Jury begins deliberation in murder trial

After more than a week of testimony and evidence, the jury in the trial of a Cambridge man charged with the execution-style murder of two people in an Allston apartment has gone into deliberation.

Craig Smith, 38, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the shooting deaths of Julio Ceus, 33, and Natalie Sumner, 18, of Franklin, N.H., in Ceus’ Kelton Street apartment. Smith pleaded not guilty last week.

Since testimony began Monday, Sept. 17, the 14 jurors have heard from relatives of the victims, neighbors, experts on cell phone usage and Rony Valcy, a witness who was shot and survived the attack. Twelve jurors will be selected to decide if Smith is guilty or innocent.

Authorities said two men entered Ceus’ apartment at 244 Kelton St. on Jan. 8, 2006. The men forced Ceus to the floor, and ushered Sumner and another girl into a back room, along with a 71-year-old woman who lived in the apartment. The men demanded money and cell phones before opening fire, shooting Ceus twice in the head and Sumner once in the back. Valcy, 37, was asleep in an adjacent bedroom and was shot twice, but he survived and was able to identify Smith as one the alleged murders.

On Tuesday, the prosecution and defense recounted the case as they presented their closing arguments to the jury.

Ceus received two phone calls from the same number shortly before his murder. According to expert testimony, that same number could be tracked from Cambridge to Allston based on a series of calls and cell phone towers. That phone number, which was registered to a “Peter Pan,” was determined to be Smith’s after police investigation.

“You know who Peter Pan is,” Assistant District Attorney John Pappas said to the jury. “He’s Craig Smith, and he’s guilty of murder.”

Besides Valcy’s identification and the phone calls, the prosecution also had video of Smith’s car driving away from the scene of the crime, taken from a surveillance camera on nearby Walbridge Street. Smith was arrested in March 2006, two months after the murders.

Defense attorney James Budreau said his client was the victim of a “Kafkaesque situation,” full of coincidences. There is no forensic evidence to place Smith at the scene of the crime, he said, and the phone calls and footage are coincidental.

“The government’s case is based on speculation, conjecture and surmise,” Budreau told the jury.

The prosecution’s case hinged on Valcy’s identification of Smith, Budreau said, and Valcy had originally told police he didn’t know his attacker. Valcy, an illegal immigrant who has been provided with room and board during the trial, “might want to curry favor,” Budreau said. He later said that some of Valcy’s testimony, in which Valcy said he believed in voodoo, created “the question of whether he’s credible.”

“This is not a nightmare. This is not Kafkaesque. This is not something bizarre and illogical,” Pappas said. “This is a series of events followed to an inescapable conclusion.”

The series of events that led police to arrest Smith was not illogical he said, and the results are “damning evidence.”

“Craig Smith committed a series of devastating mistakes just before and after the murder,” Pappas said.

The only person interested in stealing cell phones would be someone who had called Ceus, Pappas said, and the men killed Ceus, who was the only one who could identify them and had a relationship with Smith. Smith knew Ceus because he bought drugs from him, Pappas said, which gave him motive for the murder. Smith also cancelled the phone number used to call Ceus the night of the murders, and opened a new account the following day. The one person who could see him best, which was Valcy, was shot twice but still identified Smith, Pappas said.

“Don’t reward this defendant for being a bad shot that night,” Pappas said.