Tarr found guilty on murder, attempted murder charges

HILLSBORO — More than two years after Leslie Reeves was killed and Christopher Smith was nearly killed on Thanksgiving Day 2021 in Farmersville, a jury of eight women and six men gathered in the Montgomery County Courthouse to decide the fate of the accused, Robert Tarr. This trial, presided over by Judge Christopher Matoush, began on Tuesday, April 23, following a day and a half of jury selection.

Once the jury was sworn in and instructed by Judge Matoush on their responsibilities, opening statements started with Montgomery County State’s Attorney Andrew Affrunti leading the prosecution, supported by special prosecutor Derek Dion. Affrunti explained that it was the state’s job to present the story of Leslie Reeves and Christopher Smith through witness testimonies and evidence gathered during the investigation.

Affrunti detailed how Reeves and Smith had met the night before the incident in Farmersville and how their friends grew worried when they didn’t respond to messages or show up for Thanksgiving plans. Those concerned friends went to Smith’s house in Farmersville, where they discovered the grim scene.

Affrunti highlighted key pieces of evidence, including two shell casings found at the scene and the forensic pathologist’s findings, which would be presented during the trial. He noted that Reeves and Tarr had previously dated and outlined Tarr’s alibi, stating that he was home on November 24, 2021. However, Tarr’s daughter contradicted this, indicating that he had left the house that day. The prosecution described how police found crucial evidence on the phone seized during a search of Tarr’s property and how Tarr’s family members located a firearm on the property that matched the weapon used in the crime.

Affrunti concluded by stating that at the end of the prosecution’s case, they would ask the jury to return a guilty verdict against Tarr.

Mark Wykoff, one of the two defense attorneys representing Tarr alongside Daniel Fultz, began his opening statement by thanking the jury for their service and commitment to ensuring a fair trial. He stressed that no one could be deprived of their liberty without clear proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wykoff discussed the Sixth Amendment, emphasizing that the defendant has the right to confront witnesses during the trial and underscoring that cross-examination is one of the most effective ways to reveal the truth. He highlighted four key principles of criminal law: Tarr is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, Tarr is not obligated to present evidence on his behalf, and if he chooses not to testify, it cannot be used against him.

Wykoff concluded by expressing his eagerness to demonstrate why the state had not proven Tarr’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He quoted Thomas Jefferson’s perspective on jury trials, stating, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Day One summary

Nanette Stuiper

Following the opening statements, the state called its first witness, Nanette Stuiper, a friend of Leslie Reeves from Collinsville, who became worried when Reeves didn’t respond to her calls and texts on Thanksgiving Day. Stuiper explained that she contacted the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department to request a welfare check and drove to Farmersville to meet the police at Smith’s residence. When she arrived, she saw Reeves’ blue van parked outside but stayed in her vehicle until the police arrived.

While Stuiper waited, another car pulled up, and a young woman approached, asking if Stuiper was there to see Smith. Stuiper mentioned her concern for Reeves and that she had already contacted the police, prompting the young woman to go around the side of the house. She soon returned, looking visibly startled, and made a phone call.

Stuiper described how a person in a yellow vest, possibly from the fire department, arrived and went around the side of the house before entering. Law enforcement and an ambulance showed up within ten minutes, cordoning off the area with tape. Stuiper stayed in her car and cooperated with the police when they spoke to her later.

Erijon Smith

After the defense declined to question Stuiper, the state called Erijon Smith, a friend of Chris Smith through a mutual acquaintance. Smith visited Chris’s house when he failed to appear for Thanksgiving dinner. She testified that she went to the side window, saw blood and a man’s leg, and then called 911.

Dennis Hobson

With no questions for Smith from the defense, the state summoned Farmersville EMT Dennis Hobson, the person in the yellow vest seen by Stuiper. Hobson explained that he received a call from Chris Smith’s ex-wife indicating something was wrong. Upon reaching the house, he noticed broken glass at the side door, peered into the kitchen, and saw Smith lying on the floor.

Hobson called out to Smith, who moved slightly, and as he entered, Smith told him he felt cold. While trying to find a path to bring a stretcher from the front door to the kitchen, Hobson secured Smith’s dog in its cage and moved into the dining room, where he found the body of a woman.

Smith inquired on the condition of the woman, in which Hobson explained that he could tell she was deceased. Hobson would then call 911 to report two gunshot victims, one still alive (Smith) and one deceased (later revealed to be Reeves).

Hobson mentioned that he observed two silver shell casings at the scene, one in the dining room near Reeves’ body and another in the kitchen by the refrigerator. After Smith was loaded onto the ambulance gurney and transported to HSHS St. John’s Hospital in Springfield, Hobson remained at the scene to provide a statement to law enforcement officials.

Fultz questioned Hobson about his arrival at the scene and whether Smith said anything besides mentioning he was cold. Hobson replied that Smith mumbled some words but was generally incoherent. Fultz also inquired if the police collected or photographed his shoes or those of two other responding EMTs, Tabitha Dean and Jeremy Welsh, who were also at the scene. Hobson said they did not.

Deputy Kurt Eller (ret.)

The next witness was retired Montgomery County Deputy Kurt Eller, who was on active duty when the incident occurred. According to Eller, the EMTs were already there, and Hobson informed him about the deceased female in the dining room.

Eller found Reeves lying on her right side with an apparent gunshot wound to the head. He noted a silver shell casing near her body and another in the kitchen. Eller then taped off the entire residence and the front area outside the house.

Fultz asked Eller about the scene when he arrived. Eller mentioned that he entered through the front door, which Hobson had unlocked earlier. Fultz also inquired about the state of the kitchen, which had tipped-over chairs, the refrigerator moved away from the wall, and blood scattered throughout, suggesting signs of a struggle. Affrunti objected to this question as speculative, and the objection was sustained. Fultz rephrased, asking whether these conditions were present in the kitchen, which Eller confirmed. Fultz also asked if Eller canvassed neighboring houses or collected or photographed the EMTs’ shoes. Eller said he had not.

Dr. Nathaniel Patterson

The final witness for the day was Dr. Nathaniel Patterson, a forensic pathologist from Sangamon County, who conducted the autopsy on Reeves. Dr. Patterson outlined the autopsy process and revealed that the gunshot entered the top of Reeves’ skull, with stippling around the wound.

Special Prosecutor Dion asked Dr. Patterson if he could determine the trajectory of the gunshot. Dr. Patterson stated that the muzzle would have been directly above the victim’s head, suggesting that the shooter might have been standing over the victim or that the victim was bent forward. Dr. Patterson estimated the range to be between six to eighteen inches, acknowledging a margin of error due to variations in scalp thickness.

Dr. Patterson noted that the ammunition used in the shooting was a frangible bullet, designed to break apart on impact. He had only encountered this type of ammunition in three other cases and had written about it in a peer-reviewed journal. He also conducted a toxicology report, which showed a blood alcohol content of .11. Additionally, he took extra DNA swabs and fingernail clippings to provide to the Illinois State Police.

When asked about the autopsy’s final finding, Dr. Patterson explained that the cause of death was a gunshot wound. During cross-examination, Attorney Wykoff pointed out that Dr. Patterson was an expert in forensic medicine, not ballistics. Dr. Patterson agreed but noted there is an overlap between the two fields. Wykoff asked if Dr. Patterson visited the ammunition factory or consulted with the authors of the textbooks he referenced in his journal article. Dr. Patterson said he did not.

Wykoff then questioned how Dr. Patterson could be sure the bullet entered from the top of the head and moved straight downward. Dr. Patterson explained that the bullet hit the base of the skull and broke apart. When asked if he could determine the position of the victim at the time of the shooting, Dr. Patterson replied that he could not. Wykoff’s final question was whether Dr. Patterson could identify who pulled the trigger; the doctor stated he could not.

Dion, upon redirect, asked Dr. Patterson if Reeves’ wound was consistent with someone on their knees. Dr. Patterson confirmed that this was a possible scenario.

Day Two summary

Sgt. Josh Easton, part one

The second day of witness testimony, on Wednesday, April 24, began with Illinois State Police Sgt. Josh Easton, who works in the crime scene investigations department. Easton described to the jury how he processed the crime scene, including collecting evidence, swabbing areas with red blood-like substances, and photographing various elements of the scene.

Prosecutor Affrunti reviewed crime scene photographs with Easton, which included images of a 9mm bullet casing stamped with the letters T and M. Easton also discussed a defect consistent with a bullet hole in the kitchen’s side door, located about 2 feet 5 inches from the base. He also took photographs of shoe prints in the blood in the kitchen but could not remove the tile without causing it to break.

During cross-examination, Attorney Fultz inquired about the swabs taken from the scene, including two additional swabs collected from Reeves’ pants near the drawstring. He also asked Easton why he collected a knife from the counter. Easton replied that he hadn’t been informed about the cause of injuries at the time, so he processed the knife to be thorough.

Fultz also asked about the broken window in the door, with Easton explaining that the glass outside the door, rather than inside the kitchen, indicated it was either forced out from within or swept outside. Fultz then asked how the casing in the kitchen ended up there if the gun was fired from the outside. Easton acknowledged that if the defect in the door was caused by the same bullet that left the casing in the kitchen, it couldn’t be easily explained.

Fultz, as with Deputy Eller on the previous day, questioned Easton about the amount of blood in the kitchen and whether the positioning of the chairs and refrigerator suggested a struggle. Easton agreed it could indicate a struggle.

On redirect, Affrunti asked if Smith’s movement around the kitchen, while trying to get help, could cause blood spatter and disarray. Easton said that it was possible.

Fultz asked if knowing gunshot wounds weren’t the only type of injury would have affected their crime scene processing. Easton acknowledged that it might, depending on the injury specifics. When asked if he was informed about any other types of injuries beyond gunshot wounds, Easton said he was not.

Following Easton’s testimony, after a brief recess, Affrunti noted that the prosecution and defense agreed on a stipulation that Chris Smith did reside in the Farmersville house on Nov. 24 and 25 and had suffered a gunshot wound to the head that caused significant bodily harm and that he had no memory of the event.

Cory and Jessica Krager

The next two witnesses, Cory and Jessica Krager, lived in Farmersville at the time of the incident and had security cameras outside their residence. Affrunti questioned them about downloading footage from specific hours requested by the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, which Cory Krager confirmed he did. A detective also came to his house to determine the correct time stamp for the security footage, which was off by an hour. Jessica Krager confirmed she took the downloaded footage to the Sheriff’s Department.

Special Agent Aaron Riemann

Illinois State Police Special Agent Aaron Riemann was the next witness and testified about collecting security camera footage from Webb Insurance in Farmersville. He also verified a time discrepancy in the security footage before passing the information on to Jeff Roach, an investigator for the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department.

Fultz asked Riemann if he could confirm the exact time discrepancy, which was 46 minutes, only from when he downloaded the information and not necessarily from Nov. 24 or 25. Riemann agreed that was correct.

Investigator Justin Gonzalez

Illinois State Police Crime Scene Investigator Justin Gonzalez was the next to testify, explaining to the jury that he helped process the crime scene in Farmersville. He was also present at the time of Reeves’ autopsy. Gonzalez confirmed that he had collected bullet fragments and DNA samples from the autopsy. He also said he retrieved flannel pants and a sock belonging to Smith, as well as a Springfield Armory Hellcat and related items from Investigator Roach, which he brought to the Illinois State Police office in Belleville for fingerprint testing and other analyses.

During cross-examination, Fultz asked if unexamined items collected at crime scenes were deemed valueless, to which Gonzalez responded that it’s the investigators’ discretion to determine what gets analyzed. Fultz also inquired about blood evidence, gunshot residue testing, and the possibility of castoff blood in the kitchen. Gonzalez acknowledged that castoff blood could be caused by objects or people in motion projecting blood.

Dion followed up by asking Gonzalez whether evidence is sometimes collected but not tested. Gonzalez agreed, noting that crime scene investigators often collect more than necessary to ensure thoroughness.

Shelby Schiel (nee Tarr)

The final witness before lunch was Shelby Schiel, previously known as Shelby Tarr, who testified in the afternoon session. Schiel, Tarr’s daughter, had been staying with her father during Thanksgiving 2021 as part of a two-week visit from Texas. She testified that on the evening of November 24, she heard her father on the phone saying he was a smart man and no one would find out. Schiel stated that her father left twice that night.

She stated that Tarr left the house once for about 30 minutes to lock up Billy Adams’ shop. Tarr would leave the house again to let a co-worker into the same shop. After leaving the second time, Schiel grew concerned and went to her grandparents’ house nearby. Her grandmother texted her father, who replied that he was driving around Fairview Heights and thinking.

Dion asked about the phone call her father made and what it was about. Schiel said her father mentioned being upset about what had happened with Leslie Reeves.

Schiel explained that she went to bed at 9:45 p.m. on November 24 and was awoken at 2 a.m. by the sound of a washing machine while her father was cleaning the living room. She went back to bed and woke up at 7 a.m. with her father standing over her, staring. When she asked why he was there, her father said he was concerned about her. She went back to sleep and was awakened again at noon for Thanksgiving dinner.

Dion asked Schiel if her father owned any firearms and whether she had seen a gun similar to the one recovered by police. She said he did own firearms and had seen a similar gun a few days before Thanksgiving with her father, family friend Chris White, and her brother Tyler. Schiel mentioned that she saw the same gun in her father’s sock drawer the day before Thanksgiving but didn’t find it there on Thanksgiving Day.

Fultz questioned Schiel about the discrepancies between her timeline in court and the one she provided to police in 2021, with variations of 15 to 30 minutes. Schiel admitted she couldn’t recall exact times for certain events. Fultz also asked about the attire Tarr was wearing when she saw him cleaning at 2:45 a.m. Schiel replied that he was in pajamas, and she couldn’t recall seeing what was in the laundry at that time.

Fultz asked Schiel if she recalled telling the police her father said, “I’m smart, trust me, I know,” instead of “I’m a smart man, no one would find out.” Schiel stated she didn’t remember.

Tyler Tarr

Tyler Tarr, Robert Tarr’s son, was the next to testify, saying that the gun in the evidence photo resembled the one he had seen a few nights before Thanksgiving while he was with his sister, father, and Chris White.

Wykoff asked Tyler Tarr about the events of that day and whether the police showed him the gun when he met with them on December 10, 2021. Tyler said he couldn’t remember. Wykoff also inquired if Tyler had told the police on December 10 that his father seemed fine at Thanksgiving and whether he had visited his father’s house afterward. Tyler confirmed both statements.

Robert Power

Following Tyler’s testimony, Robert Power from Illinois State Police’s Crime Scene Services discussed a search warrant executed at Robert Tarr’s residence on November 26. Power mentioned that they processed a 9mm Glock handgun and a black iPhone. A white Volkswagen sedan was towed from the scene and taken to a secure location for further examination.

Dion asked if any firearm or blood evidence was found in the car, and Power replied that none was detected. Fultz inquired whether DNA swabs were taken from the car to confirm if Tarr had been in it. Power clarified that swabs weren’t necessary since the car belonged to Tarr, and blood evidence testing would have detected any blood. Fultz also asked if any of the evidence linked the car to the crime scene. Power said it did not. On redirect, Dion asked if Power reviewed any surveillance footage, to which Power said he did not.

William Adams (aka Billy Adams)

The next witness, William Adams, a former employee, coworker, and friend of Tarr, testified about his relationship with Tarr. Affrunti asked if Tarr had given or sold firearms to him, and Adams said he had bought several guns from Tarr, including the black pistol found in Tarr’s house during the police search. He noted that he traded the gun back to Tarr on Thanksgiving morning for a shotgun.

Affrunti asked if Adams had been in contact with Tarr on November 24, to which Adams replied that he was sure they had spoken since they did frequently. Adams also mentioned a text message about Farmersville and a specific address, though he couldn’t remember a name. Later, he shared these texts with the police.

In cross-examination, Fultz asked Adams if Tarr had ever asked him to hide a gun or encouraged him to physically harm someone. Adams replied no to both questions.

Ernest Tarr

Ernest Tarr, Robert Tarr’s father, was the final witness of the day. He testified that he was cleaning up at the property after his son’s arrest and found a bag containing a weapon while raking leaves. He took it home and told his wife and another son, Adam, who came over and then called the police. The police arrived within two hours to take custody of the gun.

Fultz asked if he was there when the police searched his son’s yard near where the gun was found, and Ernest said he was. Fultz also asked if it looked like the bag had been there for a long time. Ernest replied no, explaining that there was no sweat inside the bag, indicating it hadn’t been outside long. Fultz closed by asking if he had seen the gun before or would ever hide a gun for his son, to which Ernest replied no to both questions.

After Ernest’s testimony, the trial ended for the day.

Closing arguments

The beginning of the case’s final chapter began Friday morning, Apr. 26 with Montgomery County State’s Attorney Andrew Affrunti reading into the record a text message that Tarr sent to his daughter Shelby before she was set to testify against him.

Both sides rested their cases after the introduction of the text message. Since the proof of burden was on the state, the prosecution gave the initial closing argument before ceding the floor to the defense.

Prosecution closing arguments

Special Prosecutor Derek Dion spoke first for the prosecution, stating the seeds in this case first started in 2020. At the time, Robert Tarr determined that he was never going to let Leslie Reeves be free of him or allow her to be with another man. He recalled the testimony of his daughter Shelby, who told the court that he left the house not once, but twice on the night of November 24, 2021. At one point, Tarr was gone for two and a half hours, with cell phone records showing that he was near Farmersville at one point in time that night.

He would further speak of the text messages found on Tarr’s phone relating to Christopher Smith, his residential address, and search history that Tarr had deleted after inquiring if police can track a phone utilizing a virtual private network, or VPN.

Dion would further paint a picture for the jury based on the testimony they’ve heard over the past several days, how Tarr drove his Volkswagen Jetta northbound to Farmersville with a 9mm Springfield Armory Hellcat pistol, extra magazines, and hollow-point bullets intentionally designed to fragment upon impact.

Dion detailed the moments after Tarr broke into Smith’s residence at 104 Nobbie St., a verbal confrontation between Tarr and Reeves would ensue, causing the window on the door to break. Furthermore, he details how Tarr fired his pistol through the door, hitting Smith in the head, and leaving him prone and bleeding on the floor.

Tarr would then outline the final moments of Reeves’ life, how she was forced to her knees before Tarr shot her in the top of her skill with the barrel of the fun not more than 18 inches from her head.

Dion would describe the aftermath of the shootings as Tarr fled the scene of the crime, leaving through a side door and returning to Collinsville, where his daughter saw him doing laundry between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m., during which he took the time to search how to delete his browser search history.

The special prosecutor would take additional time to explain some of the things the defense focused their attention on during the cross-examination of witnesses. This included the lack of blood evidence on Tarr’s shoes or in his car. The bloody aftermath of the shooting in the early morning hours of Thanksgiving Day would come later as Smith helplessly sought help. Meanwhile, before fleeing the scene, Tarr took extra care to avoid leaving behind any footprints.

Dion also directed the jury through the discovery of Reeves’ deceased body and Smith lying on the floor in his kitchen, near death. He would also detail how the police interviewed Tarr and caught on quickly to the inconsistencies in his story. He would also speak on how they recovered the Glock 9mm but not the Springfield Armory Hellcat 9mm during their initial search and how his father Ernest found it days later near Tarr’s house.

Dion also spoke on forensic evidence of the bullet that killed Reeves matching a test bullet fired from the same weapon and how DNA from Tarr and Reeves was found on a magazine carrier with the gun. In addition, he also detailed how a fingerprint was found on one of the plastic bags the gun was in.

In the final moments of his closing argument, Dion encouraged the jury to trust the expertise of those who were called to testify and the stringent protocols they had to follow.

He said that there was no doubt in what Tarr was set out to do when he drove to Farmersville. With Reeves gone and Smith forever changed, Tarr had an ultimate goal to leave no one to testify against him.

Tarr’s family – his daughter Shelby, his son Tyler, and his father Ernest – and his friends had every opportunity not to implicate him for his crimes but still did so anyway. Their testimony was corroborated by the scientific evidence surrounding the case, so there was no point in risking potential perjury.

Dion also noted that the defense would prefer to ask the jury to focus on only the small details, but implored them to focus on the greater picture, the timeline of the crime, his motive that stems back to 2020, and the actions Tarr took during that time.

If Tarr was truly innocent, Dion questioned, then why did he lie to law enforcement about being home, lie about getting gas, lie about owning the gun linked to the crime, and lie about the search engine inquiries he made on his phone?

“He did it because he thought [that] he could get away with it,” Dion responded.

Dion would also reference the text message that Tarr sent to his daughter Shelby 16 minutes before she was set to testify against him. The subject matter of that text message was that he loved her, how he wished he could hug them, and how he was sorry for the entire situation. Dion argued that it was another attempt to manipulate his family and the jury. He would close arguments with a call for the jury to say no more and find Tarr guilty.

Defense closing arguments

Defense attorney Daniel Fultz began his closing argument by thanking the jury for their service, stating that this was as difficult as anyone would want to hear. He also commended the jury for giving the trial its full attention.

He would then speak of the crime scene and the lack of present blood evidence on Tarr’s shoes, clothing, and vehicle. He would also detail how much evidence that crime scene investigators had to collect and how little of it was tested. It would be something Fultz would mention quite frequently throughout his arguments.

Fultz spoke of Thursday’s testimony that the defense never requested any evidence testing, but he was quick to note that the defense holds no burden of proof and that it’s not their responsibility to investigate.

He would speak of Tarr willingly giving up his DNA without hesitation, how he would show his hands, chest, and arms to police, not having a single scratch on him.

Fultz questions Dion’s theory on how Reeves was killed, accusing the detailing of Reeves’ final moments of her life of embellishment. In addition, what he described as a “crime show version of the events” was not the true events leading to Reeves’ death, stating that there was no proof presented supporting the argument that Tarr forced Reeves to her knees before killing her.

He would also detail the testimony of several experts who said that the crime scene appeared to entail a major struggle. Furthermore, he spoke on none of the witnesses were able to explain the shell casing on the kitchen floor and not on the porch if the shot that struck Smith happened the way the state described.

The defense attorney would also question the timeframe presented by Shelby Schiel, then Shelby Tarr at the time, stating that she was confident of the times when prepared by the prosecution, but was less certain upon cross-examination. He would specifically question the difference in her recollection of what Tarr said – “I’m a smart man, no one will find out,” rather than her recollection to police, “I’m a smart man, trust me I know.”

He would further call to question inconsistencies with security footage showing a car similar to Tarr’s in Farmersville at around 1:30 a.m. Thanksgiving morning and how they appeared to be doing in opposite directions.

Falling back to arguments stated throughout his closing arguments, he would again reference the lack of blood evidence and why certain parts of the vehicle weren’t tested for DNA. He would also challenge the expert who would not admit that the car did not have the appearance of being cleaned out.

Fultz spoke of the gun and the testimony of Tarr’s father Ernest and Tarr’s friend Billy Adams and their statements that they wouldn’t have hidden a gun. He would question how three officers were looking for the gun in the vicinity of Tarr’s home, but how it was discovered ten feet away from his home.

In addition, he additionally notes that Tarr’s father picked up the bag twice but was never asked by law enforcement to provide a fingerprint standard to eliminate during testing. He would further contest that the bags appeared new and had not been outside very long due to a lack of condensation inside or around the bags.

Fultz would pose a question as to why a person who said he was “too smart to be found out” would hide a gun so close to his back door and why he would have kept the gun to begin with when anyone else would have tossed it outside their vehicle somewhere along Interstate 55.

He would emphasize the lack of preparation from the state’s fingerprint expert and how he continued to make excuses when challenged in cross-examination. He further contests that the experts from the Illinois State Police became complacent when not challenged, which he considered unacceptable when someone is on trial for murder.

Furthermore, Fultz spoke of the testimony regarding Tarr’s phone. He stated that a lot of people search for things they would not want to be displayed on a 55-inch television in a courtroom. As an example, he had personally searched for things to prepare for the trial that may bring up questions that could be considered out-of-context.

Fultz said the state might think they don’t know what unfolded, but he could contest that the prosecution wants justice for Reeves and Smith, presumably at any cost where a system of justice could be considered no justice at all.

“He looks like he did it? He probably did,” Fultz states as he mocks the intent of the prosecution’s case. “We guess people’s weight at a carnival. We do not guess if they are guilty or innocent.”

Fultz would remind the jury that they promised to not convict if the state’s case did not meet the burden of proof. He would also note defendants are acquitted quite frequently, referencing an atrocious track record in Montgomery County and Central Illinois courtrooms where accused murderers have been allowed to walk free because the prosecution, acting on behalf of the people of Illinois (or the state), failed to meet the burden of proof. He would further remind the jury to promise not to hold it against Tarr on his refusal to testify, as he had no burden to prove his innocence.

Fultz would conclude his closing arguments by referencing the British Royal Court of Justice utilized in the past in England when someone wronged the King or Queen at the time. After the trial, the jury would vote on whether the defendant was guilty or innocent. The jury would then be sent back for deliberation until they returned with a guilty verdict.

“This courtroom is not the Royal Court of Justice,” Fultz contests. “You don’t owe Mr. Affrunti or Mr. Dion a verdict. You owe Mr. Tarr a true verdict, and I have the utmost faith that you will do your duty.”

Prosecution rebuttal

State’s Attorney Andrew Affrunti had the last word before the jury would leave the courtroom to deliberate on the verdict.

He would acknowledge that the blood evidence wasn’t present on Tarr’s belongings. However, the jury was able to see the blood all over Christopher Smith’s kitchen, as well as the floor, the walls, and the cabinets. Affrunti said that this is mostly because the majority of the bleeding would occur after Tarr fled the residence.

“There has been a lot of talk about a fight,” Affrunti rebutted a prior statement by the defense’s closing arguments. “There was a fight…between Chris Smith and death. Chris fought death with everything he had until the EMTs got there the following day.”

He stated that the evidence presented throughout the case points to Tarr’s guilt. Affrunti would also reference how Tarr thought he was smarter than the police. However, Tarr voluntarily gave up his DNA but didn’t take his phone with him to the interview with police on the night he was arrested.

“Who leaves without their wallet or phone?” Affrunti questioned. “He knew his phone had evidence on it.”

Affrunti also spoke of how Springfield Police Department Detective Shane Overby was able to crack Tarr’s phone, which would reveal evidence of Tarr performing a background search on Christopher Smith and search history finding ways to avoid police tracking his phone or going through his search inquiries.

He also referenced Fultz’s journey in searching for information and considered that it may look suspicious. He would point out that if someone searches for something, they plan to do something with it. However, he would state that there were two different situations – Fultz was preparing for the trial, but in the case of Tarr, he was going to commit murder.

Affrunti would also acknowledge the discovery of the Hellcat and noted that it was possible for law enforcement to miss the gun or that it wasn’t present at the time of the search warrant. It could also be possible for someone else to be holding onto the gun on Tarr’s behalf until realizing what he had done and proceeded to bury the gun in the yard.

Regardless of the reason, Affrunti stated that it doesn’t take away from the fact that the weapon was an instrumental key to the murder of Leslie Reeves and the attempted murder of Christopher Smith.

Affrunti would close his rebuttal by stating that the prosecution told the story of Reeves and Smith, and how their lives – and their families – were changed forever. However, the jury would play a key role in one thing: writing the conclusion of this roughly two-and-a-half-year saga.

“Give the true verdict of guilty and convict Mr. Tarr,” Affrunti said in his final words to the jury.

It took the jury less than three hours for the jury to agree to a verdict. Tarr was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder in the death of Leslie Reeves, two counts of first-degree attempted murder in the near-fatal shooting of Christopher Smith, and two enhanced charges of using a firearm with the intent to cause death or injury, charges which were added before the jury trial.

It took one week out of the allotted two-week period for the trial – a day and a half to select a jury, two and a half days of testimony from a total of 22 witnesses, with passionate opening and closing statements from both sides of the case, all coming to an end on the fifth and eventually final day of the trial, without the necessity of needing to enter proceedings into a second week.

The conclusion of the trial marks the end of one chapter for the Reeves and Smith families. Now, the Reeves and Smith families can mark the next chapter with not only vindicated justice but for the Reeves to celebrate the life of Leslie. Meanwhile, Smith continues a long road to recovery as he strives to walk – and eventually, to run one day – with a bionic medical device on his left leg. This is an after-effect of the gunshot wound he suffered at the hands of Robert Tarr.

Not heard in this trial was the matter of a solicitation of a murder-for-hire plot related to the case, involving Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department investigator Jeff Roach. However, it will be taken into consideration when Tarr faces his sentence on July 1, 2024, where faces 76 years to life in the Illinois Department of Corrections on the charges he was ruled guilty by the jury.

---

For more Montgomery County (IL) news, follow Jake Leonard on Twitter @JakeLeonardJRN and Heartland Newsfeed @HLNF_Bulletin on Twitter.

Additionally, you can follow Heartland Newsfeed on Facebook and Reddit among other platforms. You can now follow our news updates on Telegram and MeWe.

Support independent journalism. Become a patron on Patreon for as little as $1 a month. There are other donor options as well.

Get the latest news updates on our radio network via Spreaker, TuneIn, and other platforms.

---