The Complete Trial of Harold Horseface

At long last, now it can be told! All 10 days of coverage of Vermont v. Horseface, along with relevant background information, in one convenient location! I am so proud of you for finding this page!

 

 The Complete Trial of Harold Horseface

as chronicled by Big Chris

 

Background Information

From "My Christmas List", written by Harold Horseface on January 6th, 2024:

Well, it’s that time of year again. Christmas is a magical time in White River Junction. All of the houses are covered in colorful lights, and the air is filled with the scent of hamburgers. The Cheese Men put slices of cheese in everyone’s mailboxes, and the town Public Works department uses industrial cookie cutters to make festive-shaped potholes in the streets. It has become a tradition for me to walk through the center of town playing carols on my serpent, with the Upper Valley Swan Choir marching behind me in unison. Everyone is happy to see us. Like Big Chris mentioned, I am celebrating Orthodox Christmas this year, which means that the holiday season is even longer, making the amount of joy to be spread even greater! 

"Free Harold Horseface!", written by Big Chris on June 22nd, 2024:

This is Big Chris writing again. A lot has happened in the last 5 months, and as Harold’s manager I’ve been up to my ears with lawyers, county prosecutors, and the like. Because of that, I’ve been too busy to update the blog, and Harold certainly doesn’t have access to it. I know all of Harold’s loyal readers are anxious to hear about what has happened, so I’ll get right to the point. Harold was arrested on January 7th following his annual Christmas march. He has been charged with disorderly conduct and aggravated assault after he allegedly hit a police officer with his serpent. 

As you may remember from Harold’s last post, he was excited to celebrate Orthodox Christmas this year so he could show his solidarity with the Macedonian people. This happened on January 7th. Harold also wrote about his plans to march through White River Junction playing Christmas carols with the Upper Valley Swan Choir. Usually this happens on Christmas Eve, but the UVSC agreed to move the date of this parade to the 7th. I unfortunately was unable to join Harold, as I had a business meeting in Zilwaukee. 

From what I have been told, the parade started off innocently enough. Harold led all 22 members of the UVSC up South Main Street towards the center of town, and he intended to march all the way to Quechee. However, as the citizens of White River Junction were not expecting Harold’s march to occur on Orthodox Christmas, a large traffic jam formed. You may also remember from Harold’s last post that the town of Hartford has a holiday tradition where they cut Christmas-themed potholes in the roads with giant cookie cutters. The combination of the sudden traffic jam and the large potholes resulted in a number of car accidents. Naturally, the police were called to investigate, and upon discovering the cause of the traffic jam they attempted to stop Harold’s parade. 

The prosecutors claim Harold then attacked Officer Arnold Polmer, hitting him on the head with his serpent. This, of course, is ridiculous. Harold doesn’t have a violent bone in his body, and even if he did, he certainly would never use his serpent as a weapon. It is his livelihood. I have been asked not to disclose Harold’s defense strategy by his attorneys, but I can assure readers that there is ample evidence proving his innocence. 

Regardless, Harold was arrested immediately afterward. I attempted to bail him out of jail, but he said being there was like a mini vacation and refused my money. Harold initially tried get the ACLU involved in his case, but they declined, stating that holding the parade on a different day than normal didn’t constitute a religious belief. Harold then wanted to be represented by Bart Durham, but he changed his mind after learning that Mr. Durham was not a criminal defense lawyer and was recently deceased (RIP). Instead, Harold is being represented by Zigmond T. Bronstein, Esq. He is a member of the UVSC who has volunteered to represent Harold pro Bono. This is similar to being represented pro bono, but instead of working for free Mr. Bronstein will receive the entire U2 discography as his payment. 

In the five months since Harold’s arrest there has been a media blackout to avoid tainting the jury pool. That is why I have been unable to update for so long. However, as of yesterday the jury has been selected and the trial date has been set for July 8th. I along with other major media outlets will be providing coverage of the trial as it occurs. 

What Harold needs from all of you is your undying support and loyalty. The best way to show this is to spread the word about his trial. Share this blog and use the hashtag #freeharoldhorseface on your posts. You can also follow Harold’s new Instagram account, @haroldhorseface. 

Stay posted for more information!

Day 1 — July 8th, 2024

Quick note from Big Chris: 

People come to this blog to read Harold’s point of view, and if that is unavailable (as it is now), they want to read pro-Harold content. That is what I was hoping to provide with my coverage of Harold’s trial. So you can imagine my frustration when I arrived at the courthouse this morning and learned that no media outlets were covering this story. Not WVNY, not The Valley News, no one. If that wasn’t enough, when I got to the courtroom I learned that there was no sketch artist available. 

I am neither a journalist nor an artist. I was hoping that my coverage for Harold’s blog would be more informal, especially since I am obviously not a neutral party. But seeing as no one else is going to do it, I am going to try to describe the trial in as detached and objective a way as I can. Fortunately, the court stenographer was kind enough to agree to give me transcripts of the proceedings, so I won’t have to write nearly as much and can also make some sketches. 

Judge Lorelei Westinghouse began the trial of Harold Horseface this morning at 9:00 AM. Harold has pleaded not guilty to the charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated assault. The state’s attorney for Windsor County, Roy S. Mooser, began the proceedings with a forceful opening statement: 

Mr. Mooser: Members of the jury, over the next several days I am going to tell you a story. A story about a day when anarchy descended upon this lovely town. A story about how one man’s actions turned a peaceful winter’s evening into a horror show of violence and destruction. And that one man is Harold Horseface. 

Mooser’s statement painted a grim picture of the events of January 7th, 2024: 

Mooser: Mr. Horseface led his unpermitted mob through the streets with reckless abandon. The chaos he unleashed upon this town caused numerous car accidents and thousands of dollars’ worth of damage. You’d think that would be enough for him. But no! Not merely content with endangering the lives of dozens of motorists, Mr. Horseface then proceeded to viciously attack a decorated state policeman. 

The opening statement for the defense was given by Harold’s attorney, Zigmond T. Bronstein, Esq. Mr. Bronstein’s tone was even more aggressive: 

Mr. Bronstein: I am here today to defend my client not just against the false charges he is accused of, but against the borderline slanderous arguments the state of Vermont is using in its quest to put an innocent man behind bars. 

Bronstein outlined how the prosecution’s framing of Harold’s actions was inaccurate. Notably, he provided an alternative explanation for Officer Arnold Polmer’s injury: 

Bronstein: It is outrageous that the state would try to paint the tragic accident that befell Officer Polmer as an act of malice. Harold Horseface is an upstanding citizen who would never harm another human being. As you soon will learn, Mr. Polmer’s injury was caused by him tripping and hitting his head on Harold’s serpent. 

As for the charge of disorderly conduct, my client’s Christmas march has been unfairly maligned by the state. They would have you believe that this was a spontaneous, disruptive event, the likes of which this town has never seen. This depiction couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, the march that occurred on January 7th was part of a beloved holiday tradition meticulously planned to bring joy and happiness to the people of White River Junction. 

Eventually, the fervor with which Bronstein delivered his statement died down, and he ended it with an appeal to the jury: 

Bronstein: I trust that you will see that justice is served and find Mr. Horseface not guilty of these bogus charges. No, my client is guilty of one thing and one thing only, and that is spreading Christmas cheer. And you can’t convict somebody of that. 

After this, the prosecution began to present its evidence. This included surveillance and dashcam footage from the night of January 7th showing traffic jams forming as drivers encountered the march. Harold’s serpent was also shown to the jury. The prosecution noted the blood stains on the bell and stated that they matched Officer Polmer’s blood type. 

The first witness called by Mr. Mooser was Margaret Lattimer, who provided testimony about the car accidents that resulted from the march. She testified that she was driving south on Route 5 when she encountered the march: 

Ms. Lattimer: I was just merging into the rotary where Sykes Mountain Avenue meets Route 5 when I saw the march coming north from the VA Hospital. I slammed on the brakes, and I got rear ended by the U-Haul truck behind me. 

Mooser: Were you injured in this collision? 

Lattimer: Fortunately, I wasn’t, but my car was totaled. 

Mooser: And how did the defendant react? 

Lattimer: I don’t think he noticed. He and all the swans were singing “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen”. 

The defense declined to cross-examine Ms. Lattimer. 

The second witness called by the prosecution was Grover Baffin. Mr. Baffin testified that he was leaving his Gates Street office when he heard numerous car horns blaring on South Main Street. Curious, he walked down to the corner and saw Harold’s march coming down the road. Mr. Mooser paid special attention to the song Harold and the Upper Valley Swan Choir were singing at the time: 

Mooser: Can you describe what the marchers were performing when you saw them? 

Mr. Baffin: Well, Mr. Horseface was shouting some nonsense phrases, I don’t remember exactly what they were, and then the whole choir would sing ‘Bing bing bing, bong bong bong’ and repeated what he said. 

Mooser: Did this song seem like a Christmas song to you? 

Baffin: No, it did not. 

Mr. Baffin then went on to testify about Harold’s altercation with Officer Polmer: 

Baffin: Officer Polmer came running up from the back of the parade, blowing a whistle to try to get them to stop. He made it to the front of the parade, and he turned around and started arguing with Mr. Horseface. 

Mooser: What were they arguing about? 

Baffin: I couldn’t make out everything, but I assumed it was about how he was blocking the road. 

Mooser: What happened next? 

Baffin: Well, Officer Polmer stepped towards Harold, I think to take his serpent from him, and I saw Harold raise up his serpent. I heard a thunk sound, and Officer Polmer fell on the ground with a head wound. 

Mr. Baffin stated that he left the scene after this, as the situation seemed to be escalating and he did not want to get involved in something dangerous. 

The defense then began its cross-examination of Mr. Baffin. Mr. Bronstein began by questioning what specifically Baffin meant by the phrase “raising up”: 

Bronstein: Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines ‘raise’ as ‘to cause or help to rise’. Does that definition match what you saw the defendant doing with his serpent? 

Baffin: Yes, pretty much. 

Bronstein: Just so we’re all on the same page as to what action the defendant took, I’d like to ask you about some other definitions. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines ‘jab’ as ‘to thrust quickly or abruptly’. Does that definition match what you saw the defendant doing with his serpent? 

Baffin: No. 

Bronstein: Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines ‘thrust’ as ‘to push or drive with force’. Does that definition match what you saw the defendant doing with his serpent? 

Baffin: No. 

Bronstein: Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines ‘strike’ as ‘to touch or hit abruptly’. Does that definition match what you saw the defendant doing with his serpent? 

Judge Westinghouse: Mr. Bronstein, you don’t have to say ‘Merriam-Webster’ every time. 

Bronstein: Well, excuse me for citing my sources! 

Baffin clarified that he did not see Harold jab, thrust, strike, whack, prod, or bludgeon Officer Polmer with his serpent; he only saw Harold move his serpent upward as Polmer fell down. Bronstein then introduced a new line of questioning: 

Bronstein: Tell me, Mr. Baffin, how familiar are you with the work of The Residents? What do you know about the Theory of Obscurity? Have you studied the Theory of Phonetic Organization? 

Baffin: None of what you just said made any sense to me. 

Bronstein then presented the witness with a vinyl record: 

Bronstein: I take it then that you have not listened to their 1972 Christmas EP Santa Dog? 

Baffin: No, I have not. Hey, why does this have Richard Nixon’s address on it? 

Bronstein: Your Honor, I would like to enter this record into the record, as it demonstrates the Christmasy nature of both my client’s march and the songs performed therein. 

Westinghouse: Does the prosecution object to this? 

Mooser: No, Your Honor. 

Westinghouse: Very well, I will allow it. 

After this, the court was adjourned for the day. The trial will continue tomorrow with testimony from Officer Arnold Polmer and his partner Officer Jacques Nicklaus. 

Day 2 — July 9th, 2024

The second day of Vermont v. Horseface began today with testimony from Officer Arnold Polmer, the police officer injured in the events of January 7th. Mr. Polmer began by describing how he encountered Harold’s march: 

Officer Polmer: Around 5:30 that night I was on patrol with my partner, Officer Nicklaus. We were driving up Church Street when we witnessed a traffic collision at the intersection with Gates Street. 

Mooser: What was the cause of this accident? 

Polmer: Seemed like one of the drivers was trying to take a shortcut because of all the traffic and they went around the corner without looking to see if anyone was there. 

Mooser: What was the extent of the damage? 

Polmer: It wasn’t too bad, just a fender-bender. But we still stopped to make sure they were alright and to see if they wanted to make a report. 

Polmer testified that he and Officer Nicklaus were finishing up their conversation with the drivers when they heard a loud crash and blaring horns coming from further down Gates Street. They ran over and saw that another, more serious car crash had occurred: 

Polmer: Someone had driven their SUV into the rear left door of a Subaru station wagon. 

Mooser: Were there other cars at the scene? 

Polmer: Yes, all the traffic on Currier Street was backed up. The back of the Subaru was sticking out into the intersection with Gates Street, and the driver of the SUV wasn’t paying attention and plowed right into it. 

Mooser: What was the extent of the damage? 

Polmer: Both of the cars were totaled. Thank God that no one was injured. 

It was at this point that Officer Polmer noticed the march progressing up South Main Street: 

Polmer: I could hear the sound of car horns coming from the direction of the train station, and I turned that way to see what was going on. That’s when I saw the defendant marching up the street. 

Mooser: What did you do then? 

Polmer: I told Jacques to finish making the accident report, and I ran down to South Main Street to stop the march. I blew my whistle to get their attention. 

After getting the marchers to stop, Polmer ran up to the front of the parade and confronted Harold: 

Mooser: How did the defendant react when he first saw you?

Polmer: He shook my hand and wished me a Merry Christmas. 

Mooser: What did you say to him? 

Polmer: I asked him if he had a permit for his march. 

Mooser: What was his response? 

Polmer: He said he didn’t need a permit to have a Merry Christmas and offered me a candy cane. We went back and forth for a while, until finally I said ‘Look, you’re causing a traffic jam. There’s already been several car accidents. I need you to stop your march.’ 

Mooser: How did he react? 

Polmer: He said ‘But think of the children! Someone needs to wish them a Merry Christmas! We must march on!’ Then he shouted to the choir ‘Hit it, gang!’ and began to play his horn thing. 

Mooser: What happened next? 

Polmer: At this point I was ready to arrest him, or at least detain him until we could get the roads cleared. I stepped forward to take his horn from him. The next thing I knew, I was on the pavement. I was dizzy and my head was bleeding. I could see his horn lying a couple feet away from me, and it had blood on it. 

Mooser: What was your partner, Officer Nicklaus, doing at this time? 

Polmer: Jacques was putting the defendant in the back seat of our squad car. 

Polmer testified that an ambulance took him to the hospital, where he received nine stitches. Had he gotten to the hospital sooner, he would have only needed one. He was also diagnosed with a concussion. 

During cross-examination, the defense centered its questions around one part of Polmer’s testimony: 

Bronstein: Officer Polmer, you testified that after you began to take Harold’s serpent from him, you woke up on the pavement. Do you recall how you ended up on the road? 

Polmer: I do not, no. 

Bronstein: So you have no recollection of whether or not Harold hit you with the serpent? 

Polmer: That is correct. Because of the concussion, my memories of what happened after I tried to take his serpent are a little hazy. 

Upon redirect, Polmer clarified his statements: 

Polmer: I know the serpent hit my head. It had blood on it, and I was the only person injured. I just can’t remember whether or not Mr. Horseface hit me with it. 

The relatively straightforward and unemotional testimony of Officer Polmer contrasted with the fiery rhetoric of the previous day’s proceedings. This changed, however, after the prosecution called their fourth witness, Officer Jacques Nicklaus. Nicklaus began his testimony by confirming Polmer’s account of the two car accidents. After finishing the report for the second crash, he walked back to his car and went to see what his partner was up to: 

Officer Nicklaus: I drove down to the corner to see how Arnie was getting along. 

Mooser: What did you see when you reached South Main Street? 

Nicklaus: I saw Arnie lying in the road with the defendant looming over him. 

Mooser: Describe how exactly the defendant was positioned over Officer Polmer. 

Nicklaus: He was pinning him down on the pavement with his right hand, and he was holding up his bloody serpent with his left. 

Mooser: At that moment, what did you think was about to happen? 

Nicklaus: There was not a doubt in my mind that the defendant had hit Arnie with the serpent and was preparing to do so again. 

Nicklaus got out of his car and ran down the street. He grabbed Harold’s arms from behind, causing him to drop his serpent: 

Nicklaus: I placed the defendant under arrest and read him his rights. I then placed handcuffs on him and took him back to my squad car.

Mooser: How did the defendant react to this? 

Nicklaus: He started shouting to the rest of the choir, saying things like ‘You must go on without me!’ and ‘Don’t let the magic die!’ 

Mooser: In your opinion, does the defendant’s conduct on January 7th strike you as that of a well-balanced individual? 

Nicklaus: No. I would describe Mr. Horseface as a violent and dangerous person. 

During cross-examination, Nicklaus became argumentative when Bronstein pushed back on his claims: 

Bronstein: Mr. Nicklaus, you made some very specific statements about what exactly the defendant was doing when you arrived on the scene. I’d like to just confirm the geography of it all. Where exactly were you when you first saw the defendant’s altercation with Officer Polmer? 

Nicklaus: I was at the corner of Gates Street and South Main. 

Bronstein: That would be at 55 South Main Street, correct? 

Nicklaus: Yes. 

Bronstein: What time was this? 

Nicklaus: About 5:45. 

Bronstein: And where on the street was Officer Polmer? 

Nicklaus: He was lying in the street in front of the post office. 

Bronstein: Would that be the post office at 27 South Main Street? 

Nicklaus: Yes. What are you getting at? 

Bronstein: Mr. Nicklaus, do you really expect the court to believe that you were able to make out the minutiæ of the defendant’s actions on a dark street, at a distance of roughly 60 yards? 

Nicklaus: I have good eyesight. So sue me. 

Bronstein: Do not tempt me, Mr. Nicklaus. But regardless of your eyesight, did you actually see the defendant hit Officer Polmer with his serpent? 

Nicklaus: I knew he did it – 

Bronstein: Answer the question! Did you or did you not see Mr. Horseface physically strike Officer Polmer with his serpent? 

Nicklaus: No, that happened before I got to the corner. But I don’t need to see a crime happen to know exactly how it went down. 

Bronstein: I believe that statement speaks for itself. No further questions. 

After Officer Nicklaus’s testimony, Harold and Mr. Bronstein were expecting to begin presenting their evidence. But Mr. Mooser still had one trick up his sleeve: 

Mooser: The prosecution calls Ethel to the stand. 

Needless to say, this was shocking news: 

Bronstein: What the hell is this? You aren’t allowed to call a surprise witness! 

Mooser: I informed you of this months ago. Didn’t you get my letter? 

Bronstein: Damn it! I knew I should have checked my mailbox! Your Honor, I understand this is irregular, but I would like to request a recess. I need time to review this evidence. 

Westinghouse: Fine. I’ll adjourn court early today, but you’d better be ready by tomorrow morning. 

Bronstein: Understood, thank you. 

And at this point I’m going to drop the whole journalist act; I don’t know why I thought I could be objective in the first place. It’s totally outrageous that the state would call Ethel, the scourge of Harold’s existence, to testify! It’s also 100% not Zigmond’s fault that we didn’t know about this. When Mooser didn’t get confirmation that his letter was received, he should have further reached out to us to make sure we knew. Everybody knows that DeJoy gutted the USPS budget. 

I don’t know what we’re gonna do tomorrow. 

Day 3 — July 10th, 2024

Another note from Big Chris: 

Well, Zigmond, Harold, and I pulled an all-nighter, and we feel pretty confident about how we’ll be responding to Ethel’s testimony. I also want to say that I’ve calmed down from yesterday’s shock, and I will be continuing to present journalistic coverage of the trial. Somebody’s got to get the truth out there, cause God knows Ethel won’t. 

Yesterday, the prosecution shocked the defense by announcing that Ethel, Harold’s first wife, was going to testify against him. Today, Mooser began by having Ethel outline her history with Harold: 

Mooser: State your full legal name for the court. 

Ethel: Ethel. 

Mooser: What is your relationship to the defendant? 

Ethel: Harold is my ex-husband. 

Mooser: How long were you two together? 

Ethel: We were legally married from 2016 to 2023, but you could say we were separated starting in 2021. 

Ethel explained how in February of 2021, Harold suddenly disappeared. Not knowing how to find him, she hired a private detective to track him down. This ultimately was fruitless, as Harold was able to evade the detective. Months later, Ethel learned that not only had Harold left her for another woman, but they had eloped in Reno. After a prolonged court battle lasting two years, Ethel agreed to divorce Harold, and Harold’s marriage to his new wife Vanessa was recognized as valid by the state. 

Mooser then stated the reason why Ethel was called to testify: 

Mooser: As someone who is well-acquainted with the defendant, you have a unique insight into the kind of person he is. What is your assessment of Harold’s character? 

Ethel: Harold Horseface is a pathological liar and an erratic and volatile person. His behavior is unpredictable and irrational. 

Mooser: These are pretty serious indictments. I assume that you have examples to back up these claims? 

Ethel: Do I ever. 

Mooser began by questioning Ethel about Harold’s honesty: 

Mooser: How did the defendant lie to you during your relationship? 

Ethel: Well, when I first met Harold, he told me that he owned a crow manufacturing business. He kept telling me this all through our engagement. It wasn’t until after I married him that I learned that he didn’t really manufacture crows for a living and that he was actually an underemployed musician. Needless to say, I was shocked that he had deceived me for so long. 

Bronstein: Objection! There’s no way she actually believed that! Everybody knows that crows are grown, not manufactured! 

Westinghouse: Mr. Bronstein, you will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Please limit your interruptions to actual objections. You may continue with your testimony. 

Mooser: Thank you, Your Honor. Ethel, did the defendant tell you any other lies about his career? 

Ethel: Yes. When he was on tour with Crosby, Stills, Zorn, Ride, and P-Orridge, they were scheduled to perform in the Grand Canyon. Night of the concert comes around, and I discover that he’s actually in Flagstaff. 

Mooser: Why would he go to Flagstaff? 

Ethel: That’s what I’d like to know. 

After detailing more examples of Harold lying to her, Ethel then addressed her second claim – that Harold is a volatile and erratic person: 

Mooser: Can you recall an instance when Harold did something that you would characterize as irrational? 

Ethel: Well, one night, in the dead of winter, he came home with a duffel bag full of live catfish. He said he wanted to keep them as pets. I told him we didn’t have the space, and he got upset and left the house. 

Mooser: Was this typical behavior for Harold? 

Ethel: Oh yes. Every time we argued, he would leave the house for days afterwards and I wouldn’t be able to contact him. 

Mooser: Would he tell you where he was? 

Ethel: No. Eventually I figured out that he would sleep in the shelter on Gile Mountain, up in Norwich. 

Mooser: And is this where he stayed after the catfish argument? 

Ethel: Yes. He stayed there for a week in January. I was worried sick. 

Mooser: Were there any instances that weren’t connected to arguments with you where Harold acted erratically? 

Ethel: There was another time when Harold became convinced that our house needed to be dodecahedral. 

Mooser: Why did he think that? 

Ethel: I have no idea. He was always coming up with weird ideas like that. 

Mooser: Did he try to do anything about the shape of the house? 

Ethel: Yes, he went out and bought a sledgehammer and tried to knock the walls down. When I asked what he was doing, he said ‘You need to understand what it’s like to be a dodecahedron. That’s the only way you’ll learn.’ 

Mooser: Did Harold actually do any damage to your house? 

Ethel: No, he just started sobbing and locked himself in the bedroom. 

Ethel continued to testify for several hours about Harold’s allegedly dangerous eccentricities, times she felt Harold slighted her, arguments they had, her self-diagnosed mental health issues, the works of Ayn Rand, and frankly a bunch of other junk that nobody reading this would find very interesting. Finally, Mooser reached the question he had been building up to: 

Mooser: Was there ever a time where Harold’s volatility made you concerned for the safety of your community? 

Ethel: Yes. 

Mooser: And when was that? 

Ethel: It was at the 2020 White River Junction Kielbasa-Throwing Contest. 

For those of you who are unaware, kielbasa-throwing is a game similar to horseshoes. Each contestant receives a set of five shrink-wrapped kielbasas, and they take turns throwing them at a post in the ground. If at least one of a contestant’s kielbasas lands around the post, they move on to the next round. The distance to the post increases after each round, and the last contestant standing wins the Golden Kielbasa trophy. The White River Junction Kielbasa-Throwing Contest takes place every February in order to prevent spoilage. Ethel said that in 2020, Harold was one of the final two contestants: 

Ethel: It was down to the final round, and Harold hadn’t been satisfied with his performance. He had only gotten one kielbasa on the post for the last five rounds. I was trying to encourage him, but he just got more and more frustrated. 

Mooser: How did Harold do in this round? 

Ethel: The first kielbasa went nowhere near the post. Harold got very upset and started screaming. He threw each of the others more violently than the last. One of them went into the bleachers and smacked a guy in the face; another one almost hit a child. Finally, on the fifth kielbasa, he spun around like a hammer thrower and chucked it into the air. It flew out of the park and broke through somebody’s window. 

Mooser: How did you and the other spectators react to this? 

Ethel: No one wanted to say anything; we were all pretty shaken up. It was frightening to see someone react that strongly to a fun game. 

Mooser: Did Harold say anything to the people he threw the kielbasas at? 

Ethel: No, he just sorta wandered off. 

Mooser: Ethel, your testimony has shown that the defendant has a pattern of erratic, irrational, and dangerous behavior. Based on your history with him, do you think it is plausible that he would cause a public disturbance and assault a police officer? 

Ethel: Yes, I do.

Mooser: No further questions. 

Due to the length of her testimony, the cross-examination of Ethel will take place tomorrow. 

Day 4 — July 11th, 2024

The trial resumed today with the cross-examination of Ethel, Harold’s ex-wife: 

Bronstein: Okay, Ethel. You made some interesting statements about the defendant yesterday, and I just want to see if you stand by them. 

Bronstein began by following up on Ethel’s claims that Harold was a liar: 

Bronstein: How did you know that Harold wasn’t at the Grand Canyon while he was on tour? 

Ethel: I used the Find My Device feature on his phone. 

Bronstein: Why did you feel the need to check that? 

Ethel: It’s something perfectly normal to do. When you’re married to someone, you have the legal right to track their location at all times. 

Bronstein: Okay, well that’s not an actual law, and it’s kinda messed up that you would do that. Regardless, Ethel, are you familiar with the state of Arizona? 

Ethel: Yes. It’s the Sunshine State. 

Bronstein: Well, no, it isn’t, but you bring up a very good point. Would it surprise you to learn that temperatures at the bottom of the Grand Canyon can reach 110 degrees Fahrenheit? 

Ethel: That seems reasonable. 

Bronstein: Do you think that it would be healthy or comfortable to have a concert in such conditions? 

Ethel: You know, it probably wouldn’t be. 

Bronstein: Then why would you assume that Harold would be in Flagstaff for nefarious reasons, rather than because his concert was moved to an indoor location? 

Ethel: Because Flagstaff is a sinister place home to nothing but trouble. Everybody knows that what happens in Flagstaff stays in Flagstaff. That’s why it’s called the Las Vegas of the West. 

Bronstein seemed puzzled by this response, but went on: 

Bronstein: You also testified that you felt deceived by what Harold told you about his occupation. Setting aside the fact that you can’t manufacture crows, why was this such a big deal to you? 

Ethel: I feel that had I known all along that he wasn’t in the crow industry, I might not have married him. 

Bronstein: Are you admitting that you only married Harold because you thought he was a wealthy business owner? 

Ethel: Well, it was certainly a factor that weighed into my decision. 

Bronstein: Was love a factor? 

Ethel: I plead the Fifth. 

The jury murmured at this revelation. Judge Westinghouse banged her gavel and called for order. Bronstein then questioned Ethel’s anecdotes about Harold’s volatile behavior: 

Bronstein: You stated yesterday that Harold would leave the house for days at a time and live in the shelter on Gile Mountain. What exactly about that practice struck you as being dangerous? 

Ethel: It was dangerous to himself. Plus, if he was willing to do something that extreme to himself after just arguing with me, who knows what he could do to others. 

Bronstein: Did you ever kick Harold out of the house following one of your arguments? 

Ethel: I don’t recall. 

Bronstein: Did you ever ask him to leave the house because he was negatively affecting your mental wellbeing? 

Ethel: I did a few times. I have numerous mental health problems and occasionally need peace and quiet. 

Bronstein: Have you ever been formally diagnosed with any mental disorder? 

Ethel. No. I don’t believe in Western medicine, especially psychiatry. 

Bronstein: Alright. You also described an incident when the defendant tried to demolish parts of your house in order to turn it into a dodecahedron. Do you have any idea why Harold would do this or why he would become so emotional? 

Ethel: I do not. 

Bronstein: May I remind you that you are under oath? 

Ethel: I may have made some comments that upset him. 

Bronstein: I would like to read for the court several tweets Ethel posted on October 11th, 2019: 

The jury let out an audible gasp. 

Bronstein: ‘KYS’ stands for ‘kill yourself’, does it not? 

Ethel: That is correct. 

Bronstein: Your Honor, I move to have this witness’s testimony about polyhedral matters stricken from the record. It is clearly tainted by her utter contempt and disrespect for the Platonic solids. 

Mooser: Objection! This testimony demonstrates the defendant’s history of irrational and dangerous behavior. 

Westinghouse: Objection overruled. The witness has already provided non-polyhedral testimony to that effect, and the existence of these tweets shows that her account of these events is biased and untrustworthy. I ask that the jury please disregard all of this witness’s statements related to polyhedra. 

Bronstein continued his cross-examination in a similar manner, methodically exposing the holes in Ethel’s testimony and proving to the jury that she was an unreliable witness. Ethel grew more and more indignant as her attempts to smear Harold’s name were rebuked. Bronstein lastly addressed the kielbasa incident: 

Bronstein: You testified that after Harold threw the kielbasa through the window, he left without checking on the person he hit, correct? 

Ethel: Yes. 

Bronstein: Perjury is a serious offense, Ethel. 

Ethel: He did go up to talk to him, but I don’t know what he said. 

Bronstein: You also said you encouraged Harold during the contest. 

Ethel: Yes, I did. 

Bronstein: How did you encourage him? 

Ethel: I was cheering him on. 

Bronstein: What cheers did you say? 

Ethel: I don’t know, ‘Go Harold!’, ‘You can do it!’, things like that. 

Bronstein: Was one of your cheers, ‘You’re useless! You can’t do anything right!’? 

Ethel: I don’t recall. 

Bronstein: Was one of your cheers, ‘A real man would win me that Golden Kielbasa!’? 

Ethel: I don’t recall. 

Bronstein: Was one of your cheers, ‘You just embarrassed me in front of the whole town! I don’t want to see your face again until you learn how to throw a kielbasa straight!’? 

Ethel: I don’t recall. 

Bronstein took the gloves off and went all in on Ethel: 

Bronstein: Why must you turn this courtroom into a house of lies? I was there! I was in the UVSC’s Kielbasa Nova performance! I saw the whole thing! You pressured Harold into entering the contest, and then you got mad when he didn’t throw at a professional level! 

Ethel: It was pathetic! What was I supposed to do? 

Bronstein: Hey! I’m the lawyer! Look at my suit! I ask the questions! And my question for you, Ethel, is how long are you going to keep wasting the jury’s time and the taxpayer’s dime with your nonsense? Everything you have said these last two days has been an outright lie, a lie by omission, or a distortion of the truth! You have no real examples of Harold lying to you, do you? 

Ethel: I do too! 

Bronstein: Well then tell us! We’re dying to hear! 

Ethel: Harold told me when we first met that he was allergic to pomegranates, but in reality, he just doesn’t like them. 

Bronstein broke into cackling laughter: 

Bronstein: Ha! That’s your big example of Harold lying to you? That’s the most asinine thing… this is priceless… that’s your definition of a pathological liar? Who cares? 

Mooser: Objection! He’s badgering the witness! 

Westinghouse: Mr. Bronstein, I think you’ve made your point. If you have no further questions for the witness, please sit back down so Mr. Mooser can redirect. 

Wiping tears of laughter out of his eyes, Bronstein said he had no further questions. Mooser stood up and began his redirect examination of Ethel: 

Mooser: Ethel, you may have inadvertently omitted some things in your testimony yesterday, but that doesn’t change your assessment of the defendant’s character, is that correct? 

Ethel: Yes. He’s a weirdo, he’s a loser, he’s a menace to society. 

Mooser: And despite however you may have reacted to Harold’s actions, that doesn’t negate the fact that he behaved dangerously, right? 

Harold whispered to Bronstein, who nodded and wrote something down. 

Ethel: That’s right, I… Oh, I see. You wanna talk shit about me, huh? DON’T ACT LIKE I DIDN’T SEE THAT, HAROLD! 

Mooser: He’s allowed to talk to his attorney, Ethel. 

Ethel: YOU’VE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS FOR FAR TOO LONG! I PUT UP WITH YOUR CRAP FOR SEVEN YEARS, BUT NOW THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS WHO YOU REALLY ARE! YOU’RE GONNA ROT IN PRISON, HAROLD! 

Westinghouse: Order! We will have order! If the witness does not calm down, I will have her removed! 

Ethel: YOU WASTED SEVEN YEARS OF MY LIFE, HAROLD! I WANT THEM BACK! YOU’RE GONNA GET WHAT’S COMING TO YOU! 

Westinghouse: Bailiff, please escort Ethel from the courtroom! 

The bailiff removed Ethel from the stand and led her out of the courtroom. Ethel continued to shout obscenities as she left and was still audible from out in the hall. Harold appeared slightly melancholy but generally unfazed by her outburst. 

Westinghouse: That’s better. The prosecution may call their next witness. 

Mooser: The prosecution rests, Your Honor. 

Westinghouse: Very well. We will begin with witnesses for the defense tomorrow morning. Court is adjourned.

 

Day 5 — July 12th, 2024

Today marked the beginning of testimony from witnesses for the defense. The first was Lucius Greenfield, the president of the Upper Valley Swan Choir: 

Bronstein: Mr. Greenfield, as president of the Upper Valley Swan Choir, you were greatly involved in the planning of the march, is that correct? 

Mr. Greenfield: Yes, that is correct. 

Bronstein: The state has claimed that this event constituted disorderly conduct. Would you say that that is a fair description? 

Greenfield: Of course not! It was a very orderly, well thought-out march. 

Bronstein: Do you have any evidence to back this up? 

Greenfield: Yes. This is our official plan for the January 7th Christmas march. 

Greenfield produced a piece of paper from under his wing: 

Bronstein questioned Greenfield about the planning of the march, and Greenfield used his document to explain different aspects of it to the jury. One such aspect was the route taken by the marchers: 

Bronstein: What route did you plan to take? 

Greenfield: At first, we were planning to go all the way to Quechee, but we realized that it would get too dark to do that safely. We still planned to go a long way, 5.18 miles to be exact. 

Bronstein: And the route you chose went into Hartford Village, is that correct? 

Greenfield: Yes. Even though the people of White River Junction and the people of Hartford Village are sworn enemies, Harold wanted to bring the parade there as a gesture of goodwill during the holiday season. 

Bronstein then moved on to the events of January 7th: 

Bronstein: Tell us about the defendant’s altercation with Officer Polmer. 

Greenfield: Well, I was at the back of the parade, so I didn’t really see what happened. 

Bronstein: As someone who has collaborated artistically with the defendant for the last five years, do you think Harold is the type of person who would assault a police officer? 

Greenfield: Oh, no, of course not. Harold is one of the kindest, most warm-hearted people I know. Why, we started the march at the VA Hospital this year so we could perform for all the sick veterans. 

Bronstein: What songs did you perform for the veterans? 

Greenfield: Don’t you remember? You were there too. 

Bronstein: I know what we sang, but you have to tell the jury. 

Greenfield: Oh, right, sorry. We sang “Oh Holy Night” and “Joy to the World”. 

Mr. Mooser then began his cross-examination: 

Mooser: Mr. Greenfield, you have stated that what happened on January 7th was a Christmas march, is that correct? 

Greenfield: Yes, cause that’s what it was. 

Mooser: May I ask, then, why your setlist included a song by REO Speedwagon? 

Greenfield: One of the UVSC’s artistic missions is to break new boundaries with our repertoire. We included that song to make the audience question what it truly means for a song to be a Christmas song. Is it a song about Christmas, or is it a song that is performed at Christmas? These are the kinds of artistic debates we are interested in. 

Mooser: Okay. You also stated that one of the songs you performed was ‘Joy to the World’. 

Greenfield: That is correct. 

Mooser: Would you be willing to sing it for the court? 

Greenfield: Certainly! 

Greenfield stood up and began to sing: 

‘Jeremiah was a bullfrog 

He was a friend of mine 

I never understo-o-od a single word he sai-ai-aid 

But I helped him drink his wine 

And I helped him drink his wine 

And I he-elped, I he-e-elped him drink his wine.’ 

Bronstein: Objection! How is this relevant to the case? 

Mooser: Your Honor, I am establishing that this march couldn’t have been a Christmas event because half of what they sang were classic rock songs. 

Bronstein turned angrily towards Mooser: 

Bronstein: Hey! Just because we use an alternate text doesn’t mean it’s not a Christmas song! The meaning is embedded in the pitch content! 

Westinghouse: Mr. Bronstein – 

Bronstein: We’re not about coddling closed-minded rascals like you with your bland, normative concept of Christmas! We’re pushing the envelope, man! Épater les bourgeois! 

Westinghouse: Mr. Bronstein! Please address all comments to the bench, and do not insult the state’s attorney! Your objection is overruled. 

Mooser: No further questions, Your Honor. 

Grumbling, Mr. Bronstein called the next witness for the defense. This was Omar Chernyshevsky, another member of the Upper Valley Swan Choir. Bronstein’s questioning focused on the events of the march, rather than its organization: 

Bronstein: What was your position in the march formation relative to the defendant? 

Mr. Chernyshevsky: I was standing one row behind Harold and to his right. 

Bronstein: So you would have had a very close view of his interactions with Officer Polmer? 

Chernyshevsky: Yes, that is correct. 

Bronstein: Describe what happened after Officer Polmer halted the march. 

Chernyshevsky: Officer Polmer came around front to talk to Harold. 

Bronstein: What was the condition of the pavement where Polmer was standing? 

Chernyshevsky: He was standing in one of the holiday potholes. It was shaped like a gingerbread man. 

Chernyshevsky confirmed Polmer’s account of his conversation with Harold. Harold was friendly with the officer but unreceptive to the idea of ending the march. Bronstein then asked about the circumstances leading up to Officer Polmer’s injury: 

Bronstein: What happened after Harold stopped talking to Officer Polmer?

Chernyshevsky: After Harold played the opening bars of ‘Aircraft Damage’, Polmer stepped forward to try to take the serpent from him. 

Bronstein: How did Harold react to Polmer attempting to take his serpent? 

Chernyshevsky: Well, Harold is very protective of his instrument, so he stopped playing and held it up to his shoulder. 

Bronstein: What happened next? 

Chernyshevsky: I guess Officer Polmer didn’t realize he was standing in a pothole, because he tripped and fell towards Harold. Harold was moving his serpent just as that happened, so the serpent’s bell was right where Polmer’s head went. Polmer hit his head on the serpent and slumped over into the road. His head was cut pretty badly. 

Bronstein: What did Harold do then? 

Chernyshevsky: Harold was shocked by what had happened. He reached down to help Polmer back up and asked if he was alright. That’s when Officer Nicklaus ran over and arrested him. 

As Harold was taken to the police car, he called out to the UVSC, asking them to help Officer Polmer and then continue the march. Chernyshevsky called 911, and he and the other members stayed around to tell the paramedics what had happened. However, after a brief discussion, the UVSC decided to end the march early this year. Bronstein concluded his examination by asking about the choir’s intentions for the march: 

Bronstein: Was it the intention of the defendant, the UVSC, or any of its members to cause anybody physical harm during the march? 

Chernyshevsky: We were just trying to spread the holiday spirit; that was the last thing we wanted to do. On behalf of myself and the entire UVSC, I want to say how sorry we are that Officer Polmer was injured at our march. 

Mooser stood up to cross-examine Chernyshevsky: 

Mooser: I noticed that your setlist had no specific order. How did you determine which songs you performed? 

Chernyshevsky: Harold would call them as we went. He likes having whatever song we sing fit the mood of the street. 

Mooser: What songs did you end up singing? 

Chernyshevsky: Other than the two we sang at the hospital, we sang ‘God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen’, ‘Take it on the Run’, ‘Denes nad Makedonija’, ‘I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas’, ‘Explosion’, and we were singing ‘Fire’ when Officer Polmer stopped us. 

Mooser: Is there a reason why most of those aren’t traditional Christmas songs? 

Chernyshevsky: We wanted to save some of those for when we got to the center of town. 

Mooser: I see. 

Mooser paused for a second: 

Mooser: He really tripped on a pothole, huh? 

Chernyshevsky: Yes, that’s right 

Mooser: He tripped on a pothole and hit his head on Harold’s serpent. 

Chernyshevsky: Yes. 

Mooser: You saw Officer Polmer trip over a pothole, fall towards the defendant, hit his head on the defendant’s serpent, and then fall to the ground. 

Chernyshevsky: Yes. I was standing right there.

Mooser: That’s actually what you saw happen? 

Bronstein: Objection! Asked and answered. 

Westinghouse: Sustained. 

Mooser shook his head in disbelief: 

Mooser: Fine. Do you or anyone else in the UVSC feel responsible for what happened to Officer Polmer? 

Chernyshevsky: No, we don’t. 

Mooser: Why, then, are you apologizing for Officer Polmer’s injury? 

Chernyshevsky: Just because I apologize or express concern for something doesn’t mean I’m responsible for it. I can be sorry that the Hindenburg exploded, but that doesn’t mean I set it on fire. We never meant for anyone to get hurt at our march, and we regret that Officer Polmer was injured, but what happened to him was an accident. We in no way caused this to happen. 

Mooser ended his cross-examination, and Bronstein prepared to call his third witness: 

Bronstein: The defense calls Svetlana Corleone to the stand to give expert testimony on the history of the Upper Valley Swan Choir. 

Mooser: Objection! Is this really relevant to the case? 

Bronstein: Of course it is! She’s an expert! 

Westinghouse: Mr. Bronstein, your list of witnesses seems to have an awful lot of experts. May I ask what their areas of expertise are? 

Bronstein: Well, Amanda Orozco is an expert on polyphony, and James Carlos Black is an expert on the topography of Vermont, and Salvador Monella will be testifying about Christmas traditions from around the world, and Faith Hamburger – 

Mooser: It seems to me, Your Honor, that Mr. Bronstein has invited all of his friends from the UVSC to testify, maybe so they can get out of work or something. If it is possible, I would like to request that no more members of the UVSC be called to testify. 

Bronstein: Hey! 

Westinghouse: It would be unfair to bar any member of the UVSC from testifying, but Mr. Mooser’s point about relevance is valid. Therefore, I am ruling that any further members of the Upper Valley Swan Choir that are called to the stand must have testimony that is both new and relevant to the defendant’s actions on January 7th. Mr. Mooser’s objection to this witness is sustained. You may call your next witness, Mr. Bronstein. 

Bronstein: See, there’s the problem. You just eliminated my next nineteen witnesses. The witnesses after them aren’t even here today; they were busy. I told them it’d be fine if they didn’t come until Thursday, but now I’ve got to call them and reschedule. 

Westinghouse: Fine. I am declaring a recess, but this is the second day we have had to adjourn early due to your lack of preparedness. 

Bronstein: Hey, you guys are the ones that have a problem with my witnesses. Don’t blame me for this one. 

The trial of Harold Horseface will resume Monday with more testimony from the defense. 

Day 6 — July 15th, 2024

The second week of Vermont v. Horseface began this morning with more testimony from the defense. The first witness called to the stand today was Louis Belfast. Belfast was an eyewitness to the events of January 7th, but he also provided expert testimony that bolstered the defense’s case: 

Bronstein: Mr. Belfast, what is your occupation? 

Mr. Belfast: I am a professor in the Department of Bothrology at Dartmouth College. 

Bronstein: What is bothrology, in layman’s terms? 

Belfast: It is the study of holes. 

Bronstein: Any kind of holes? 

Belfast: Well, my research deals with earth-bound holes, but I have colleagues that study keyholes, wormholes, loopholes, peepholes, donut holes… we’re a very interdisciplinary department. 

Bronstein: What brought you to White River Junction on January 7th? 

Belfast: I was conducting research on the holiday pothole tradition here. 

Belfast stated that one of his main scholarly interests is the complex relationship between holes and the people who dig them. He thus found the town of Hartford’s tradition of cutting festive potholes into the streets during the holiday season to be an excellent case study. Belfast spoke at length about the history and cultural significance of this practice: 

Belfast: There are even records going back to the colonial era of holes called ‘pittes of plenty’ being dug to commemorate special occasions in the town of Hartford. Of course, the Puritans were against this practice. 

Bronstein: Fascinating. So what exactly were you doing on January 7th? 

Belfast: I spent the afternoon making casts of the different pothole shapes around town. 

Bronstein: What were the locations of these potholes? 

Belfast: They were on Cascadnac Avenue, the Route 5 bridge, South Main Street, and Nutt Lane. 

Bronstein: Is the South Main Street pothole you examined located by the post office? 

Belfast: Yes. 

Bronstein: And what was its shape? 

Belfast: It was shaped like a gingerbread man. 

Bronstein: Do you have the cast of that pothole with you today? 

Belfast: Yes, I do. 

Belfast showed his cast of the pothole to the jury. It was indeed shaped like a gingerbread man. Bronstein then asked him about the march: 

Bronstein: Where were you at 5:45 that evening? 

Belfast: At 5:45 I was walking back to my car, which was parked by the train station. I was coming down North Main Street and was about to cross over the railroad tracks when I saw the march in the distance. 

Bronstein: What did you do at this point? 

Belfast: I thought it would be nice to see the march go by, so I went a little further down South Main Street to watch it. 

Belfast stood across from the post office and waited for the march to pass him by. Before it could, however, Officer Polmer ran out to stop it. Just like with Mr. Chernyshevsky on Friday, Bronstein asked Belfast about the condition of the road where Polmer was standing: 

Bronstein: Where did Officer Polmer stand while speaking to Harold? 

Belfast: He was standing in the pothole by the post office. 

Bronstein: This would be the same pothole you made a cast of earlier that day? 

Belfast: That is correct. 

Belfast confirmed Chernyshevsky’s account of the altercation. Officer Polmer tripped on the edge of the pothole while trying to take Harold’s serpent and hit his head on the serpent’s bell. Harold tried to help Polmer back up but was arrested before he could do so. Belfast offered to call an ambulance but learned that the UVSC was already on it. Not wanting to get in the paramedics’ way, he went back to his car and drove home. 

Mooser appeared very suspicious of Belfast’s testimony, and his cross-examination was surprisingly accusatory: 

Mooser: Professor Belfast, I’m not entirely convinced that the cast you showed us looks like a gingerbread man. 

Belfast: That’s perfectly understandable. It’s the context in which we see these symbols that informs our interpretation of them. This shape was meant to be seen outdoors in December, possibly with snow and ice surrounding it, while here we are in a courtroom in mid-July. 

Mooser: Do you have any other evidence of potholes with this shape appearing elsewhere in Hartford? 

Belfast: I recall seeing one other gingerbread man that day. 

Mooser: But you have no physical evidence of this other pothole? 

Belfast: No, I do not. 

Mooser: And if I were to walk out of this courthouse and go down to South Main Street, would I see any evidence of any holiday-themed pothole? 

Belfast: I would think not; it’s probably been filled in. 

Mooser: Filled in. That’s very convenient, because frankly, Professor, I’m having a hard time believing that this pothole existed at all. Apart from the testimony of you and Mr. Chernyshevsky, the only evidence we have proving its existence is a cast that can be easily made in a lab. Are you absolutely certain that you saw Officer Polmer trip on the edge of a pothole before the defendant’s serpent made contact with his head? 

Belfast: I am one hundred percent certain. I specifically remember thinking that I was glad I had already made my cast, because part of the pothole chipped off when Polmer tripped on it. 

Mooser: Are you one hundred percent certain that the defendant did not strike Officer Polmer with his serpent? 

Belfast. Yes, I am. 

Mooser: And are you also one hundred percent certain that the defendant reached out to help Officer Polmer up, rather than pinning him down so he could strike again? 

Belfast: Yes, I am. 

Mooser: Okay then. No further questions. 

Westinghouse: Does the defense wish to redirect? 

Bronstein: No, Your Honor. 

Westinghouse: Very well. You can go now, Mr. Belfast. 

Belfast: Before I go, may I just say that this entire case has provided new insight into human-hole interactions, and I think it would make an excellent addendum to my study. 

The second witness Bronstein called to the stand was Sally Martinez, an employee of the town of Hartford: 

Bronstein: What do you do for a living, Ms. Martinez? 

Ms. Martinez: I work for the Hartford Department of Public Works. 

Bronstein: And what specifically do you do there? 

Martinez: I work in the Highway Division, so my duties include repairing the roads, plowing them in the winter, stuff like that. I’m also in charge of the town’s holiday pothole program. 

Martinez testified that she and her team create the potholes each year in mid-November to ensure they are all ready by the start of the holiday season. They distribute them around the town of Hartford, but the majority are usually constructed in White River Junction. Bronstein seemed genuinely curious about the construction process: 

Bronstein: How do you make the potholes? 

Martinez: We use a small excavator with a custom-built pneumatic cookie-cutter attachment. This works basically like a bunch of jackhammers all hammering at once. We use the cookie-cutter to establish the outline of the shape, then we use shovels and pickaxes to remove the pavement within. 

Bronstein: What shapes of cookie-cutter does the town of Hartford use? 

Martinez: Right now, we have four shapes, which are a Christmas tree, a candy cane, a gingerbread man, and a dreidel. We are working on developing a menorah and a kinara, but we’ve had some difficulty with those. It’s hard to get all the individual candles to outline accurately. 

Bronstein: How deep are the potholes you create? 

Martinez: Depends on the quality of the pavement, but they range anywhere from three to six inches deep. 

Bronstein then questioned Martinez about the specific pothole at the center of the trial: 

Bronstein: Is it true that in November of 2023, the town of Hartford constructed a gingerbread man-shaped pothole on South Main Street between North Main Street and Gates Street? 

Martinez: That is correct. 

Bronstein: Were you involved in its construction? 

Martinez: Yes. I operated the cookie-cutter. 

Bronstein: Do you have any records of the pothole existing at this location? 

Martinez: Yes. This is our 2023 pothole planning map for the White River Junction area. 

Bronstein: Based on your experience creating potholes, do you think it is possible that someone would trip while traversing one? 

Martinez: I would say it is not only possible but probable. That’s why we encourage pedestrians to use the sidewalk. 

After finishing her testimony about the construction of potholes, Mooser began his cross-examination: 

Mooser: Is there a reason why the map you provided does not give an exact street address for any of the potholes? 

Martinez: We choose the exact locations in the field. 

Mooser: Was the location of the South Main Street gingerbread man 27 South Main Street, by the post office? 

Martinez: Yes. 

Mooser: Why, then, is there no visible patch in the road at that location? 

Martinez: For the holiday potholes, we make sure that the material we use to fill them exactly matches the color of the surrounding pavement. It wouldn’t be special if there was a gingerbread man-shaped patch in the road all year round. 

Mooser sighed. 

Mooser: You really get paid by the town to cut potholes into the street? 

Martinez: Yes. It’s a tradition. You really haven’t heard of this before? Aren’t you from Windsor County? 

Mooser: I am, but I live in Baltimore. I’m only ever up here for trials. No further questions, I guess. 

Court was adjourned following Ms. Martinez’s testimony. Tomorrow, the court will hear testimony from the final witness for the defense. That witness is Harold Horseface himself. 

Day 7 — July 16th, 2024

This morning, defendant Harold Horseface took the stand to testify in his own defense. Harold seemed calm but slightly nervous. His lawyer, Zigmond T. Bronstein, Esq., began by asking Harold to give his own recollections of events described earlier in the trial by his ex-wife, Ethel. The prosecution was evidently not pleased with this line of questioning: 

Bronstein: Before we get into the specifics of what went down on January 7th, I want to ask you about some events that earlier in the trial were used as examples of your allegedly poor character. The first of these is an incident involving catfish. 

Mooser: Objection! This is blatantly irrelevant to the case and is a waste of the jury’s time! 

Westinghouse: Mr. Mooser, may I remind you that one of your witnesses gave several hours of testimony about events unrelated to this case in order to question the defendant’s character. It is only natural that he would want to respond to those claims, and it would be unfair to prevent him from doing so. Your objection is overruled. You may continue with your line of questioning, Mr. Bronstein. 

Bronstein: Thank you, Your Honor. Harold, how did you come into contact with the catfish? 

Mr. Horseface: I was walking home, and I saw a duffel bag sitting on the sidewalk next to a bus stop. I noticed the bag was leaking water, and I could hear splashing sounds coming from inside. It didn’t seem like the bag belonged to anyone, so I opened it up and there they were. 

Bronstein: Just to be clear, these were live catfish inside a duffel bag full of water. 

Horseface: That is correct. They said they were hitchhiking to Burlington. 

Harold didn’t want the catfish to freeze while waiting for a ride, so he decided to bring them back to his house so they could warm up. When he got home, however, he learned that Ethel had her own idea for what to do with his new friends: 

Bronstein: What did Ethel say to you when you arrived back home? 

Horseface: She said, ‘I hope you brought dinner.’ 

Bronstein: How did you respond? 

Horseface: I said that I had found some catfish on the side of the road, and I had invited them over so they could warm up. Then I opened the bag so she could see them. 

Bronstein: And what did Ethel do next? 

Horseface: She looked at them, licked her lips, and said ‘I love fried catfish.’ 

Harold immediately took great offense at this statement, saying that he would never eat his new friends. Ethel replied that it was unfair of him to unilaterally decide to host a dinner party. Despite Harold’s insistence that this was just an informal gathering of friends, Ethel said she needed at least a week to recover from this traumatic experience and that Harold would have to leave. 

Bronstein: Where did you go after Ethel kicked you out? 

Horseface: Well, I felt I had to do something to help the catfish after what Ethel said, so I took them to McDonald’s so they could get something to eat. Then, I bought them a Greyhound ticket so they could get to their destination safely. After I put them on the bus, I went up to Gile, which is where I typically went whenever Ethel kicked me out. 

Bronstein: Harold, why would you go live in a wooden shelter with no heat or doors on top of a mountain in the middle of January? 

Horseface: All my relatives immigrated to Detroit years ago, so Gile Mountain was the only place I had to go. The shelter and the fire tower have been in my family for generations. 

Bronstein: Well, if you ever need it, you can always stay at my place. 

Horseface: Thank you, I appreciate it. 

Harold went on to correct the record for several of Ethel’s other claims. He stated that after his reckless performance at the kielbasa-throwing contest, he gave an immense apology to the people he threw kielbasas at and paid for the window to be repaired. He also confirmed Bronstein’s theory that the Grand Canyon concert was moved to Flagstaff due to inclement weather. The Flagstaff concert was in fact the performance heard on the album Music for Telescopes: Crosby, Stills, Zorn, Ride, and P-Orridge Live at the Lowell Observatory. This performance is notable for being the only known concert where the audience was entirely made up of telescopes. Bronstein concluded this line of questioning by asking Harold about the dodecahedron incident: 

Bronstein: Just for the jury’s reference, what are the Platonic solids? 

Horseface: They are five polyhedra, all of whose faces are the same shape and all of whose vertices have the same number of edges coming off of them. The five Platonic solids are the tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, the dodecahedron, and the icosahedron. 

Bronstein: Tell us about how you first encountered the Platonic solids. 

Horseface: I first became acquainted with the Platonic solids in a bazaar in Sarajevo. As I looked at the different stalls, I felt a sense there was something of great significance watching me. So I turned around and there they were. Such wondrous shapes! 

Bronstein: From the way you speak about this, it sounds like this was a deeply moving experience for you. 

Horseface: Indeed it was. 

Harold stared wistfully into space for what felt like minutes. Bronstein clearly expected him to elaborate, but eventually he just went on to his next question: 

Bronstein: How did you find out about Ethel’s tweets? 

Horseface: Oh, well, I’m not on Twitter, so I heard about them on the radio. 

Bronstein: What was your initial reaction to them? 

Horseface: I figured that they must be from someone else named Ethel. I didn’t want to believe that my wife could harbor such hatred in her heart. 

Bronstein: And how did you find out that they belonged to your wife? 

Horseface: When I got home that day, I told her about the horrible things I heard on the radio. She said it was indeed her that tweeted those hateful words and I won’t lie, I was upset with her. I said ‘You must apologize for what you did! You don’t know the ramifications of your statements!’ But she doubled down and said that the Platonic solids deserved to burn in Hell for all their sins. 

Bronstein: What did you do next? 

Horseface: I went to the hardware store and I… I bought… I needed to show that… Those sweet, innocent solids… Why would she be so cruel? 

Harold became so distraught at the thought of Ethel’s hatred of the Platonic solids that he began to weep. Judge Westinghouse declared a recess so he could compose himself. After fifteen minutes, Harold had stopped crying and was ready to continue testifying. 

Bronstein: Let’s talk about your Christmas marches. These have been going on for some time, is that correct? 

Horseface: Yes. The first one was in 2019. We didn’t do one in 2020, but we have every year since then. 

Bronstein: When you say ‘we’, do you mean you and the Upper Valley Swan Choir? 

Horseface: Yes. 

Bronstein: What compelled you to organize this event? 

Horseface: My main reason was because I wanted to give back to the community and spread the spirit of Christmas. At the same time, I had just met some members of the UVSC and wanted to find a way to collaborate with them. I met with the whole choir, and we felt that a march through White River Junction would be the best way to combine these two goals. 

Bronstein: Historically, these marches have occurred on Christmas Eve, but this year it took place on January 7th. Why was the date changed? 

Horseface: That’s the day of Orthodox Christmas. 

Bronstein: Why did you decide to have the march on Orthodox Christmas? 

Horseface: To demonstrate my solidarity with the Macedonian people. 

Harold described how he visited Macedonia while he was getting his master’s degree in serpent performance. He remembered his visit there fondly, but it was only recently that he became more passionate about the Macedonian cause. This happened in October of last year, when he learned that the country was renamed to North Macedonia in 2019. 

Horseface: The Greek government refused to let Macedonia join NATO or become an EU candidate unless they changed the name of their country! Hell, in the ‘90s they even tried to block them from joining the UN! The international community has just accepted that it’s OK for one country to bully another into changing its name, and I for one think that is unjust. I believe in the self-determination of peoples, and just because the Macedonian people developed a national consciousness late in the game doesn’t mean you can just take their name from them. 

Bronstein: Harold, there are some people who feel that displaying this level of pro-Macedonian sentiment amounts to being anti-Greek. What do you say to this? 

Horseface: Oh no, I have nothing but love for the Greek people! Greece has contributed so much to the world, and it has a rich and fascinating history and culture. You know, my godfather was Ioannis Xenakis. My issue is not with the people of Greece, but with the policies the Greek government and certain hardline nationalist groups have adopted towards the people of Macedonia. If I have ever come across as being anti-Greek, I sincerely apologize. 

Bronstein then moved on to the events of January 7th: 

Bronstein: Take me through the events of the march. Where and when did it start? 

Horseface: We all met up at the VA Hospital at 4:30 so we could perform for the veterans. We had a pretty good turnout, too. Then at 5:00 we set off down the road. 

Bronstein: How did passers-by react to the march? 

Horseface: Everyone seemed happy to see us. 

Bronstein: Did you witness any frustration or negativity? 

Horseface: I think there may have been some people who were indifferent or just had a resting expression on their faces, but I saw mostly smiles. 

Harold recounted the events of the march, describing how he and the UVSC winded through the streets of White River Junction. Children were delighted to receive the candy canes Harold threw at them, and people of all ages sang along with the choir. As the marchers made their way to the center of town, Harold called “Fire”, a raucous call-and-response carol that was a big hit every year. It was while they were performing this song that they reached the post office on South Main Street and were stopped by Officer Polmer. While the jury (and anyone reading this) surely knew what happened next, Bronstein still made sure to get Harold’s side of the story: 

Bronstein: What did Officer Polmer say to you after he stopped the march? 

Horseface: Well, the first thing he said was that he didn’t want a candy cane. Then he started asking me about permits, and I told him that wasn’t an issue. He wanted to know what we were doing, so I explained that this was a Christmas march for Macedonian solidarity. We talked about it for a bit, but then I figured we should keep moving. 

Bronstein: What happened when you tried to start marching again? 

Horseface: Well, I started to play ‘Aircraft Damage’, which as you know begins with me playing the fanfare on my serpent and then the whole choir shouts ‘Weescoosa!’ After I did that, though, Officer Polmer started to come closer to me. It seemed like he was going to take my serpent, so I stopped playing and held it up against my right shoulder. 

Bronstein: Why did you do that? 

Horseface: Look, my serpent is something I cherish greatly, and it’s not exactly cheap to repair. Holding it up and away from him was a gut reaction to protect something that is very valuable to me. 

Bronstein: What happened next? 

Horseface: As I was holding up my serpent, Officer Polmer tripped on the edge of the pothole he was standing in and fell towards me. He hit his head on the bell of my serpent, then he sorta fell sideways into the road. 

Bronstein: What was going through your head when that happened? 

Horseface: My first thought was this is horrible! This was supposed to be a happy occasion, and now someone is hurt! My second thought was that Officer Polmer might need medical attention. I wasn’t sure if he hit his head on the pavement. 

Bronstein: What did you do then? 

Horseface: I switched my serpent to my left hand, since I’m right-handed, and I reached out to him to try to help him back up. I asked him ‘Officer, are you alright?’, but he didn’t respond. Then the other police officer came at me from behind and grabbed my arms. 

Bronstein: What happened after Officer Nicklaus grabbed you? 

Horseface: I was startled, so I dropped my serpent. He told me I was under arrest and put me in handcuffs. I wanted to make sure you guys knew that Officer Polmer was hurt, so I yelled out for someone to call 911. Christmas is about joy and merriment, but it’s even more so about helping others. 

With Harold’s account complete, Bronstein asked his final questions: 

Bronstein: Harold, you have been charged with disorderly conduct for your part in organizing the march and aggravated assault for what happened to Officer Polmer. Do you think that your Christmas march on January 7th constituted disorderly conduct? 

Horseface: No, I don’t. It was a very orderly event. 

Bronstein: And do you think it is fair for you to be imprisoned for Officer Polmer’s injury? 

Horseface: I don’t think that either. I feel really bad that Officer Polmer was injured at my march, but I didn’t attack him. 

Bronstein: Thank you for your testimony, Harold. No further questions. 

Tomorrow, prosecutor Roy Mooser will cross-examine Harold. 

Day 8 — July 22nd, 2024

The trial of Harold Horseface resumed this morning after a three-day recess. Judge Westinghouse became ill on Tuesday night, which caused the break in the proceedings. Westinghouse thanked the prosecution, the defendant and his counsel, and the jury for their understanding and promptly began the day’s session. Harold once again took the stand, this time for cross-examination. 

Mooser got up and walked over to the stand, directly across from Harold. He seemed very confident. 

Mooser: Mr. Horseface, on January 7th of this year, you organized what you have described as a Christmas march, is that correct? 

Horseface: Yes, it is. 

Mooser: Did you have a permit for this march? 

Horseface: Yes. I was given a perpetual permit in 2019 when I had the first one. 

Mooser’s confident expression quickly faded and was replaced with one of confusion. He clearly was expecting Harold to say that he didn’t have a permit. 

Mooser: Who gave you this permit? 

Horseface: I don’t remember her name exactly, she worked for the town… 

Mooser: Do you have a written record of this permit? 

Horseface: No, it was a verbal agreement. 

Mooser: And what was that agreement? 

Horseface: That I could have my marches every year. 

Mooser: So you had a permit for your march on January 7th? 

Bronstein: Objection! Asked and answered. 

Westinghouse: Sustained. 

Mooser: Let me rephrase that. You were permitted to have your march on January 7th this year, even though historically it has been on December 24th? 

Horseface: Yes. The woman at the town office was very understanding. 

Mooser: Do you remember anything at all about this person who gave you the permit? 

Horseface: Let me think. She was tall, very skinny, had a gray dress… she had this strange green hat, it went out at a 90 degree angle… it had writing on it, like the name of the designer or the brand… I wanna say it was Saks Fifth Avenue or something… no wait, sorry, that was a signpost. I don’t really remember anything about her. 

Mooser sighed, then moved on to a new topic: 

Mooser: You stated that the reason this march occurred on January 7th was because you wanted to show solidarity with the Macedonian people. Is that correct? 

Horseface: Yes. 

Mooser: You do realize that January 7th is the date of Christmas in the Greek Orthodox Church too, not just the Macedonian Orthodox Church? 

Horseface: Okay, and? 

Mooser: I just find it hard to understand why you would have your march on a significant day for the Greek people, given your opposition to them. 

Horseface: I am not against the Greek people. I just think that countries should get to choose their own names without fear of retaliation. 

Mooser: How do you reconcile that sentiment with the North Macedonian government’s appropriation of the history of ancient Macedon? 

Horseface: Look, I do not endorse the Macedonian government’s attempt to claim Alexander the Great as a national hero. The Macedonian Empire predates the migration of the Slavs to Europe, and its legacy clearly belongs to Greece. I understand why people in Greece are upset about this, but this is a separate issue from the naming dispute. Just because a country shares its name with a larger geographic region doesn’t mean it’s stealing that region’s name or preventing others from identifying with it. It would be like if the Marshall Islands, a country within the region of Micronesia, got upset with the country of Micronesia for having the name ‘Micronesia’. And not liking another country’s name isn’t a reason to blackball them from the international community. That is why I stand in solidarity with the people of Macedonia, not because I have something against the people of Greece. 

Mooser: Alright, but if the goal was to show solidarity with the Macedonian people, why didn’t you have your march on North Macedonian Independence Day? 

Horseface: Because it was a Christmas march. 

Mooser: You just said that you chose the date of the march to demonstrate solidarity with Macedonia. 

Horseface: That is correct. 

Mooser: Okay, but which one was it? A Christmas march, or a demonstration of Macedonian solidarity? 

Horseface: It was a Christmas march, during which we demonstrated solidarity with the Macedonian people. 

Mooser didn’t seem to be getting where he wanted with this line of questioning, so he went to another one: 

Mooser: Moving on to your musical selections. Why were there very few Christmas songs on your setlist? 

Horseface: I wouldn’t say that was the case. Most of the songs on our list were standard Christmas songs. The other less-common songs were chosen in line with the UVSC and I’s artistic vision for the march. 

Mooser: How many non-Christmas songs were on the list? 

Horseface: The only one that wasn’t a Christmas song was ‘Denes nad Makedonija’. 

Mooser pulled out a sheet of paper: 

Mooser: Okay, well, according to Mr. Chernyshevsky’s testimony from last Friday, you played a song called ‘Explosion’. I looked up the lyrics, and I’d just like to read them for the court: 

‘Something pale and mercenary 

Left a pile of turkey 

Very near a little Spanish town 

And every day the big cranberries 

Peer into the mouths of Marys 

Being held for nothing more 

Than being what was there before 

All this happened.’ 

Now what on earth does that have to do with Christmas? 

Horseface: Well, those are actually the lyrics to ‘Lightning’, not ‘Explosion’. It’s a common mistake to confuse the two; the titles were switched on several reissues of the EP. We didn’t sing that song. 

Mooser: Still, you planned to sing those lyrics as part of a Christmas march. What do they have to do with Christmas? 

Horseface: It’s from Santa Dog. It’s obviously Christmas music. 

Mooser was clearly starting to get frustrated by Harold’s stubbornness. While he was already treating Harold as a hostile witness, his questioning became more pointed as he asked about the events of the march: 

Mooser: We have eyewitness testimony and video evidence showing that your march caused traffic jams and car accidents throughout the town. How were you unaware that this was going on? 

Horseface: I was the line leader. I had a responsibility to make sure we went the right way, so I was watching the road. It’s like that song says: ‘You keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the serpent’. 

Mooser: You do realize that watching the road means noticing cars, right? 

Horseface: Well, yeah, that’s a part of it, but I wasn’t really looking at things that weren’t right in front of me. 

Mooser: So you’re saying that you were unaware of your surroundings? 

Horseface: No, not at all. I was just fixated on the road and making sure we were going the right way. 

Mooser: You obviously weren’t that fixated on the road if you were able to throw candy canes at people. 

Horseface: Well of course I saw people. That was the whole point of the march, to bring joy to the community. The people are the community. 

Mooser: Wasn’t the point of the march to show solidarity with Macedonia? 

Bronstein: Objection! Asked and answered. 

Westinghouse: Sustained. 

Mooser looked over his shoulder and glared at Bronstein, then continued: 

Mooser: So you saw people, but no cars?

Horseface: I did see cars. 

Mooser: Well then did you or did you not see the traffic jams caused by your march? 

Horseface: I saw cars stopping for us, but that’s what cars do. 

Mooser: So when you saw lines of cars stopped in the road as you marched by, it didn’t cross your mind that you might be causing a traffic jam? 

Horseface: I don’t know, I just figured they were being polite by not running us over. 

Mooser: And when you heard people honking their horns at you, you didn’t think they were wanting you to get out of the road? 

Horseface: I thought they were honks of encouragement. 

Mooser was getting increasingly irritated by Harold’s obtuse answers, and Bronstein’s constant objections didn’t help his mood either. Like with all the other witnesses, he went through events in chronological order, ultimately arriving at the moment when the marchers were confronted by Officer Polmer: 

Mooser: What did Officer Polmer ask you when he first stopped you on South Main Street? 

Horseface: He asked if I had a permit. 

Mooser: Did you tell him that you ‘didn’t need a permit to have a Merry Christmas’? 

Horseface: Yes. 

Mooser: Why did you say that when you allegedly had a permit? 

Horseface: I mean it’s true. I don’t need a permit to have a Merry Christmas, and neither do you. 

Mooser: I – never mind. Did Officer Polmer ask you to cease your march? 

Horseface: He did. 

Mooser: And what was your response to him? 

Horseface: I don’t recall. 

Mooser: You said you had to keep going, didn’t you? 

Horseface: That sounds vaguely familiar. 

Mooser: Can you just give me a straight – I swear to God, if you say ‘Objection!’ one more time… 

Bronstein had stood up to get a glass of water. 

Bronstein: Jeez, I just wanted some water. Calm down. 

He filled his cup, then sat back down. 

Mooser: Mr. Horseface, did you follow Officer Polmer’s order to stop the march? 

Horseface: I guess not, no. 

Mooser: And what happened when you tried to continue marching? 

Horseface: He tried to take my serpent from me. 

Mooser: You stated in your testimony Tuesday that you instinctively pulled your serpent back when Officer Polmer tried to take it from you. Why didn’t you do something else to prevent him from taking your serpent, like holding it in your left hand or just gripping it tighter? 

Horseface: I don’t know, that’s just what I did. 

Mooser: Did you do this because you knew he would hit his head on the bell when he tripped? 

Horseface: No. I didn’t know he was going to fall on me and hurting him was not my intention. 

Mooser: But you were aware that he was standing in a pothole, correct? 

Horseface: Well, I know that now, but at the time I wasn’t really focusing on the intricacies of the pavement. I was keeping my eyes on the road – 

Mooser: And your hands upon the serpent. Yes, we remember. That’s not how that song goes, by the way. 

Horseface: Oh really? How does it go? 

Mooser: The line is ‘Keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.’ 

Horseface: But I didn’t have a wheel. I had a serpent. 

This statement finally pushed Mooser over the edge: 

Mooser: We all know you had a goddamn serpent, cause it’s covered in the blood of the cop you assaulted! 

Horseface: I didn’t assault anyone, I – 

Mooser: You intentionally moved it so Officer Polmer would hit his head on it! 

Horseface: I just told you that – 

Mooser: Then, once he had fallen into the street, you pinned him down so you could finish the job! 

Horseface: Now that’s not what happened – 

Mooser: We have eyewitness evidence from a police officer proving you did this! 

Bronstein: Objection! 

Mooser and Westinghouse looked at Bronstein expectantly. After a few seconds, Bronstein said: 

Bronstein: Habeas corpus, you feel me? 

Mooser: What the hell does that have to do with anything? 

Horseface: No, it’s true. Habeas corpus. 

Westinghouse: Mr. Bronstein, you can’t just say ‘Habeas corpus, you feel me?’ and expect something to happen. 

Bronstein: This is something, and it is happening. 

Mooser: Your Honor, Mr. Bronstein is clearly trying to disrupt my questioning with nonsensical objections! 

Bronstein: And what a tragedy that would be! Your ‘questioning’ (here Bronstein made air quotes with his wings) has become nothing more than shouting things at my client and refusing to accept his truthful answers! This is not lawyering; this is a disgrace to the State of Vermont and the County of Windsor! 

Westinghouse banged her gavel. 

Westinghouse: Order! We will have order! Mr. Bronstein, I have already asked you not to make frivolous objections. Do not make me charge you with contempt of court. Mr. Mooser, if you have any actual questions for the defendant please ask them, otherwise stop badgering him. 

Mooser: Oh, I have one more question for you, Mr. Horseface. All the damage, all the chaos and injury you caused with your march. Are you happy with how it went? 

Harold thought for a second, then answered: 

Horseface: Overall, I think it was our best march yet. Yes, I am happy.

Mooser: No further questions. Westinghouse: Does the defense wish to redirect or call another witness? 

Bronstein: The defense rests, Your Honor. 

Westinghouse: Alright. Tomorrow we will hear your closing statements. Court is adjourned. 

 

Day 9 — July 23rd, 2024

Today the jury heard the closing statements from Mr. Mooser and Mr. Bronstein. Mooser began his statement with an open-ended question: 

Mooser: Members of the jury, I would like to invite you to ponder a question with me: Who is Harold Horseface? What do we know about the man seated here today? I think the best way to learn about a man is through his actions. And Mr. Horseface’s actions are a veritable textbook. 

Mooser started by summarizing the events mentioned in Ethel’s testimony, portraying Harold as an erratic and bizarre person. Bronstein took particular offense to Mooser’s comments on the dodecahedron incident: 

Mooser: We have heard multiple examples of Mr. Horseface’s penchant for nonsensical stories. Take, for instance, his tale about the catfish. Mr. Horseface claimed they were hitchhiking to Burlington, but as we all know, fish can’t hitchhike. They have no thumbs to stick out. Likewise, his story about meeting the Platonic solids in Bosnia is completely divorced from reality. It is clearly an attempt to hand-wave his attempt to demolish his house in the name of an obscure and pointless geometric concept. 

Bronstein: Objection! Heresy! 

Westinghouse: Do you mean hearsay? 

Bronstein: No, I mean heresy! He’s blaspheming against the Platonic solids! 

Westinghouse: Blasphemy hasn’t been illegal in this state for quite some time, Mr. Bronstein. Your objection is overruled. 

Mooser: But above all, what the events of January 7th demonstrate is that Mr. Horseface is someone who is willing to put others in harm’s way in order to achieve his irrational goals. 

Mooser’s argument in favor of the assault charge was surprisingly short on details. He seemed to dance around the issue of how exactly Officer Polmer was injured, focusing instead on Harold’s involvement in the incident: 

Mooser: It is undeniable that Officer Polmer was injured by the defendant’s serpent. It is also undeniable that had the defendant not been marching through town, Polmer would not have been injured at all. Mr. Horseface moved his serpent in such a way that Officer Polmer had to fall on it. His actions during the altercation directly resulted in Polmer’s injury and therefore warrant the charge of aggravated assault. 

Mooser was more forceful and detailed in his argument that Harold’s Christmas march constituted disorderly conduct: 

Mooser: You have heard about the numerous car accidents caused by the defendant’s march. You have also heard how the defendant disregarded them entirely and continued onward. You have heard the defendant’s claim that he had a permit for this march, despite there being no record of its existence. And you have heard how the defendant disobeyed Officer Polmer’s direct order to cease the march and restore peace to our streets. Maybe it’s just me, but this does not strike me as being a cheerful holiday event. No, it is something far more sinister. 

And Mr. Horseface himself has given no clear answer as to what the purpose of the march was. Was it a Christmas march? The majority of Vermonters celebrate Christmas Eve on December 24th. Why have a Christmas march when no one is expecting it? This claim seems even more unlikely when the questionable setlist performed by the Upper Valley Swan Choir is taken into account. 

Was it a demonstration of solidarity with the Macedonian people? Mr. Horseface clearly is passionate about this cause, but the march was still Christmasy enough to make this implausible. 

Was it a mob, hellbent on destroying the tranquility of a January night? I cannot say. But regardless of the rationale behind it, it undeniably brought chaos to White River Junction, and it undeniably warrants the charge of disorderly conduct. 

Mooser finished his statement by returning to his question from the beginning: 

Mooser: We may never know who Mr. Horseface really is, but I can tell you what he is: guilty. 

It was now time for Bronstein’s closing statement. He began by addressing the prosecution’s attempts to question Harold’s character: 

Bronstein: Mr. Mooser claims that Harold Horseface is a dangerous and irrational person. Well, Mr. Mooser also thinks it’s impossible for a fish to hitchhike, but how else are they supposed to get over the Green Mountains? 

The jury chuckled at Mooser’s failure to realize this obvious fact. 

Bronstein: My client is passionate about his interests, passionate about his career as a serpenter, passionate about this town. He proudly reaches out his hand to the man in the street and the fish in the duffel bag. Sure, Harold may have tried to knock down his house with a sledgehammer, but I ask you, what is more important: walls, or the Platonic solids? You may think the answer is obvious, but if you look inside yourself, you’ll discover it’s a little more complicated. 

Bronstein’s argument against the disorderly conduct charge was broad but managed to rebuke many of the specific points brought up by Mooser: 

Bronstein: We have documents and witness testimony showing the attention to detail with which this event was planned. A setlist, a thoroughly calculated map, a diagram showing twenty-three people marching in formation! How can something this well thought-out be disorderly? The answer is simple – it cannot. 

Much discussion has been made about whether or not this year’s date change made the march more disorderly. In fact, the Christmas march has a history of date flexibility; after all, no march was held in 2020. As to the claim that Harold did not have a permit, the burden of proof was on the state, and they failed to come up with anything. 

The prosecution has also tried to use the number of car accidents on the evening of January 7th as evidence that Harold’s march was disorderly. But is it Harold’s fault that these drivers weren’t at a safe following distance? Of course not. If you rear-end someone, you alone are responsible. Not the person you ran into, and certainly not the man leading merry carolers down the street like the Pied Piper. 

Where Bronstein really shone, however, was in his argument against the aggravated assault charge. He displayed a tremendous command of rhetoric that will surely place him with Clarence Darrow and Johnnie Cochran as one of the greatest defense attorneys in the history of this country: 

Bronstein: The prosecution has provided you with three witnesses to the altercation with Officer Polmer. There is Mr. Baffin, who testified that he did not see Harold use his serpent in any violent way; rather, he merely raised it up. There is Officer Nicklaus, who showed up on the scene after the injury occurred and jumped to conclusions as to what happened. And there is the victim himself, who due to the nature of his injuries can only partially remember the events of that evening. Unfortunately for the prosecution, their first witness has disproved the claim that Harold violently attacked Officer Polmer, while the other two, despite their status as police officers, are unreliable. 

By contrast, the eyewitnesses we called to the stand had up-close views of the altercation. Even if you are suspicious of Harold’s account, as you have every right to be, the testimonies of Mr. Chernyshevsky and Professor Belfast prove that Harold did not intentionally hit Officer Polmer with his serpent. 

Perhaps this lack of reliable witnesses is why Mr. Mooser lacks a consistent explanation for how Harold attacked the good officer. As you recall, he initially did not believe that Officer Polmer tripped over a pothole; he didn’t even believe the pothole existed. Now that multiple witnesses, including the very person who cut the pothole, have testified to its existence, Mr. Mooser’s story has changed. Now his story is that Harold intentionally moved his serpent in such a way that Officer Polmer would hit his head on it as he fell. This is simply ridiculous. 

Members of the jury, I’d like you to put yourselves in Harold’s shoes. I am sure all of you have possessions that you hold dear, possessions that are not only vital to your career but also represent significant investments of time, money, and emotion. Now ask yourself: how would you react if someone tried to take them from you? Would you passively give them up, or would you hold them close to you? Harold’s movement of his serpent was an impulsive act that came from a desire to prevent his livelihood from being taken away from him. It was pure coincidence that that movement put his serpent in the path of Officer Polmer’s head. Harold could not have foreseen this, and he had absolutely no intention of hurting anyone with his march. And remember, Harold immediately tried to help the officer up once he realized what had happened. 

This was no assault. This, my dear jurors, was a tragic accident. 

Perhaps stunned by Bronstein’s statement, Mooser declined to give a rebuttal. After the closing statements were completed, Judge Westinghouse gave the jury their instructions, and they left to begin deliberation. The final update will be posted once the verdict is in. 

Verdict — July 26th, 2024

This morning, the jury reached a decision in the case of Vermont v. Horseface. After the foreperson handed their verdict to the clerk, Greggery Peccary, Judge Lorelei Westinghouse asked him to read it: 

Westinghouse: Has the jury come to a decision? 

Mr. Peccary: Yes, Your Honor. In the matter of the people of the State of Vermont versus Harold Horseface, the jury in the above entitled action finds the defendant not guilty of the crime of aggravated assault. The jury also finds the defendant guilty of the crime of disorderly conduct. 

Westinghouse: Has the jury made a sentencing recommendation? 

Peccary: Yes, Your Honor. Considering that the defendant refused bail and has been in jail for six months, the jury recommends that he be sentenced to time served. 

Westinghouse then gave her final statement: 

Westinghouse: Frankly, this has been one of the most bewildering cases I have ever presided over. Before I bring this trial to a close, I would like to remind Mr. Horseface that while his dedication to White River Junction is admirable, in the future he should make sure he follows the law when giving back to the community. I sentence the defendant to time served, which means he is free to go. Court is adjourned. 

After the trial had ended, Harold’s defense attorney Zigmond T. Bronstein, Esq. gave a brief press conference outside the courthouse: 

Bronstein: We are pleased that the jury came to the correct decision and found Harold not guilty of aggravated assault. Obviously, we believe he is innocent of the disorderly conduct charge. The prosecution’s gross misrepresentation of the Christmas march directly led to the ruling against my client. However, given that Harold has already paid his debt to society, we feel that the time and effort required to successfully appeal would be better spent elsewhere. I will be using that time to listen to my brand new copy of The Joshua Tree. 

When asked for comment, state’s attorney Roy S. Mooser said only this: 

Mooser: This certainly has been one of the trials of all time. Honestly, it’s given me a headache, so I’m going home to bed. 

Overall, this trial has been one of the most important things to happen in White River Junction in the 21st century, and it is sure to be remembered in the annals of Vermont legal history.