April 2, 2009 session ends with Judge Stidham still on the stand. BMHR
1612; on April 3, 2009, BMHR 1613,

GREGORY CROW, RESUMED

CROSS EXAMINATION BY KENT HOLT RESUMES

I recognize a letter from me to Jessie Misskelley dated February 21, 1994.
The letter discusses the pluses and minuses of his testifying, in return for some
kind of reduction in sentence. I recall this coming up before the trial started. Joe
Calvin made the offer. (BMHR 1614-1615). The offer was 50 years. I discussed
the plea offer with him.
[The Court then heard a tape of a conversation between Misskelley and
attorney Crow. Starts at BMHR 1617. The tape ends at BMHR 1604.]
ABSTRACT 138

I do have some recollection of there being discussions about Misskelley
testifying that do appear to be reflected in our billing records. My recollection is
that Misskelley got aggravated at Dan Stidham around the time that there was
discussion about the possibility of his making a deal and testifying.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY JEFF ROSENZWEIG

Dan recorded a lot of things. I did not. If we are talking about a recorded
call, then it would have been something that Dan had.
The conversation that was being referenced towards the end of my crossexamination
occurred after Misskelley had given a statement without any defense
lawyers being there, and then at some later point we were there. That statement
would have been the one on February 21, 1994. This would have been before
attorney Wells got involved.
My experience was that Misskelley had a very hard time giving a narrative
version of events. (BMHR 1640-1641).
I too had a type of conversion on how to approach Misskelley’s case. It was
in September when both Misskelley and his father had gotten mad. At that point,
Misskelley was insisting that he was innocent. I recall thinking about the evidence,
and I think it was around that time that the prosecutor had indicated that the bloody
t-shirt would not be used because it was not a match. (BMHR 1641-42). The
ABSTRACT 139

blood had been identified as consistent with both the victim’s and Misskelley’s,
and he had stated that his blood would have been on the shirt because he had
injured himself.
Misskelley maintained his innocence during trial. Then, after the trial, he
was talked to without lawyers being present, and it appears that they made some
promises to him, and he made a statement. Ultimately he decided he would not
testify. (BMHR 1642).

CROSS EXAMINATION BY KENT HOLT

We prepared a time line of Misskelley’s alibi before the trial. It is part of
Exhibit 12.
It is likely correct that Dr. Ofshe asked Misskelley about things that were in
one of the officer’s notes. I am sure I provided those notes.
We also were able to have Mr. Holmes as an expert. He had volunteered.
He testified in a pre-trial and at trial. He had also given a polygraph examination.
(BMHR 1654-1655).
On being further asked about the sequence of events, I was incorrect about
my prior recollection. It appears we did receive an offer in Brent Davis’ office in
August. Then right before trial Mr. Calvin came in and made an offer. The Court
inquired of Mr. Misskelley in chambers.
ABSTRACT 140

We did work steadily through the end of the year and into January, preparing
the case.
There were, as reflected in my billing records, activities after the trial,
including meetings with Misskelley, apparently a meeting with Dr. Ofshe that I did
not recall. In early March we were drafting a motion for a new trial. (BMHR
1672-1673).
I also acknowledge that I was invoiced by some experts, including Dr.
Ofshe, Dr. Wilkins, and Dr. Berry, who was a jury selection expert.
There are items in my file folder that I received in corresponding with
experts on false confessions even after I concluded my representation of Mr.
Misskelley. [These were admitted for the limited purpose of showing Mr.
Stidham’s interest in representing his client. BMHR 1679-1680]