Were Joseph Price, Dylan Ward and Victor Zaborsky lovers who would go to any length to protect their family, even if that meant covering up a killing?
Or were they three men who, when a friend was found dead in their home, simply told police what they knew — which they said was practically nothing?
Those are the two stories portrayed during closing arguments in the trial of the housemates, accused of covering up Robert Wone’s Aug. 2, 2006, stabbing death in their Dupont Circle town house.
All three face charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Ward and Zaborsky were acquitted last week of tampering with evidence. That charge still stands against Price.
Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz said she would rule Tuesday morning in the case. On Thursday, she questioned attorneys about how much knowledge about Wone’s death was needed to prove the charges.
Prosecutors maintained that a defendant didn’t have to know the true circumstances of the slaying to be guilty of obstruction.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Glenn Kirschner argued that Zaborsky’s use of “we” in his 911 call and Ward “taking the cues” from Price’s glares to stop speaking to police showed they had consented to a conspiracy.
Kirschner also emphasized discrepancies in the defendants’ statements. He said they changed their stories after speaking with each other, proving they colluded to cover up the slaying.
“There are very distinct and dramatic changes,” Kirschner said, pointing to statements about noises and the placement of the knife.
Defense attorneys asserted that the prosecutors’ case is based on speculation and too much is unknown about how Wone died to find the defendants guilty.
Prosecutors “cobbled together” a series of events they called suspicious, but the defense offered explanations for some of those throughout the trial, said David Schertler, who represents Ward. Regarding other events, he said, there’s no way to know what happened.
“If you can’t prove what happened to Robert Wone, you can’t prove that these three lied to police,” Schertler said.
Thomas Connolly, Zaborsky’s lawyer, said Zaborsky simply didn’t know what happened, and Zaborsky told policethat the theory that an intruder broke into the house was an assumption.
If the defendants were lying, Price counsel Bernie Grimm asked, why would they have admitted that their burglar theory didn’t make sense?
But the defendants didn’t just say they didn’t know what happened; they provided false details, prosecutor Rachel Lieber said in her rebuttal argument.
“No one has to tell the police anything,” Lieber said. “But when you open your mouth to the police, you must tell the truth. If you lie, that’s obstruction.”
