6/10/2003
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS
STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF
VS. NO: CR-93-450
CHARLES JASON BALDWIN DEFENDANT
RESPONSE TO
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Comes now the State of Arkansas, by and through its
duly elected Prosecuting Attorney, Brent Davis, by his duly appointed
Prosecuting Attorney, John N. Fogleman, and for its response to defendant's
Motion for New Trial, states:
(1) The allegations of paragraph 1 of the Motion
for New Trial are admitted.
(2) The allegations of paragraphs 2 and 3 are
denied except as specifically admitted herein. It is admitted that the
Court, on numerous occasions, denied Charles Jason Baldwin's Motion for
Severance, but it is denied that the Court's denial of that Motion constituted
an abuse of discretion, nor did it deny the defendant Baldwin a fair
trial. It denies that the Prosecuting Attorney's Office was guilty of
misconduct by virtue of the Court informing the State of its ruling, and the
State affirmatively states that the events of March 17, 1994, in regard to this
communication to the State by the Court are more accurately reflected in
Affidavits which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits
"A" and "B". The State denies that it is aware of any
information about threats being made to jurors and a record has previously been
made on this issue, Motion for Mistrial having been made and denied.
(3) The State, pleading further affirmatively,
states that even if the allegations of the defendant were considered admitted
(and the State vehemently denies the allegations made by the defendant in his
Motion for New Trial), the defendant has not alleged that any prejudice
occurred nor has the defendant shown that any prejudice would have occurred
and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that no grounds have been stated
which would justify the granting of a new trial.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the State of Arkansas prays that the Court
enter an Order dismissing the Motion for New Trial, and for all other proper
relief to which it may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
STATE OF ARKANSAS, PLAINTIFF
BY AND THROUGH ITS DULY ELECTED
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, BRENT DAVIS
By John N. Fogleman (signed)
John N. Fogleman, Bar # 81056
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
108 Dover Road, P. O. Box 1666
West Memphis, Arkansas 72303
(501) 735-2571
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response
to Motion for New Trial was served upon the defendants herein by mailing such
copy to their attorneys of record, addressed as follows:
Mr. Paul N. Ford
Attorney at Law
702 North Missouri
West Memphis, Arkansas 72301
Mr. Val Price
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 3072
Jonesboro, Arkansas 72403
postage prepaid, on this 12th day of April, 1994.
John N. Fogleman (signed)
John N. Fogleman
STAMPED
FILED
APR 12 1994
11:30 A.M.
PAT FLEETWOOD
CIRCUIT & CHANCERY COURT CLERK
[EXHIBIT "A"]
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS
STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF
VS. NO: CR-93-450
CHARLES JASON BALDWIN DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT OF BRENT DAVIS
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF CRITTENDEN
Comes now
the affiant, Brent Davis, and after being duly sworn, states as follows:
(1) I am a licensed and practicing attorney in the
State of Arkansas. I am the duly elected Prosecuting Attorney of the
Second Judicial District to represent the State of Arkansas in this matter now
pending before the Court.
(2) It is my recollection that on March 11, 1994,
prior to the State resting its case, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office advised
defense counsel that, on the previous evening, it had discovered the
possibility that blood was present on a necklace worn by separate defendant
Damien Wayne Echols at the time of his arrest and that the necklace had been
sent to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. The Prosecuting Attorney's
Office further advised defense counsel at that time that the serologist from
the State Crime Laboratory, Kermit Channell, had informed the State that there
was blood on the necklace and, at the State's request, he would send the
necklace to Genetic Design for further testing to determine whether there was
any evidentiary value of the blood
EXHIBIT "A"
[000514]
found thereon. This information was made known to the defense and to the
Court prior to the State resting.
(3) On the afternoon of March 15, 1994, after Court
had recessed for the day, the State was informed at approximately 4:30 p.m. by
representatives of Genetic Design in North Carolina that they had received a
result which would be consistent with the blood of both the defendant Charles
Jason Baldwin and the victim Steve Branch. The representatives of Genetic
Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to
determine which person the blood came from. Thereafter, the State
attempted to contact the attorneys for each defendant to notify them of this
development and to discuss a possible one-day continuance in the matter.
After unsuccessfully attempting to contact the attorneys for each defendant,
the Court was contacted because of the problem of notification of the jury in
the event a continuance was granted.
(4) On March 17, 1994, the Court reconvened and, at
that time, the State advised the Court of the results, having previously
advised defense counsel of the test results. It is my recollection that
an in-camera off-the-record hearing was held in chambers wherein defense
attorneys for both defendants, the prosecutors, and the Judge were present.
The Judge stated at that time that he was inclined to grant the Motion for
Mistrial as to the defendant Baldwin and to sever the cases if the new evidence
was allowed in. A hearing was conducted before the Court as a result of
the defense objections to the introduction
[000515]
of said evidence, and after arguments of counsel, the Court declared a recess
prior to making his ruling.
(5) During the recess, the Court summoned the
attorneys for the State and informed them of his ruling. As the Court was
informing the representatives of the State of his ruling, the attorneys for the
defendant Baldwin entered the room, at which time the Court completed stating
his ruling. No actual conversation or discussion took place other than
the Court advising the attorneys for the State of his ruling. Attorneys
for the defendant Baldwin were aware of the circumstances of the Court
informing the attorneys for the State of his ruling and had an opportunity to
make a record if they objected to this procedure and declined to do so.
Further affiant sayeth not.
DATED this 12th day of April, 1994.
Brent Davis (signed)
Brent Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of April, 1994.
Vivian Bray (signed)
Notary Public
STAMPED
OFFICIAL SEAL
VIVIAN V. BRAY
NOTARY PUBLIC - ARKANSAS
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY
My Commission Expires:
3-1-2001
[EXHIBIT "B"]
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS
STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF
VS. NO: CR-93-450
CHARLES JASON BALDWIN DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT OF
JOHN N. FOGLEMAN
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF CRITTENDEN
Comes now the affiant, John N. Fogleman, and after being duly sworn, states as
follows:
(1) I am a licensed and practicing attorney in the
State of Arkansas. I was duly appointed as Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to
represent the State of Arkansas in this matter now pending before the Court
(2) It is my recollection that on March 11, 1994,
prior to the State resting its case, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office advised
defense counsel that, on the previous evening, it had discovered the
possibility that blood was present on a necklace worn by separate defendant
Damien Wayne Echols at the time of his arrest and that the necklace had been
sent to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. The Prosecuting Attorney's
Office further advised defense counsel at that time that the serologist from
the State Crime Laboratory, Kermit Channell, had informed the State that there
was blood on the necklace and, at the State's request, he would send the
necklace to Genetic Design for further testing to determine whether there was
any evidentiary value of the blood
EXHIBIT "B"
[000517]
found thereon. This information was made known to the defense and to the
Court prior to the State resting.
(3) On the afternoon of March 15, 1994, after Court
had recessed for the day, the State was informed at approximately 4:30 p.m. by
representatives of Genetic Design in North Carolina that they had received a
result which would be consistent with the blood of both the defendant Charles
Jason Baldwin and the victim Steve Branch. The representatives of Genetic
Design informed the State that they could conduct an additional test to try to
determine which person the blood came from. Thereafter, the State
attempted to contact the attorneys for each defendant to notify them of this
development and to discuss a possible one-day continuance in the matter
After unsuccessfully attempting to contact the attorneys for each defendant,
the Court was contacted because of the problem of notification of the jury in
the event a continuance was granted.
(4) On March 17, 1994, the Court reconvened and, at
that time, the State advised the Court of the results, having previously
advised defense counsel of the test results. It is my recollection that
an in-camera off-the-record hearing was held in chambers wherein defense
attorneys for both defendants, the prosecutors, and the Judge were
present. The Judge stated at that time that he was inclined to grant the
Motion for Mistrial as to the defendant Baldwin and to sever the cases if the
new evidence was allowed in. A hearing was conducted before the Court as
a result of the defense objections to the introduction
[000518]
of said evidence, and after arguments of counsel, the Court declared a recess
prior to making his ruling.
(5) During the recess, the Court summoned the
attorneys for the State and informed them of his ruling. As the Court was
informing the representatives of the State of his ruling, the attorneys for the
defendant Baldwin entered the room, at which time the Court completed stating
his ruling. No actual conversation or discussion took place other than
the Court advising the attorneys for the State of his ruling. Attorneys
for the defendant Baldwin were aware of the circumstances of the Court
informing the attorneys for the State of his ruling and had an opportunity to
make a record if they objected to this procedure and declined to do so
Further affiant sayeth not.
DATED this 5th day of April, 1994.
John N. Fogleman (signed)
John N. Fogleman
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of April, 1994.
Jeanie M. Powers (signed)
Notary Public
STAMPED
JEANIE M. POWERS
NOTARY PUBLIC
CRITTENDEN COUNTY, AR
My Commission Expires:
6/10/2003