre turn.

Polk, who is acting as her own attorney, is charged with stabbing her 70-year-old psychologist husband to death with a paring knife.

She claims the stabbing was in self-defense, and she cross-examined Detective Michael Costa Wednesday about why he failed to investigate her claims that Dr. Felix Polk was physically abusive during their 20-year marriage.

Story continues

advertisement

"It was a murder investigation, wasn't it?" Polk asked Costa, who interrogated Polk on Oct. 15, 2002, after police found her husband's bloody body in the couple's guest house.

"Yes," Costa said.

"And you didn't check these things out?" Polk continued, referring to her claim that Felix Polk was violent.

"Not personally," Costa said.

Although Polk has no legal training, her questions had the rapid-fire cadence of a seasoned criminal defense attorney.

"Did anybody?" Polk asked. "Yes or no?"

"Not to my knowledge," Costa said.

Polk's questions then slipped into an area that has been the source of snickering in the gallery: her alleged belief that her husband was a secret agent for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.

Her son Gabriel, 19, previously testified for the prosecution that he believed his mother was "delusional" and that she fabricated the allegations of physical abuse.

Several jurors glanced at one another with raised eyebrows Wednesday as Polk met the delusion allegations head-on.

"Didn't I accuse my husband of being a Mossad agent?" Polk asked Costa.

He agreed that she had.

"Did you follow up on that at all?" Polk asked.

"No," Costa said.

Polk asked Costa about part of her diary, written on a computer Costa seized, in which she accused her husband of treason and said she was shocked to learn after Sept. 11, 2001, that he had information that the World Trade Center was going to be attacked by terrorists before the event occurred.

"Did you report it to the FBI?" Polk asked.

"Not to my knowledge," Costa replied.

"Do you believe there is no such thing as the Mossad?" Polk asked later.

"Do I believe? Yes, they exist," Costa said.

He also agreed with the defendant that Mossad agents typically do not carry ID cards that would give them away.

"Normally, if there's some kind of treasonable activity, doesn't that get reported to police?" Polk asked at one point.

"Yes," Costa said.

Polk suggested Wednesday that her private investigators discovered writings among her husband's papers that police missed, which indicate Felix Polk had plans to overthrow the government. She also said he practiced hypnosis on her and engaged in paranormal study.

"Are you aware my husband believed he was a psychic?" Polk asked Costa.

"No," the witness replied.

"Do you believe in psychic phenomena?" Polk said.

"No, not really," Costa said.

Mysterious letter

Polk met her husband when she was a 15-year-old schoolgirl suffering from panic attacks and he was her 40-year-old psychologist, who soon became her lover and eventually her husband.

Costa testified that he did not fully investigate her claims of Felix Polk's abuse because she initially denied killing him and because he found no evidence to back up the allegation that he was violent with her.

Polk referred him to a letter she said detectives found in a safe in her bedroom during a search of the property. Costa denied any knowledge of the letter, at first.

"How'd you guys get my safe open?" Polk asked.

"Again, I don't know anything about a safe, and I don't know who might have opened it," Costa replied.

Polk then showed Costa a photo of a safe in her home taken by police on Oct. 15. He did not have specific recollections about the safe, but admitted that the letter likely was in the safe, as Polk suggested.

The letter, which has been obtained by Courttv.com, was allegedly written on March 16, 2001, by Susan Polk, and is a declaration of the allegedly unethical and violent conduct of her husband.

In the document, she accuses Felix Polk of raping her, drugging her and physically assaulting her and her three children.

"Did you investigate whether or not my husband did the things in that letter?" Polk asked. "For example, did you investigate if my husband raped me when I was a patient in his care?"

The judge admonished Polk in front of the jury after she tried several more times to discuss the contents of the letter with the witness, who had no knowledge of it. She may testify about the letter herself when she takes the stand.

"Ms. Polk, for the fifth time now, he cannot testify to the contents of that document. You can. He cannot. Move on, please," Judge Laurel Brady said.

But Polk was relentless.

"I'm at my wit's end. I'm trying not to get angry ... At this point, it's becoming absurd," Assistant District Attorney Paul Sequeira complained to the judge during a sidebar.

"She won't follow the rules. She won't stop interrupting ... I don't know what else to do. I'm asking the court for guidance," Sequeira said.

Polk accused the judge and prosecutor of conspiring against her by keeping her from showing the jury important exculpatory documents.

"This court — you, your honor — and the DA are perfectly well aware that everything related to the defendant's state of mind is relevant," Polk said.

"I'm not done," Polk interrupted when the judge began to speak.

"Ms. Polk, we've had this discussion over and over and over again, and you've made the same baseless accusations ... " Judge Brady began.

Polk shuffled through papers and got out of her seat to look through her files on the floor behind her as the judge spoke.

"And as you are doing now, you tune me out and we have this conversation over and over again," Brady said.

Polk glanced up briefly, but continued searching through her papers and evidence code notes, until the judge warned her for a third time to pay attention.

Brady warned Polk that her pro per status — her right to defend herself — was in danger of being revoked.

Polk fired four attorneys and endured one mistrial last fall before Brady granted her request earlier this year to defend herself. If she were to revoke the privilege, a mistrial would likely be declared to give new counsel time to prepare.

Not 'entertainment'

"I think you're wasting your time," Detective Costa snapped at Polk Wednesday after several hours of questions that he said were better left for "a criminalist, not me."

"Oh, really?" Polk replied.

Polk presented Costa with photos of what she has begun referring to as "the so-called crime scene," and pointed out details she believes support her theory that the scene was "staged" by detectives who are guilty of "evidence tampering."

For instance, Polk showed him a picture of two bloody shoe prints found near her husband's body, which some witnesses have agreed appear to be two right shoes side-by-side.

The only way they could have gotten there, Polk said, was if "somebody took the shoe, stuck it in wet blood, and stamped them on the floor."

A juror in the front row, who had been previously smiling, put his head in his hands and began to rub his temples.

"There was nothing in this case that led me to believe that this scene had been staged," Costa said.

Detective Costa later groused to the judge during a sidebar about having to return Thursday for a third day of cross-examination. The retired detective, who flew in from out of town, has an unspecified physical condition and did not bring enough medication with him.

Polk interjected that he should call in a prescription, and later demanded to know what the condition was.

"What is it? Is he on psych meds?" Polk said, despite the judge's ruling that it was irrelevant to the case and her admonishment not to discuss the issue in front of the jury.

"I had no intention of doing that, but now I'm curious," Polk said. "This is a deviant prosecutor."

Several trial watchers laughed out loud.

"Order in the court," the bailiff shouted.

"All right, that's it," Judge Laurel Brady said. "Ladies and gentleman of the gallery, this is not for entertainment."