The Court: - in the matter now pending before the court so help you God?
Channell: I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Fogleman: Would you state your name and occupation for the jury?
Channell: My name is Kermit Channell and I'm a forensic serologist.
Fogleman: Alright. And what is a forensic serologist?
Channell: A forensic serologist is someone who examines evidence for the presence of bodily fluids. Such as blood, semen, or saliva which may have been transferred from one individual to another or from one individual to an object.
Fogleman: And what education, training, experience, and background have you had that qualifies you as a serologist?
Channell: I received my bachelor's degree in biology and a minor in chemistry from Elon College in North Carolina. I've also received forensic serology training from the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.
Fogleman: Your Honor, we would submit Mr. Channell as an expert in the field of serology.
Price: No objection.
Ford: No objection, your Honor.
The Court: Alright, you may proceed.
Fogleman: Mr. Channell, in the course of your duties with the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, uh - did you examine a number of items at the request of the West Memphis Police Department, uh - in a case where the victims were Michael Moore, Stevie Branch, and Chris Byers?
Channell: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: I want to show you what's been introduced as State's Exhibits 80 and 82, and ask if you can identify those?
Channell: Uh - yes, I can. The first item, State's Exhibit 80, has my serology case number and my questioned item number. In this specific case, it's Q-39. And my initials. Also the fiber tape seal with my initials on it. And this item of evidence is listed as the ligature uh - slash shoestring, medical examiner case number 329-93.
Fogleman: Alright. And how about Exhibit 82?
Channell: Exhibit 82 also has my serology case number, my item number Q-4, and initials, and again the fiber tape seal with my initials. And this item is uh - item Q-4, which is also marked as ligature shoestrings of Christopher Mark Byers.
Fogleman: Alright. And were these items submitted to you for examination in the course of your duties with the crime laboratory?
Channell: Uh - yes, they were.
Fogleman: And after examining these two items what, if anything, did you find?
Channell: Uh - I received possible tissue recovered from both Q-4 and Q-39.
Fogleman: Alright. Possible tissue?
Channell: That's correct.
Fogleman: Alright. And what did you do with that possible tissue?
Channell: These items were submitted or sent to Genetic Design Laboratories in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Fogleman: I want to also show you what's been introduced as State's Exhibits 45 and 48, and ask if you can identify these items?
(bag crinkling)
Channell: Yes. Again, it has my serology case number, and it's marked as my item Q-10, which is a pair of pants. This item also has my serology case number, my Q-5 and Q-6, which consists of a wallet and Q-6 is blue jeans.
Fogleman: Alright. And for - so to help the jury try to keep track of these numbers Q's and uh - the Q-6 is exhibit number what?
Channell: Q-6 is exhibit number 48. And my Q-10 is exhibit number 45.
Fogleman: Alright. Now after receiving those two items, uh - what test did you uh - or what examinations or tests did you make on those two items?
Channell: I examined both sets of pants for the presence of blood and semen.
Fogleman: Alright. And uh - first with blood, what type of test did, do you run on an item like that to try to detect the presence of blood?
Channell: For the blood, we use a screening test called phenolphthalein. Uh - basically, I took the items of clothing with a swab and went over them carefully and tried to determine if there could be blood on these items. On both sets of pants, the items were negative. I could not determine if there were any blood present.
Fogleman: Alright. And um - in regard to these pants and all the other items that you examined, what effect if any does uh - an item of evidence being in water have on your ability to find items?
Channell: Uh - being uh - wet, especially being say, submerged in the water, or even being dirty or soiled has a very detrimental effect on any type of biological materials that you might find. Being in the water can make it virtually impossible at times to identify any type of material.
Fogleman: Okay. And uh - does cold water as opposed to hot water have any particular effect on blood in particular?
Channell: I believe with uh - there are some studies with one versus the other, but uh - regardless of water temperature, still it will deteriorate the sample.
Fogleman: Alright. And what uh - now I believe you indicated that you ran tests for blood on these items and I'm sure you've said it, but what were the results of those tests as far as blood?
Channell: Uh - they were negative.
Fogleman: Alright. And then did you uh - and what was the other type of test or what other item were you looking for?
Channell: I examined these items for the presence of semen.
Fogleman: Alright. And what type of test did you run for that?
Channell: The first test that I used is basically a screening tool. I laid the clothing out and because of the nature of the clothing, uh - being very dirty and soiled, I used a laser, which emits an ultraviolet light, which helps to pick up any possible stains that you might not be able to see uh - with the unaided eye. I did find some areas. I made cuttings of those areas and then further tested them for the presence of acid phosphatase. Acid phosphatase is an enzyme which is found in semen. Uh - it is also found in other items, for instance blood. But however, it is not in the same quantities. We can not quantitate the amount of acid phosphatase present, therefore we use it again as a screening tool to tell you whether or not there could be semen present. I then took those cuttings and took an extract from those cuttings and looked microscopically to see if I could identify any sperm cells present, which I could not on either pair. I further examined those cuttings for the presence of what is termed P30, which is a prostatic antigen which is specific to the male prostate. In this examination, uh - I did have some positive controls along with my cutting samples, which indicated to me that there could be some interaction with the material that was hindering me with getting a proper answer, uh - therefore, I had to conclude that I could not determine based on my testing that semen was present and because of that reason, I then took those cuttings and submitted them also to Genetic Design where they could employ DNA testing, which is far more sensitive then my testing.
Fogleman: Alright. Let me ask you this, how many screening tests did you run on the pants or the cuttings, either one? For semen I mean.
Channell: Actually, I ran the laser as a screening test and also the acid phosphatase as a screening.
Fogleman: And on those two screening tests, uh - what was the reaction?
Channell: Uh - these reactions were positive.
Fogleman: Positive for what?
Channell: Uh - for those specific screening tests. What we employed those screening tests for - for instance, if one screening test is positive that lets us continue with our testing. If it however was negative, then we would stop with the analysis at that point.
Fogleman: And so, both tests were positive as a screening test for the presence of semen?
Channell: That's correct.
Fogleman: Alright. And you indicated that on the P30 test, you had some inhibitors or...?
Channell: Right. On my P30 test, I had a positive reaction on my samples. However, when I did further work with a controlled area, which was just as uh - dirty or silty as the other questioned areas, I received a reaction - in my opinion, which could be considered consistent with a positive control - a positive P30.
Fogleman: Alright. So, I believe you told the jury that because of the test that you ran, you submitted it to Genetic Design - these cuttings?
Channell: That's correct.
Fogleman: Alright. And from the test that you ran, you couldn't tell whether semen was present or not present, is that right?
Channell: Uh - that's correct.
Fogleman: And because of that, you submitted it to Genetic Design where they could run more sensitive tests?
Channell: That's correct.
Fogleman: And uh - on the pants, um - is that where there're items, areas cut out from the pants?
Channell: Uh - that's right. Uh - each area that - I have circled areas on the blue jeans and cut out those specific areas and that was what I submitted.
Fogleman: What uh - is the effect of a body being submerged in water on your ability to find semen in the oral cavity?
Channell: Uh - being submitted - uh - being in the water would have a very detrimental effect. Uh - with uh - with the water, it will have a tendency to flush out anything that could be there and very much hinder any identification that we can make.
Fogleman: Alright.
(mumbling)
Fogleman: I want to hand you what I have marked for identification purposes as State's Exhibit 87, ask if you can identify that item?
Channell: Yes. Again, it has my serology case number and my Q-85, which is listed as a State's Exhibit 87.
Fogleman: Uh - directing your attention to June the 3rd, 1993, uh - did you participate in the execution of search warrants?
Channell: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: And uh - as part of that, did you go to the residence of Jessie Misskelley?
Channell: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: Alright. And where did uh - was uh - that item recovered that I just handed you - 87?
Channell: Uh - this was recovered from the room of Jessie Misskelley.
Fogleman: Did you recover -
Price: May we approach, your Honor?
Ford: I object to this line of questioning.
(BENCH CONFERENCE)
(mumble)
Ford: Is Jessie Misskelley on trial here, your Honor, or is this Jason Baldwin's trial?
The Court: He ask him any questions -
Price: (mumbling)
The Court: - the answer to that.
Price: Any physical evidence found in Jessie Misskelley's house would not be admissible against either Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Echols. And we object.
Ford: And we object, strenuously.
The Court: I'm not sure that that's exactly the case. It could be. What's the State's tender for it?
Fogleman: The tender is, is, our position is that we can prove all the circumstances of the crime that occurred and that if that involves uh - a shirt that had a spot of blood on it from Jessie Misskelley's uh - that matches Jessie Misskelley and one of the victims, that we ought to be able to put it on as one of the circumstances surrounding the crime.
Ford: They agreed, even in the other trial. They didn't introduce this -
Fogleman: That was because uh - Dan had said that he wanted - he might want to have it tested and he hadn't had an opportunity to. That was the other trial, as they keep pointing out -
(mumbling)
Ford: Is it alright to send the jury out? In other words, we've got to talk about this.
The Court: Yes.
Davis: Judge, this come out in court just a minute ago. One of the State's witnesses was up there - Mr. Price was more than eager to ask her questions about the whereabouts of Jessie Misskelley on Wednesday afternoon, and now when we want to uh - enter into that - it's all of a sudden -
The Court: I'm gonna take another recess.
Ford: Ok.
(mumble)
The Court: Alright ladies and gentlemen, with the usual admonition not to discuss the case among yourselves or with anyone, you may stand in recess for lunch until 1:00.
(RECESS)
The Court: We're gonna be here -
(tape flipped)
(HEARING OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY)
The Court: Huh?
Price: Are we doing this at the bench or at that table?
The Court: As soon as they close the door, we're gonna do it right here.
Price: Alright.
Fogleman: You can stand right there.
Price: If it's -
Fogleman: And I'll lean right here.
Davidson: 'Cause we can hear ya from there.
The Court: Barbara wants you to talk loud enough where she can hear ya.
Price: No problem.
The Court: Alright. Let's close the doors back there. Alright, let the record reflect that this is a hearing out of the presence of the jury. Alright gentlemen, as I understand, the State wants to uh - elicit testimony from uh - the crime lab relative to a t-shirt found in a search of Jessie Misskelley's residence where there was blood identified?
Fogleman: There was human blood identified and it was sent to Genetic Design and later testimony would indicate that it was the same DQ-Alpha type as the victim - I believe it was Michael Moore, and also the defendant, Jessie Misskelley.
Price: Judge, our position is, if we were having our trial with Jessie Misskelley's trial that evidence might be admissible against Mr. Misskelley, but not against Mr. Echols. The Court has already ruled on several other times today - well, at least one time today and one time yesterday - evidence that may be admissible against one defendant is not admissible against another defendant. Since Mr. Misskelley is not on trial today, we submit that this evidence, physical evidence is not admissible against Mr. Echols or Mr. Baldwin.
Ford: Your Honor, in a light frame, this trial - my objection is on the basis of relevance and also on the basis of undue prejudice and confusion of the issues under Rule 403. Your Honor, this trial has been severed from the trial of Jessie Misskelley, by virtue of the fact that statements made by Jessie Misskelley may implicate the remaining defendants.
The Court: That's the only reason it was severed.
Ford: That's, that's correct. So this evidence - the only reason this evidence is relevant to these two defendants - the only reason this evidence is relevant to either one of these two defendants is because of a statement that Jessie Misskelley made that is inadmissible. If Jessie Misskelley had not of implicated these two young boys, then this evidence of a shirt in his house would have no relevance, whatsoever.
The Court: Well, I -
Ford: Also, your Honor, Rule 403 says that relevant evidence - although relevant, can be excluded if it is unduly prejudicial or if it creates to confuse the issues. The issues in this case today is whether or not Jason Baldwin is guilty of any crime. Not whether Jessie Misskelley is guilty of any crime, because he's had his day in court. He's had his day in court and this evidence is only admissible as to him. If this evidence were to be admitted, your Honor, we would be entitled - in a joint trial, we would be entitled to a cautionary instruction to tell the jury "You can only consider this evidence against Mr. Misskelley" and if that were to be true in a joint trial and he's not here, why do we have it at all? Since it can't be considered as evidence against either of the two defendants here today, that creates - it creates - that confuses the issues before this jury. Also, your Honor, the fact that the blood is that of Jessie Misskelleys and of one of the victims - that, that, that again confuses the issue. We don't know whose blood it is, other than it could be Jessie's. And surely, your Honor, it's not a crime or evidence of a crime for me to have my own shirt in my own house that's got my own blood in it. I may cut myself shaving and have blood on my collar.
The Court: What's, what's your theory of relevance?
Fogleman: Your Honor, if I could respond in a couple of respects. Number one, uh - the defense have, has questioned witnesses today about Jessie Misskelley's whereabouts.
Wadley: Wait Judge, he needs to be specific as to who he's referring to, your Honor.
(talking over each other briefly)
The Court: Alright, let him, let him finish.
Fogleman: The record reflects who questioned and who didn't.
Wadley: That's correct -
The Court: Ok, don't argue it, the record does reflect that. Go ahead.
Fogleman: Your Honor, also when uh - when you look at the evidence and you look at Mr. Carson's testimony, he says that Mr. Baldwin himself said that Jessie Misskelley - he was gonna do something to Jessie 'cause Jessie had messed everything up. And uh - we submit that uh - that Jason Baldwin himself brought - through that statement brought Jessie into it. And through their questioning of State's witnesses, they've brought Jessie into it. And so we ought to be able to uh - produce all the relevant evidence related to the crime.
Davidson: We didn't bring him into it, your Honor. They've been spouting that stuff out, day in and day out. And it started with Detective Ridge there and that's when we asked for a mistrial.
The Court: Now, I don't have any problem at all - any testimony that is connected to Jessie Misskelley being introduced in this trial, if there is a causal connection or relevant connection with either of these two defendants. Now if that's the case, I'm gonna allow it in but --
Price: Judge -
The Court: -- what is there to tie -
Ford: What it the connection, Judge?
The Court: That's my question. Where are you gonna tie this back to these two defendants?
Davis: Well -
Fogleman: Your Honor, we objected when they were trying to question Ms. Hollingsworth about Jessie's whereabouts, that doesn't have any causal connection to them either. I mean, what - we figured we ought to be at least on the same standing - same footing as uh - as the defense.
Price: Judge, if -
Fogleman: I thought we played by the same rules.
Price: If this shirt was a - showed blood matching Jason Baldwin and a victim, that shirt would only be admissible against Jason Baldwin not against Damien Echols at Damien Echols' trial. The fact that we're being tried separately than Mr. Misskelley - that, that doesn't somehow make it magical enough for this evidence to come in against -
The Court: Okay, y'all got anything else you want to argue?
Ford: I, I do. I didn't hear the answer to your question - your question to Mr. Fogleman was how is he gonna connect it up and I didn't hear how the - what the answer was. How are you gonna connect it?
The Court: I - I -
Fogleman: Mr. Ford, I don't have to answer you.
The Court: No, you don't.
Ford: Judge, did he answer your question?
The Court: I heard his response.
Ford: How's he gonna connect it then? Would you explain that to me?
The Court: I'm not gonna argue with ya either. I'm gonna make a ruling and you're gonna live by it whatever it is.
Davis: Your Honor, in response to what Mr. Ford say, we have testimony and evidence that there were three weapons employed. Three separate -
Ford: What - argh! That is -
The Court: Go ahead.
Davis: There were three separate weapons employed. We anticipate that there is going to be evidence of three different type knots used in the tying of the three victims. We have testimony and evidence that this defendant, Jason Baldwin, indicated that he was there and there is evidence that he said "Jessie Misskelley" - I think, if I can paraphrase, "screwed it all up, uh - I'm gonna kick his ass when I get out of here because he messed this whole thing up when he talked," which to me - from that defendant's own mouth, puts Jessie Misskelley connected to this case, your Honor. The fact that there are three weapons, three type ligatures, then Jessie Misskelley is involved as a co-defendant, that's a fact, in this case whether the defense counsel would like to admit it or recognize it or not. The truth of the matter is, the defense counsel has recognized it because on cross examination of witnesses, Mr. Davidson specifically requested information regarding Jessie Misskelley. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, your Honor and we're, at this point, uh - in a position where they've done it, we have evidence that connects him and I think it is, there is a causal connection.
Davidson: If I could point out, Mr. Fogleman said that they objected, as he walked off he said to the jury "We have no objections, your Honor" so I just wanted to point that out.
The Court: All of y'all have been doing alot of posturing around and dancing around. I figure that's what lawyers do.
Davidson: I just wanted the record to be clear that he did not object to that testimony.
The Court: Ok. Well, you all put on your own little show from time to time, and I'm aware of that.
Price: Judge, the State has alluded to the statement that is by Mr. Carson -
The Court: I'm gonna reserve my ruling until after I eat.
Price: Alright.
The Court: And when I come back, I'm gonna tell you what we're gonna do and that's gonna be the end of this conversation. Alright, we'll be in recess until 1:00.
(RECESS)
(THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE TOOK PLACE AT THE BENCH OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY)
Wadley: Has the Court made a ruling, Judge?
Fogleman: We're not going to pursue it any more.
Wadley: Okay.
(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)
The Court: Okay. Court will be in session. You may continue.
Fogleman: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUES
Fogleman: Um - Mr. Channell, in reference to State's Exhibits 48 and 45 - your Honor, may Mr. Channell have permission to step down and exhibit the pants to the jury and show -
The Court: Yes.
Fogleman: - where the cuttings were taken from. Let's start with Exhibit 45, labeled E-3 pair of blue pants. If you would remove those. Exhibit to the jury the area where you took the cuttings.
Channell: Here is the area of the cuttings, uh - for my control sample, here.
(whispering)
Channell: Let's turn these inside out.
Fogleman: Ok.
Channell: In the inside reflects my Q number and my laboratory case number. This circled area here is one of my cuttings here. And here's my second cutting.
Fogleman: Alright. And are those the cuttings that were submitted to the uh - uh to the uh - Genetic Design?
Channell: Uh - yes, it is.
Fogleman: Ok. Now, if you would replace those.
(bag crinkling)
Channell: Again, my questioned item number here, and reflects my case number and initials. And here's a cutting that I removed here. And also on the backside, here. Oh, excuse me, that's uh - my control sample cutting here.
Fogleman: The one on the backside is one that uh - Lisa Sakevicius did, is that right?
Channell: It does reflect her initials.
Fogleman: Alright. So the one that you took that was submitted to Genetic Design, uh - that the screening test tested positive for was this cutting? Of this area?
Channell: This is my uh - my questioned area here and my control area is here.
Fogleman: Ok. Alright. You can replace those now.
(bag crinkling)
Fogleman: Mr. Channell, when you indicated earlier that you had uh - I believe you indicated earlier that you looked under a microscope to see if you could see sperm cells?
Channell: That's correct.
Fogleman: Alright. Does that indicate that there's not semen present?
Channell: Uh - no, it does not.
Fogleman: Alright. And uh did - in the course of your duties and as part of your um - as a part of your duties in this case, did you also go out to the crime scene itself?
Channell: Uh - yes, I did.
Fogleman: Alright. I don't have any further questions.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Price: Mr. Channell, I need to ask you some questions about some of your reports. Uh - first of all, there was a report dated June the 1st, 1993, and I believe it's a four page report. You want to go ahead and refer to that?
Channell: I'm sorry, the date on the report?
Price: It would be June the 1st. Judge, if I approach the witness, I may be able to show him which report...this one.
Channell: Ok. Yes, um hum.
Price: And Mr. Channell, the report that you have there, certain items were sent to the crime lab to your serology section and there were various tests that were requested uh - by the West Memphis Police Department, that your section would do on these items - is that correct?
Channell: That's correct.
Price: And there were several - some items that y'all got directly from the medical examiner's office and then there were some miscellaneous clothing items and some other items that came from different individuals?
Channell: That's correct.
Price: Alright. And then at the conclusion of - of doing the tests - I believe the date that they were initially received in the lab would have been um - May the 7th, 1993?
Channell: That's correct. On the items received from both medical examiner's office and West Memphis Police Department.
Price: Ok. And then the date that your report was issued would have been - or this particular report would have been June the 1st, 1993?
Channell: That's correct.
Price: Ok. Um - Judge, at this time, I'd like to introduce Mr. Channell's report from June the 1st, 1993, into evidence.
Fogleman: Your Honor, can we have just a minute to look over these?
Price: No sir. I'm gonna offer this one and one other one.
The Court: Only if they don't object.
Price: Ok.
Fogleman: Your Honor, I think we need to approach the bench.
The Court: Alright.
(BENCH CONFERENCE)
Davis: Let's see....1, 2, 3, 4. Your Honor, our objection - the reason we're doing it up here is because what this report does, it contains hundreds of items - maybe not hundreds, but numerous items. A lot of hair and other items taken from other people in this case and what he wants to do is introduce 'em just to get those names in.
The Court: Well, it's not admissible if you're objecting to it.
Davis: Yeah, we're objecting to it.
Price: Judge, Arkansas Code Annotated Statute 12-12-313 says the crime lab reports can be entered.
Fogleman: That's, that's when they're not here to testify.
Price: (mumbling)
The Court: Let me see what you're talking about. I know what you - I know the statute, that's one on drug tests.
Price: Which also applies -
Fogleman: That goes to the results and things like that. There can still be things in the reports that are not admissible and are relevant.
The Court: Well, get the statute.
Price: Ok.
Davis: This whole report, that's - Judge, just so you'll see what we're talking about - it's the next page particularly.
Fogleman: And you see the name after name after name after name.
Price: On part 2, Scott.
Davidson: 313...
Price: Yup.
(long pause)
(tape turned off, flipped back on)
Price: - (d)(1), all records and reports of evidence analysis by the state crime lab shall be received as competent evidence as to the facts in any court or other proceeding when duly attested by the employee -
Fogleman: It's not duly attested, your Honor.
Price: Well, alright, look -
The Court: Well, it says by a signature and that's sufficient, but the problem is it also contains matters that aren't relevant.
Price: The statute doesn't say just the results of the examinations, it says the report from the crime lab.
The Court: Well...
Fogleman: But still, the facts have to be relevant. That would be like us trying to introduce a drug analysis in your case that didn't have anything to do with anything.
Price: Judge, according to this examination, it's done on different suspects in this case, that's certainly relevant.
Fogleman: No, it's not. What he's trying to get us to have - in a position to do is disprove or prove all these other people -
The Court: I'm not gonna allow it. I'm gonna rule, I'm ruling that all this stuff - all this list of different people is not relevant.
Davidson: Your Honor, there two suspects that we're going to mention, that is John Mark Byers (mumbling/whispering)
Price: (mumbling/whispering)
The Court: And who?
Price: And I'm certainly entitled to ask that, if John Mark Byers is listed as a suspect on this.
The Court: I'll allow that, I guess. I'm not really surely that's relevant.
Price: But -
Fogleman: Your Honor, I am -
Price: (mumbling)
Fogleman: Whether it's listed on there or not doesn't have anything to do with anything, it's not relevant.
Price: Judge, if the crime lab has a report listing a person as a suspect, the State is saying that's not relevant? Of course it's relevant.
Fogleman: How?
Price: Because it says John Mark Byers was a suspect. Isn't that - it's right after the -
Fogleman: Would you hold your voice down?
Price: Certainly.
(whispering)
The Court: You're wanting to parade that whole list of people that they sent blood samples on to either confirm or eliminate - I mean, that's what you want to do.
Davidson: We don't know -
(whispering)
Davis: This is a - this is something generated not by the police department but the crime lab.
Fogleman: Police don't generate this, your Honor.
Price: Judge, somebody's gotta tell the crime lab who the suspects are, they don't just put it on there themselves. It had to be the West Memphis Police Department. And the police department said he was not a suspect.
The Court: If it came from a police report, then it's certainly not admissible.
Price: It doesn't, it comes from a crime lab report that's admissible pursuant to that statute.
Fogleman: If it contains relevant information.
Davidson: We believe it does.
The Court: Well, I'm not gonna allow in something that's not relevant. How are those other people relevant?
Price: I'm only asking them to admit to the fact that John Mark Byers was a suspect.
Fogleman: What difference does it make that his name is listed on there?
Price: He is a suspect, Judge, and that is relevant.
Fogleman: Well, it also mentions Kenneth Cagle, is that relevant?
Price: Well, I can go ahead and -
Fogleman: It's not, it's not.
Price: If the state wants to 'x' out the remaining names, that's fine. If they want to mark them all away, that's fine.
Fogleman: (talking over) It's not relevant.
Davis: It mentions one of the other boy's fathers.
Fogleman: -- it mentions one of the other boy's father.
Price: And it doesn't mention the third boy's father. So that means two of the boys' fathers were suspects and the third one was not.
Fogleman: Oh good lord.
The Court: I'm not gonna allow it.
Fogleman: They took samples from all of 'em.
The Court: I'm not gonna allow it.
Price: You're not going to allow the report?
The Court: I'm ruling it's not relevant.
Price: And you're not gonna allow me to question this witness?
The Court: No. No. It's not relevant.
Price: Alright, I'd like to proffer.
The Court: Alright.
Price: Out of the presence of the jury at this time.
The Court: Well, we're not gonna do it right now, we can do it after we're all through.
Fogleman: All he's gonna do is proffer the report.
(mumbling)
Price: Judge -
The Court: No. You can proffer the report.
Price: Alright. But first of all, I want to proffer the report and then also, based on the Court's ruling, I also wanna add one more question I'm able to ask this, um, this witness if John Mark Byers was a suspect according to the report.
The Court: Do you have any evidence at all -
Price: Yes sir.
The Court: - that's gonna tie him to?
Price: The blood on the knife, Judge. And that's pretty relevant because there's no knives that were found at my client's house with even a possible match.
The Court: That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, but go ahead.
Price: I can't ask any questions?
The Court: No, I'm not gonna let that in.
Price: You're not gonna -
The Court: No, not if that's all you got. If you develop something later that shows that it has some relevancy to what happened out there, I'll allow it.
Price: But you're saying -
The Court: No.
Price: - the blood on the knife is not relevant?
The Court: I didn't say that. I'm gonna allow you to get that in through the guy from North Carolina.
Price: Alright. Alright. Then, then -
(pause)
Price: What, I need the original signed from Mr. Channell to submit the proffer or will a photocopy be enough?
The Court: Oh, is this a copy?
Price: Yes, that's a photocopy.
The Court: Ok, you can, you can -
Price: Just proffer this?
The Court: - use it for proffer.
Price: Ok. And then after I proffer this, I'm - for the record, I'm requesting the Court allow me to ask - based on the Court's ruling on this report, that I be able to ask him if according to this report, John Mark Byers was a suspect?
The Court: No, not in front of the jury.
Price: Ok. Well, I know but that's - and then the Court's denying that, so I also want to proffer that. And I submit his answer will be yes, according to this report, John Mark Byers is a suspect.
The Court: Is that based on his first hand knowledge?
Price: Well, it's based on his report. And there's two dates on the report that are key - one is the date received in the lab, which would be May 7th '93 and the second date, the date of the report June 1st, 1993.
The Court: Ok. You gonna do it right now?
Price: Yes, sir.
(BACK TO OPEN COURT)
The Court: Alright ladies and gentlemen, you need to step back into the jury room for just a minute.
Davidson: (whispering) You think it has to be done now or -
Price: Yeah. Yeah.
(talking, courtroom noises)
(HEARING OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY)
The Court: Alright. Let the record reflect that this is a hearing out of the presence of the jury for purposes of a offer of proof.
Price: Judge, as my first request during the proffer, I have requested that I be allowed to introduce through Mr. Channell his report of June the 1st, 1993. The four page report, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated 12-12-313, it says (reading) "Reports of the state crime lab are admissible." Um - that's -
The Court: Well, it doesn't say "are admissible," it says that - that are -
Price: If I can see the statute for a minute, Judge?
The Court: Yeah.
Price: Read the statute, Arkansas Code Annotated 12-12-313 (d)(1) (reading) "All records and reports of evidence analysis of the state crime lab shall be received as competent evidence as to the facts in any court or other proceeding when duly attested to by the employee who performed the analysis." And the Court did say that this report being signed by Mr. Channell meets the duly attested requirement of the statute.
The Court: Well, I don't think it's any question it meets the duly attested qualification but hand it back here and I'll -
Fogleman: Your Honor, we submit that it doesn't - it doesn't compared to the crime lab - first of all, the technical requirement - we submit it doesn't meet.
The Court: Well -
Fogleman: It's clearly the information in there - it's clearly not relevant. What he's trying to do, you've got 26 or 27 uh - people who they took -
The Court: Alright, here's what the - the purpose of this statute was to allow the State to introduce drug reports in court without having to bring the chemist back and forth from Little Rock. It even provides that - that they can't do it unless the defendant is notified 10 days prior to it uh - where the defendant then has the opportunity to demand the presence of uh - the crime uh - laboratory analyst for purposes of cross examination. It further says that "shall be received as competent evidence as to the matter contained therein in the courts of this state's subject to the applicable rules of criminal procedure when duly attested to by the executive director or his assistants, associates or deputies." I don't have any problem with the signature of the witness being sufficient. The witness is present. I'm finding that it's not relevant, at least a portion of it, maybe some of it is. Uh - but that it falls under the Rule 8038.
Price: Judge, the portion of the statute that says the defendant shall give at least 10 days notice prior to the proceedings if they request the presence of the employee who made the report to be cross examined - since I am offering this into evidence - it's pretty obvious the statute means that the State has to give um - shall give the defendant at least 10 days notice prior to - if they want to question the person who did the report -
The Court: That's what I just said.
Price: Since Mr. Channell is the state's witness, obviously that part doesn't really apply here. But more importantly, Judge, this particular statute is not limited to drug tests. It applies to any tests done by the crime lab. I will agree with you, the primary purpose for this statute being passed is probably to allow drug tests to come in, but it doesn't only limit to drug tests.
The Court: Well, it wasn't allowed to - my basis for striking it and then I'm gonna allow you to make the report as an offer of proof. It names - I don't know how many people - 20, 30, or 40 people for which blood samples were drawn and taken, sent to the crime lab for - I assume, comparison purposes.
Price: Yes, sir.
The Court: Absolutely nothing in the report indicates that there was any finding on any of those people, uh - that would justify it being deemed as relevant evidence. Now, to allow you to banner to the jury a list of approximately 20 names - I, I didn't count 'em, but a number of 'em - and to suggest that all these people because their blood was submitted to the crime lab for analysis or comparison purposes that they were all suspects at one point, uh - or whatever purposes, it just confuses the issue unless you can demonstrate to the court that you have some independent evidence that makes that report relevant in evidence in this case - and I told you, if you can develop something, if you can put forth evidence and show me where there is a causal connection with this case and those blood tests then I'm gonna allow it. But until you can do that, I'm not gonna allow it.
Price: Judge, if you look at the results of the examination. Blood, too limited in quantity for further characterization, was identified on Q-44. Q-44 was a knife (E-58) , the items that came from a possible suspect, Richard Cummings. We have a situation where the State has already introduced into evidence, the "lake knife" which contains absolutely no blood on it whatsoever. And the court has ruled that that's relevant and I think that if there's another knife that has blood on it - that the police thought was a suspect, that's certainly relevant and I'm entitled to introduce the report for that. In addition, I should be allowed - another reason that the report is relevant is it lists um - all the people whose blood was sent in are not all the people simply listed as suspects. The report lists 8 names as potential suspects. The first name: Damien Wayne Echols. The second name: Michael Wayne Hutchenson. The third name: Kenneth Cagle. The fourth name: Richard Gordon Cummings, Jr. The fifth name: Steve Menard. The sixth name: John Mark Byers. The seventh name: Todd Moore. And the eighth name: Christopher Morgan. The date these items were received in the lab was May 7th, 1993. The date of the report is June 1st, 1993. I submit, as of June 1st 1993, those other - those eight individuals were suspects.
(tape flipped)
The Court: No, it's -
Price: Well, if I didn't -
Fogleman: Morgan countinued to deny any involvement saying he had no other information?
Davidson: Yep but your Honor, if you take it in light of the whole report where he gives details about castration and that sort of thing, and the tape will speak for itself - not the police report.
Fogleman: What it looks to me - what little bit I saw, it looks like somebody had been questioned a long time and said "Hey" -
Davidson: Surely that couldn't happen. Did y'all not even listen to it?
(courtroom laughter)
The Court: Alright, order in the Court.
Fogleman: Your Honor, he never said he did any of that from what little I saw of that transcript.
The Court: Anybody gonna call this guy as a witness?
Davidson: We haven't determined yet, your Honor. He's under subpoena.
The Court: Where is he?
Davidson: He was present here the first day. We said we would have him back, uh - we would notify him -
The COurt: This man?
Davidson: - that very man that was in California that made that confession.
Price: He's currently represented by an attorney, your Honor.
The Court: Who?
Price: A federal public defender in Memphis.
The Court: Who?
Price: I know her first name is April - April Ferguson.
The Court: And you say he was here in court?
Unknown: (mumbles) I didn't see him.
Price: He was here the first day -
Davidson: He was here the first day.
Price: - pursuant to our subpoena.
The Court: Did you notify the State that you released him?
Davidson: Released him?
The Court: Did you release him from the subpoena?
Price: No, we did not -
Davidson: (talking over) Just like them, we don't have everybody that we're gonna have 'cause we know that we're not gonna be able to put on -
The Court: I'm gonna tell you all now, anybody that anyone subpoenaed is not released from the subpoena until I release 'em.
Price: That's fine.
Davidson: We didn't release him from the subpoena, we just said we wouldn't need him - just like they don't have everybody here today, we knew that we wouldn't get to put on testimony and -
The Court: And, and, and this guy that allegedly confessed is a defense witness?
Price: Yes, sir.
Davidson: It's a possibility.
Price: Possible defense witness, depending on the proof of the State.
The Court: This guy's saying he heard that the boys' arms were cut off and that they were molested.
Fogleman: That's what it says in there, that the arms were cut off?
The Court: Um hum.
Ford: But your Honor, that's not his statement, that's the, that's the police report and yesterday you wouldn't let us use that police report.
The Court: Well, I thought I was reading his statement.
Ford: No, that's the police report of the statement. The statement has never -
Price: It's never been transcribed.
Ford: - been transcribed by the State, apparently they haven't even read it.
Fogleman: Well, I certainly haven't read it if it hasn't been transcribed.
(mumbling)
Fogleman: (whispering) I hadn't listened to it 'cause they told me it wasn't anything on it.
Davis: (whispering) Looks like we get to listen to it before the weekend's over.
Fogleman: Yeah. (laughing) Oh.
Davidson: I would be glad for your Honor to see the rest of the material in this file too, if you want to.
The Court: This is an interview with two different people.
Price: That's his alibi witness, your Honor.
Davidson: His alibi witness that also went to California with him.
The Court: His alibi witness?
Davidson: Yes.
(mumbling)
The Court: Who is Patrick Milligan? Somebody name Holland?
Davidson: Holland is the individual - Holland is the person that went with him.
(mumbling)
Unknown: We've got alot of Morgans on our staff in this case too.
(mumbling)
Davis: Is this transcript something y'all generated?
Fogleman: Wasn't anything that we did.
Davidson: No, that's the Oceanside, California Police report -
Fogleman: Transcript?
Davidson: That's not a transcript.
Fogleman: Oh, I thought you said you had a partial transcript?
Davidson: No.
Fogleman: Oh.
Davidson: This is just a report.
Fogleman: Oh.
(mumbling)
Wadley: Judge, I've never seen the tape, so I don't know - he says he - when he makes his statement, where it says "Morgan spontaneously said" and he quotes what he says - I don't know the context of the setting.
The Court: Well, why hadn't - I haven't seen the damn tape either.
Wadley: I haven't seen that we've had access to it.
Unknown: Well, that's our point.
Fogleman: That's your point. You've had access to it and -
Wadley: Like I say, I don't know the context of the setting.
Fogleman: We didn't transcribe all Aaron's statements either.
Price: (mumbling) You want to put that on the record and -
The Court: Well, what I've read here certainly doesn't amount to a confession. In fact, it's a denial.
Wadley: Page 16 does, your Honor.
The Court: Well, 16 is just one page out of about 30. All the others are denials.
Wadley: Judge --
The Court: In fact, angry denials.
Ford: Judge, that's exactly what happened in another matter, your Honor, in this case. A whole bunch of denials followed by one admission. It was good enough at that point.
The Court: Well...
Wadley: Judge, the tape would - the tapes would speak for itself.
The Court: Where is the tape? Who has the tape?
(unsure): (talking over) Is it this one right here?
Price: (talking over) No, no, no.
(unsure): (talking over) This one?
Price:( talking over) No.
(unsure): (talking over) It's not this one?
Davidson: (talking over) It's not this one, no. That's the one - we got in discovery this morning.
Price: (talking over) That's the one we got today.
Davidson: (talking over) This morning.
Price: It's the May 14th.
Davidson: I haven't looked at this -
The Court: Alright.
(unsure): Is there a tape?
(mumbling - arguing)
The Court: Alright, y'all cut that out, I don't need all that.
(courtroom laughter)
The Court: And you're maintaining that that crime report is relevant?
Price: Yes sir.
Davis: But -
The Court: And - what?
Davis: Judge, as I understand it, the reason he's saying it's relevant is because there's a certain list of names that fall under the heading of suspects on there. And I don't know how many times I've been involved in criminal cases in which the defendant's name being listed as one of the suspects under there, if there was any attempt to introduce or even offer a document of that nature, it was only after the defendant had a right to have their name blacked out as a potential suspect because that put an undue and improper inference in the jury's mind. And if it works that way when the State's in that position, then it certainly seems improper just because your name is placed under the label or heading that's on the form used by the crime lab for Mr. Price to be able to use that as some inference that there is actual evidence that any of those people uh - were suspects. If he wants to put on additional other evidence in his case, that there were other people or whatever, he certainly has the right to do that, but for him to introduce this document for the purpose of having those people's names listed to show them the suspects, that's clearly inappropriate.
The Court: I think so, too.
Price: Judge, somehow Mr. Channell found out or was told that these people were suspects. I'm sure Mr. Channell didn't just dream it up out of the air. It had to be material provided to him by the West Memphis Police Department -
Fogleman:( talking over) Why don't we ask him -
Price: (talking over) - in the chain of evidence -
Fogleman: (talking over) Why don't you ask Mr. Channell.
The Court: Go ahead and ask him, you're making an offer of proof.
Price: Well alright. Mr. Channell, the suspects that are listed on exhibit - well, on what has been proffered as Exhibit 8, 6-1-93 - do you know how those names were listed there as or how they became to be listed?
Channell: Uh - no, I do not. I don't put those names on there, these are generated from central evidence section of the crime lab. As reflect um - state crime laboratory submission sheet, up at the top, suspects aren't even listed at all.
Price: Well, if the submission sheet does not list suspects, do you know how the report -
Channell: Yeah, that comes through central evidence, it doesn't come from me whatsoever.
Price: Ok. Do you know how - this is part of the proffer - do you know how central evidence gets the names of certain people as suspects and not other people?
Channell: Uh - no, I'm not.
Price: Alright. Uh - just for example, on the first page of this report, item number Q-15 was a t-shirt from uh - Gary Chadwick?
Channell: That's correct.
Price: Alright. Gary Chadwick is not listed as one of the 8 suspects, correct?
Channell: That's correct. Um - what I'd also like to mention that, uh - this is a computer generated report and those names, there could be uh - 30 suspects listed on there but they let you put this many.
Price: Ok.
The Court: Well, was there any thing in there - did you identify any submitted blood from a named individual to any items of evidence in this case?
Channell: Uh - these bloods are again, known samples, uh - from people that are submitted from the West Memphis Police Department for me to retain. Uh - just like in any case, if there's anything for the base of comparison, uh - we would uh - have that blood on file.
The Court: Well, did you compare any of those?
Channell: Uh - no, I did not.
The Court: Are you telling me that all those listed people, that those are just known blood samples that was submitted to you for possible comparison purposes?
Channell: That's correct.
Price: Judge, which list are you talking about, Judge? The list of suspects or the list of names out by the samples?
The Court: Uh - I guess the names by the samples.
Fogleman: Well your Honor, it says suspect samples.
The Court: I thought they were all suspects, the way I read it.
Price: Well no, part of it says evidence submitted by the West Memphis Police Department. Q number 15 is a t-shirt from Gary Chadwick. Gary Chadwick is not listed as a suspect. The 8 names at the top are suspects.
The Court: Flip over to the next page.
Ford: Page 3.
Price: Alright, uh - alright, on page 3 they do list several suspects, on page 2 they list items from Richard Cummings or items from Steve Menard, Mr. Cummings and Mr. Menard are two individuals listed as suspects.
Davis: Judge, if I understood this - I need to ask a question. Kermit, did I understand you right that your computer - this report is generated on a computer form, correct?
Channell: That's correct.
Davis: Ok. And that there's only names - where it says suspects here, there's only names - enough space to put 8 or an "x" number of names.
Channell: That's correct.
Davis: Ok. And if every person that had a sample submitted in this report was gonna be listed under that heading, the computer would stop printing their names after 8 are listed, correct?
Channell: That's correct.
Davis: And so even though the rest of them might fall under that category, their names wouldn't appear on the report, 'cause there's not room.
Channell: That's correct.
Fogleman: I don't even know how -
Price: Judge, at this time, for the proffer, I would like to go ahead and formally introduce this report as proffer number 8.
The Court: Alright.
Price: It's already been marked.
Ford: Ok, your Honor, we would join the proffer of that, that four page report.
The Court: Alright.
Price: Judge, the next part of the proffer, I would like to go ahead and introduce into evidence the tapes of the um - Chris Morgan confession. The State has in their evidence box and I would please like for the State to take them out of the boxes so I can introduce them.
The Court: Well, that'll be fine for offer of proof.
(mumbling)
The Court: Where did these tapes come from - the California Police Department?
Price: Yeah - yes sir.
Fogleman: Oceanside, California.
Price: They were requested to get a confession from - or talk to Mr. Morgan on behalf of the West Memphis Police Department.
The Court: You want to introduce this uh - whole 20 page report from the Oceanside Police Department too that paraphrases those tapes?
Price: Judge, I think I'd like -
Wadley: (talking over) Judge, I don't think -
The Court: Pardon?
Ford: Your Honor, we do not join the proffer of that report. Based on the Court's ruling yesterday that that report's inadmissible, but we do -
The Court: (talking over) Police reports are inadmissible.
Ford: Sir?
The Court: Police reports are inadmissible.
Ford: Well, in as that is a police report, your Honor, we do not proffer it. But the statement that was given, we do proffer - we would join the proffer of that videocassette.
Fogleman: Well your Honor, for the purpose of the proffer, we would ask that the report be made a part of the record for the proffer.
The Court: Alright, it can go in as part of the proffer as well.
Ford: Well your Honor, we would object to the statement as -
The Court: (talking over) It's a proffer for proof, it doesn't matter anyway. I mean, if they want it to go in, I'm gonna let it go just like you are.
Price: Judge, I would also like to state for the record that there -
Ford: (talking over) Your Honor, can we proffer -
Davidson: We would like to proffer the entire, the entire file then. If that portion -
The Court: Fine. That's fine.
Ford: Including the polygraph.
The Court: I beg your pardon?
Ford: Including the polygraph.
The Court: That's fine. You want the others in too?
Ford: No, this is our proffer, your Honor.
Davidson: Judge, could we uh -
The Court: Gentlemen, this is getting to be absurd. And I'm not gonna let you drag in every possible suspect in this case unless you've got something to tie those persons to some event in this case.
Price: Judge, if the suspect has confessed, we think that's enough to tie -
The Court: Well -
Price: - it in.
The Court: From what I read, it was not a confession at all, in fact, it was an emphatic denial.
Price: Judge, it was an admission followed by a denial -
The Court: No.
Price: - just like other -
The Court: The - the -
Price: Just like Jessie Misskelley's was.
The Court: Well, the statement I read was a continuation of one interview, from beginning to end there - in fact, it pretty well speaks for itself. It certainly wasn't what I thought it would be.
Ford: Your Honor, doesn't that go to weight and not to admissibility?
The Court: Well...
Ford: Does been the ruling of the court that it goes to weight and not to admissibility.
The Court: What goes to weight and not admissibility, what are you referring to?
Ford: We're saying weight - if the jury can choose either to disregard or not to disregard that statement, then I clearly think they're entitled to hear it.
The Court: Well, you're talking about two different things Paul, get it straight. If you're gonna talk about going to weight or admissibility - if you choose to call this man as a witness and elicit testimony from him and what he says uh - the jury can consider his statements - is going to the uh - his credibility. A prior inconsistant statement for example.
Ford: That's correct, your Honor, but right now what we're trying to do in camera is establish the relevance of a proffered document from Mr. Channell.
The Court: Well, I'm -
Ford: And you're saying it's not relevant.
The Court: Yes, I am. Sure am.
Davidson: Your Honor, could we substitute a copy of this file for the proffer?
The Court: Sure.
Davidson: In other words, it's not messing up the file looking -
The Court: Now I'll say this, there's a possibility if you call this guy as a witness and develop something, that then maybe that portion of the medical report that referred to him could become admissible. Uh - but right now, I don't see that it has any relevancy at all. So.
Price: Judge, I would also like the proffer to reflect that there was no transcription of this confession.
The Court: I don't know whether there was or not.
Fogleman: Your Honor, I'll agree with that, there's no transcription of other videotapes, they can't transcribe everything that was done. There are videotapes of other people -
The Court: How long did you say these videotapes were?
Price: Approximately 6 hours, your Honor.
The Court: Of one continuous interview?
Price: Judge, in California, when the police begin to question a suspect they turn on the videotape and videotape the entire interview, unlike Arkansas.
Fogleman: I think some of the 6 hours, your Honor - I'm not positive, but it may include uh - the other fellow too. I'm not positive about that, but I know the videotapes include the other fellow that they questioned.
The Court: Well, it looked to me like, from the interview, they were talking to two homosexuals. Is that what it was?
Davidson: Judge, it's much more than that, your Honor. It's much much more than that. That should show much more detail than that.
The Court: Alright, well, I'll, I'll review it.
Wadley: Your Honor, I want to be consistent with the Court's prior ruling - on the issue of polygraph, we're not, we're not, we're not, we're not - the Court's made a ruling on that and we -
The Court: Well, the jury's not here so you can talk about polygraph right now, but -
Wadley: I'm trying to be fair, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I don't think you want all of 'em in. That's what you're talking about, you're not - you're just saying in this case, in your proffer you're mentioning it - is that what you're saying?
Wadley: I don't want it mentioned in the proffer.
The Court: Ok. Ok, well. Alright, anything else?
Price: Just one moment, your Honor.
(mumbling)
The Court: The report that you're asking in to proffer, uh - Mr. Price, there's no connection to any facts in this case. He said they didn't compare any of 'em to anything - any item.
Price: Alright.
The Court: Is that correct?
Price: I'll stand on my previous arguments, your Honor.
The Court: Well, I want to be sure now. Did you compare any of the submitted known blood types to any piece of physical evidence obtained in this case?
Channell: There were a few samples that were submitted to Genetic Design, um - and I can tell you what those are.
The Court: Alright.
Channell: There was the blood sample from Damien Echols, there was a blood sample from Richard Cummings, I believe those are the only two uh - from the list.
The Court: Alright. So none of the rest of 'em were even attached in any way or -
Price: Well, Judge -
The Court: - connected in any way to any physical piece of evidence in this case.
Price: Judge, the results of examination human blood was identified on Q-52 - which was a shirt found from Steve Menard. (reading) "Blood too limited in quantity for further characterization was developed on Q-44, which was a knife from Richard Cummings. Blood not further characterized was identified on Q-1 and Q-3."
Fogleman: That's the victims' Q-1 and Q-3. The victims' clothes.
Price: Tissue was recovered from -
The Court: Wait a minute. What about the victims' clothes?
Fogleman: Your Honor, Q-1 and Q-3 were uh - the victims' clothes - or no, swabs -
Channell: They're from swabs.
Fogleman: Victims' swabs, from the mouths.
Channell: That's correct.
The Court: Alright. Are you telling me that there was any comparison - their blood types on any of those articles that you just mentioned?
Price: Oh, the victims?
The Court: Yeah.
Price: No, sir.
The Court: And where were those articles found?
Price: Different places.
The Court: Where?
Price: Well, some were found in their houses, just like some were found in lakes. There's no evidence found at the crimescene with any blood on it.
The Court: Were any of 'em found within 30 feet of the defendants' homes? Is that what you're saying? If you're suggesting that the knife I let in the other day, I found that it was relevant. It was within the proximity of the resident of a defendant.
Price: I understand what the Court's ruling was, we made our objection to it.
The Court: Alright. I'm just - I can't see where there's any connection to known blood types - we could have done everybody in the courtroom here and if there was no comparison to any physical piece of evidence that relates to this crime, then they don't mean anything and it just confuses the issue. I understand your zeal and your interest in defending your client, you're to be commended for that, but I'm not gonna let you confuse the issue with the jury on things that aren't relevant. And that's my ruling.
Price: Alright. Alright.
The Court: And again, I'll change my mind in a minute and you know it, Mr. Price, if you show me where there's some independent relevancy - just like that (snaps fingers). Alright, let's move on with it.
Price: This concludes my proffer, your Honor, I've got two other matters to cover but they can be done in front of the jury.
The Court: Alright, let's take a short recess - ten minute recess.
(RECESS)
(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUES
Price: Mr. Channell, this knife right here, which has been listed as E-169.
Channell: Yes.
Price: And the exhibit number sticker is -
Channell: Exhibit number 77.
Price: Ok. Did you perform an analysis for blood on that particular knife?
Channell: Yes, I did.
Price: E-169?
Channell: Yes, I did.
Price: And did you assign it with a different number, a Q-133?
Channell: That's correct.
Price: Ok. If I can approach the witness, your Honor. Is this a photocopy of a report that you performed on this particular knife?
Channell: Yes, it is.
Price: Ok. And what is the conclusion in that report?
Channell: Uh - no blood was found on Q-133.
Price: So this knife right here, Q-133 - I believe is - does that have your - is that your Q number right there?
Channell: Uh - that's correct.
Price: There was no blood on this knife?
Channell: That's correct.
Price: Your Honor, move for the introduction of this report of Mr. Channell's.
Fogleman: No objection of this item.
The Court: Alright, it may be received.
Price: May I pass that to the jury?
(pause)
Price: Alright Mr. Channell, on May the 26th, 1993, did you receive a 3 page letter from Gary Gitchell of the West Memphis Police Department?
Channell: Uh - yes, I did.
Price: And was this requesting um - certain additional items that - or questions that he had about certain pieces of physical evidence?
Channell: Uh - yes, it is.
Price: Alright and question number 14, which is on page 2, could you please read that to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
Channell: Uh - question 14 states, "Is there anything which would indicate a black male involvement?"
Price: Nothing further, your Honor.
Ford: Do you still have that letter with you?
Channell: Yes, I do.
Ford: Would you turn to the third page of that letter please? Would you read that to the jury please?
Fogleman: Your Honor, Inspector Gitchell testified this morning, I don't understand why they didn't ask the person who wrote the letter about something that he wrote.
The Court: Let me see it.
(pause)
The Court: Alright, go ahead.
Ford: Read that last para - read that last page to the jury please?
Fogleman: The last page?
Ford: The last third - the third page, read the entire page please.
Channell: "Anything you can think to give us would be greatly appreciated. We need information from the crime lab desperately. Today is the third week the boys were missing by parents. Tomorrow, 5-27-93, will be the actual third week. We feel like we have got - we feel like we have not gotten sufficient information from the crime lab. We realize that you have other cases coming in and must go to court on other matters. However, this case has received national recognition and without the crime lab's information, our hands are tied. The efforts of everyone in the Crime Laboratory is greatly appreciated. The officers investigating this matter and myself need this information We feel as though we are walking blindfolded throughout the case at this moment. Please answer the above questions as soon as possible and fax it to my attention."
Ford: What's the date of that letter please?
Channell: Uh - the date is 5-26-93.
Ford: Mr. Channell, with respect to the tests that you conducted, the bottom line is you didn't find one thing to link Jason Baldwin to this crime - did you?
Channell: That's correct.
Ford: Pass the witness.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Fogleman: In fact, with the limited amount of evidence, you didn't find anything to link anybody.
Channell: Uh - that's correct.
Fogleman: Could I - do you still have the letter you were reading?
Channell: Yes, sir.
Fogleman: In fact, Inspector Gitchell also was - in that letter, was asking questions about why Dr. - about Dr. Peretti and about time of death and not having any information on time of death - isn't that correct?
Channell: That's correct.
Fogleman: Now in relation - in regard to the knife, State's Exhibit 77, again if you would, explain to the jury the effect of an item being submerged in water on being able to find blood.
Channell: The submersion of a knife in water would be uh - detrimental to any blood uh - that could possibly be on a knife, along with the surface tension of the blade itself. I would find it highly unlikely.
Fogleman: Ok. What do you mean "surface tension"?
Channell: The surface tension, the area of the knife, on any object like that being submerged in water whether it's a knife or a - basically any item.
Fogleman: Alright. Now, am I understanding you correctly to say that you wouldn't expect to find any blood if it were submerged?
Channell: I wouldn't expect to.
Fogleman: Ok. And in regard to the question that was asked about "Was there anything to indicate any involvement of a black male," was there anything in anything that you did that indicated the involvement of a black male?
Channell: Uh - no, there's not.
Fogleman: I don't have any further questions.
Price: One moment, Judge.
(pause)
Price: Nothing further, Judge.
The Court: Alright, you're free to go. Do you need him back?
