By Monica Alonzo
By Stephen Lemons
By Jason P. Woodbury
By Dulce Paloma Baltazar Pedraza
By Ray Stern
By Pete Kotz
By Monica Alonzo
By New Times
"I know if I had shut up, they probably would have ruled it an accident."
-- Brian Eftenoff toNew Times a month before Phoenix police arrested him on a charge of murdering his wife
Moments after testifying in the quirky murder trial of Ahwatukee salesman Brian Eftenoff, Dr. Stephen Karch stood in the courthouse lobby and shook his head sadly. Karch, a Bay Area physician, is a leading expert on how cocaine acts inside a body. He had taken the stand in Eftenoff's defense, but felt certain that the jury hadn't bought his testimony.
Karch had tried to explain that it was impossible to say just when Eftenoff's wife, Judi, had swallowed any or all of the cocaine that caused her to die of a stroke at the couple's home in late September 1999. In fact, he wasn't even sure if Judi had swallowed the drug, or had taken it nasally.
Karch also said he couldn't say how much cocaine Judi had ingested -- "There was certainly stuff used, and that's all I'd be prepared to say," he told the Maricopa County Superior Court jury.
But Karch, who was testifying free of charge, said he felt badly about how things had gone on the stand. "This is a case about science, and the science in this case happens to be in favor of the defense," he told New Times afterward. "But I don't think they like this guy, not a bit. They weren't even looking at me up there. They're gonna get him, I can feel it."
The doctor was right. As most Valley residents know by now, a 12-person jury convicted Brian Eftenoff last Friday afternoon of second-degree murder in Judi's death. Prosecutors argued successfully that Eftenoff forced the 30-year-old mother of his two children to swallow a fatal amount of coke after a vicious argument. The panel also convicted Eftenoff of sending cocaine to his in-laws in North Dakota after Judi died, which prosecutors say he did in an odd attempt to cover up his crime.
In a two-part series late last year ("'Til Death Do Us Part," November 23 and November 30, 2000), New Times detailed the problems prosecutors would face in pressing their case against Eftenoff. There was little scientific evidence to show a murder had even taken place. The prosecution's pitfalls included wildly divergent statements by the couple's then 5-year-old daughter, Rikki, about what she'd allegedly seen Daddy do to Mommy that night; flawed and often misleading grand-jury testimony by Phoenix homicide Detective Joe Petrosino; and a medical examiner who'd performed the autopsy on Judi's body, but wasn't in the prosecution's corner.
"The best chance prosecutors may have is if [Eftenoff] testifies," New Times wrote then. "Something his psyche may not allow him to avoid, no matter the pitfalls of a damaging cross-examination."
Eftenoff did testify, and it was like watching a man cut his own wrists. Over and over. After considering more scientific evidence than a class of fledgling medical students, the jury's decision to fry Eftenoff came down to two words he'd used time and again to describe his beautiful wife -- "coke whore."
Surely, Judi did her share of cocaine, with and without her husband, and in doses and frequency that varied according to who was testifying.
But "coke whore"? Two jurors shot malevolent glances across the courtroom at Eftenoff when the couple's nanny, Natalie Lemmon, first testified in the trial that he'd referred to Judi at the funeral as a "crack whore" -- a variation on his posthumous pet name for his wife.
Deputy county attorney Kurt Altman bided his time. When the delicious opportunity came to cross-examine the defendant, Altman repeatedly fired the phrase "coke whore" in Eftenoff's face.
So bad was the damage that defense attorney Jim Cleary -- who had pleaded, cajoled and practically begged Eftenoff to stay off the stand -- was forced to use the phrase himself during his redirect examination of his client.
"Are you saying you never referred to your wife as a 'coke whore'?" Cleary asked Eftenoff, who glared at his counselor as if he were the prosecutor.
"I never called Judi to her face a coke whore," Eftenoff said, without a hint of repentance. "I might use the term 'coke whore' referring to someone that's letting cocaine get ahold of their life."
The jury didn't buy it.
In the end, the jury embraced the state's theory of the case, as fraught with holes as it was: that Eftenoff had shown "extreme indifference" to his wife (an element of second-degree murder) by angrily stuffing cocaine down her throat and leaving her for dead, then had gone out with a buddy for a nightlong gambling jaunt.
Serious questions remain, however, about whether a murder even was committed on South 25th Place on the evening of September 23, 1999. No two experts who testified came to the same conclusion about many crucial scientific components of the case.
Did Brian Eftenoff force the supposed fatal dose of cocaine down Judi's throat or nose? How much coke really was in her body when she died? Over what span of time did Judi take (forced or not) the fatal dose or doses of cocaine? Was she a "chronic" user of the drug? What role did the deep bruise on the back of Judi's head play in her demise, if any? Did that blow to the head cause her to lose consciousness beforeher husband shoved the cocaine down her throat? If so, couldan unconscious person actually swallow a gram or so of powder cocaine? What caused the bruising on the back of Judi's throat? Was it pressure from a thumb and forefinger, as chief medical examiner Dr. Phil Keen suggested, or was it something else, as Keen's associate, Dr. Arch Mosley, countered from the stand?