P.O. BOX 491
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
P. O. BOX 54
BARBARA J. FISHER, C.C.R.
P. O. BOX 521
Examination by Mr. Mallett 653-718
Examination by Mr. Davis 718-781
Examination by Mr. Mallett 781-816
Examination by Mr. Mallett 816-844
Examination by Mr. Davis 844-867
|
637
|
1 | JONESBORO, ARKANSAS, OCTOBER 26, 1998, AT 9:30 A. M. |
2 | THE COURT: Court will be in session. |
3 | Mr. Dunlap, did you want to make some kind of a |
4 | statement? |
5 | MR. DUNLAP: Yes, your Honor. I was contacted |
6 | by the -- your Case Coordinator up in Osceola -- I |
7 | think it was Tuesday or Wednesday of last week -- and |
8 | asked if I could fill in and -- as co-counsel on Mr. |
9 | Echols, and that the hearing would probably last -- |
10 | probably -- well, a week -- five days. And I |
11 | indicated that I would, and I would agree to do that, |
12 | but I'm not sure as I stand here this morning exactly |
13 | what my role is to be, your Honor. So let me inquire |
14 | what the Court expect, of me at this time. |
15 | THE COURT: The Court appointed you to |
16 | temporarily stand in the shoes of Mr. A1 Schay who |
17 | was the Arkansas appointed attorney for Mr. Echols |
18 | who had some unexpected surgery. You -- your primary |
19 | role, as I see it, is to provide Mr. Mallett with |
20 | Arkansas rules, procedure and advice on the laws of |
21 | Arkansas as relative to a Rule 37 Petition or other |
22 | petitioners that he might need assistance of local |
23 | counsel on. You're the local counsel appointed at |
24 | this point for Mr. Echols. |
25 | I expect Mr. Schay will -- will within four to |
|
638
|
1 | five weeks -- will be back on the case and, at that |
2 | point, you'll be relieved. But I suppose for the |
3 | record, you're Mr. Echols' Arkansas counsel. The |
4 | primary lead and the primary role has been undertaken |
5 | by Mr. Mallett and his associate to present Mr. |
6 | Echols' Rule 37 Petition to the Court |
7 | You're -- you're -- you're -- you're appointed |
8 | in the case, but your primary function will be to aid |
9 | and assist him in Arkansas procedure and law. |
10 | MR. DUNLAP: Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Mallett |
11 | I've had an opportunity to confer with him this |
12 | morning briefly and -- |
13 | THE COURT: I thought he called you last week. |
14 | You didn't get a hold of Mr. Dunlap? |
15 | MR. DUNLAP: We spoke over the phone briefly. |
16 | He faxed me some of the pleaxxxs, and I met him this |
17 | morning approximately an hour and a half before we |
18 | started here. |
19 | But as co-counsel, your Honor, he has already |
20 | asked me to advise him on several matters that I was |
21 | completely unfamiliar with. Of course, being local |
22 | Arkansas attorney, I followed this case back |
23 | in 1993 in the newspapers as well as the media. But |
24 | as far as the Rule 37 and the issues being raised |
25 | here today, I'm completely unprepared. It would |
|
639
|
1 | probably take me the better part of a month to get |
2 | prepared to go forward as co-counsel in this case. |
3 | So let me move for a continuance at this time. |
4 | THE COURT: Well, that'll be denied. |
5 | MR. DUNLAP: Note my objection. |
6 | THE COURT: All right. |
7 | And the record should reflect that Mr. Mallett |
8 | has been involved in this case for almost eighteen |
9 | months now -- maybe -- maybe even longer than that -- |
10 | and has presented the entire matter with the possible |
11 | exception of one short witness and is lead counsel |
12 | and has taken that role, and I see absolutely no |
13 | reason for a continuance and that you're a competent |
14 | lawyer or wouldn't have been appointed and certainly |
15 | have the knowledge to advise him on local rules of |
16 | procedure. |
17 | MR. DUNLAP: Thank you. |
18 | MR. MALLETT: I don't want to test the Court's |
19 | patience, and I think the Court well understands that |
20 | much of what we speak here today we speak here |
21 | because of the possibility that an appealing court |
22 | someday --may look at these proceedings and |
23 | with that idea in mind, I would acknowledge that I |
24 | have asked most of the questions and done most of the |
25 | arguments in these proceedings as the Court has |
|
640
|
1 | observed, and I don't dispute that I have taken the |
2 | lead. But by saying that, I do not mean to concede |
3 | that Mr. Schay was not a lawyer appointed by the |
4 | Court pursuant to this Court's written Order which I |
5 | of record appointing him pursuant to Article 37.5 as |
6 | the counsel of the case. |
7 | What I spoke to Mr. Dunlap about this morning |
8 | was whether he was my lawyer or Damien Echols' |
9 | lawyer. And I thought with reference to the intent |
10 | of the Arkansas Supreme Court in adopting these |
11 | rules, that could be a distinction with a difference. |
12 | THE COURT: He's appointed to represent Damien |
13 | Echols, and in that regard his primary function as I |
14 | see it at this point is to stand in the shoes of Al |
15 | Schay to advise and assist you on Arkansas law, rule |
16 | and procedure. |
17 | You seem very adept on finding your way through |
18 | the Arkansas Statutes and law and -- and it's obvious |
19 | to the Court that you're highly competent and capable |
20 | to proceed so that's -- the record is clear on that. |
21 | In fact the Supreme Court's already ruled on this |
22 | particular issue. So let's -- let's move along. |
23 | MR. MALLETT: I know the Court wants to move |
24 | along, and I'm not trying to test your patience, but |
25 | just for the record, the objection would include that |
|
641
|
1 | the rule does not contemplate local counsel as |
2 | appointed for any limited purpose. The rule |
3 | contemplates -- as I read Rule 37.5 -- that out-of- |
4 | state counsel may be appointed pro hac vice -- which |
5 | I have not -- and if that occurs, then the Court may |
6 | appoint local counsel who is not technically |
7 | qualified under the rule. |
8 | So even were I appointed and the Court acting |
9 | pursuant to its authority in appointing local |
10 | counsel, Mr. Dunlap, I -- I have to suggest that as I |
11 | read the rule, the Arkansas Supreme Court in |
12 | attempting to comply with the federal statute must |
13 | consider that local counsel would be appointed for |
14 | all purposes. |
15 | THE COURT: Well, I've appointed him for all |
16 | purposes. |
17 | MR. MALLETT: Then-- |
18 | THE COURT: He is Damien Echols' local counsel. |
19 | MR. MALLETT: Then we would join and renew his |
20 | motion for a continuance on the basis that a true |
21 | counsel appointed for all purposes needs more than |
22 | a weekend and breakfast meeting to prepare |
23 | for a Rule 37 hearing. |
24 | THE COURT: Well, ordinarily I would grant a |
25 | continuance if a new attorney came into the case at |
|
642
|
1 | the outset. If -- if -- if he were here and no one |
2 | else were prepared and no one else were able to |
3 | proceed, no one else had questioned witnesses, |
4 | obviously, a continuance would be in order and would |
5 | be granted. Here, that is not the case. |
6 | You have been the lead attorney since the |
7 | beginning of this matter. Whether or not we've |
8 | appointed you or not, I certainly allowed you to |
9 | enter the case -- and your associate to enter this |
10 | case -- and to represent Mr. Echols. So you have |
11 | been given Court authority and -- and --tantamount |
12 | to an appointment. The only thing that's short of |
13 | that appointment is that the court has not undertaken |
14 | to pay you as an indigent attorney -- attorney for an |
15 | indigent person. And you indicated to me that that |
16 | was not necessary and that you were doing so pro -- |
17 | pro bono and that there were funds to -- to pay your |
18 | out-of-pocket expenses. And the Court's got some |
19 | serious question about the funds that are being |
20 | received and where they're going and what the |
21 | accounting for it is. But those are side issues that |
22 | xxxxx don't matter a whole lot. |
23 | I think we've made a sufficient record on the |
24 | point of proceeding. I'm ready to proceed and let's |
25 | call your next witness. |
|
643
|
1 | MR. MALLETT' Again, your Honor, I do apologize |
2 | I know the Court's impatient and anxious to proceed |
3 | -- |
4 | THE COURT: No, I'm not impatient. I just -- |
5 | we've got a limited amount of time. Let's use it. |
6 | MR. MALLETT: The -- the new point I wish to |
7 | comment upon is that the state's answer to our motion |
8 | for a continuance represented that Mr. Echols was |
9 | represented by two experienced attorneys with |
10 | reference to capital proceedings, and I would like to |
11 | indicate to the Court that Ms. Martin was licensed by |
12 | the State Bar of Texas in the fall --I think, |
13 | November or October of 1997 -- and she's indicated to |
14 | me that her nightmare would be finding Mr. Dunlap and |
15 | I and Mr. Schay all incapacitated and the Court |
16 | holding her responsible. I just wanted to indicate |
17 | to the Court that in the unfortunate that something |
18 | would happen to us -- |
19 | THE COURT: Well, if something happens to you |
20 | and Mr. Schay and Mr. Dunlap and she's left all alone |
21 | paddling the canoe, I'd probably give her a |
22 | continuance. |
23 | MR. MALLETT: Thank you, your Honor. |
24 | THE COURT: All right. But that's not the case |
25 | before the Court right now. |
|
644
|
1 | MR. MALLETT: But that'll make things better in |
2 | our -- in our camp. |
3 | THE COURT: Okay. |
4 | MR. MALLETT: And I appreciate it. |
5 | THE COURT: Right now, we've got a speed boat |
6 | with you at the helm. So it's not a sole canoe, so |
7 | let's -- let's go ahead. |
8 | MR. MALLETT: And, also, so the Court will |
9 | understand, Mr. Dunlap has stationed himself as far |
10 | as he can from us and still communicate with us |
11 | because I believe he still has a mild fever and a |
12 | cold. And I Just wanted the Court to know that if |
13 | he requires a break at sometime, that s not to get |
14 | some tactical advantage. |
15 | THE COURT: I told you when I appointed Mr. |
16 | Dunlap that he's got a mind of his own and that he's |
17 | an aggressive and capable defense attorney, and I'm |
18 | sure he can speak up for himself and will. If he |
19 | doesn't, it would be a great surprise to the Court. |
20 | MR. MALLETT: Moving on, if I may then, to |
21 | bookkeeping. With reference to our motion for |
22 | continuance that the Court denied in conference in |
23 | week, I received on the twenty-third by |
24 | facsimile transmission dated -- timed 2:29 P.M. or |
25 | fourteen hundred and twenty hours and twenty-nine |
|
645
|
1 | minutes, a response from Kelly K. Hill, Deputy |
2 | Attorney General, in the Arkansas Supreme Court, and |
3 | and part of her pleadings in opposition to allow |
4 | us to obtain leave of the Arkansas Supreme Court that |
5 | our Notice of Appeal was filed premature. And I |
6 | think we can clean this up on the record if we could |
7 | today. I would not want Mr. Echols subsequently to |
8 | be deemed to have made some strategic decision and |
9 | not pursue interlocutory relief -- |
10 | THE COURT: Are you talking about pleadings that |
11 | were filed with the Supreme Court? |
12 | MR. MALLETT: I'm talking about a Notice of |
13 | Appeal that was filed here. I think I can explain if |
14 | I can only take about one more minute. |
15 | THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. |
16 | MR. MALLETT: We filed for a Notice of Appeal -- |
17 | MR. DAVIS: What you're referring to though is |
18 | the response filed by the Attorney General's office |
19 | in response to -- |
20 | THE COURT: To your Motion to Stay. Is that |
21 | what you're talking about? |
22 | MR. MALLETT: That's correct, your Honor. And |
23 | on page four at footnote three the Attorney General |
24 | ---- inadvertently, I think -- because it wasn't Mr. |
25 | Newton's writing, but another lawyer -- |
|
646
|
1 | THE COURT: I don't have that pleading. It |
2 | didnít come to me. |
3 | MR. MALLETT: That's correct, your Honor, but |
4 | the Court I think will remember that we had a |
5 | telephone conference -- |
6 | THE COURT: We had a telephone conference, and I |
7 | made rulings and the agreement was that Mr. Newton |
8 | would reduce that -- that -- that -- the findings |
9 | that the Court made to a written Order, and he did so |
10 | and as soon as I got it, I signed it and he did so |
11 | back to him, and then you called me, and then I had |
12 | a great deal of difficulty getting through to your |
13 | fax machine, but after about three or four tries, I |
14 | think I got the whole thing to you, didn't I? |
15 | MR. MALLETT: Yes, your Honor, and I believe |
18 | that that was on the twentieth of October. |
17 | THE COURT: Oh, well, it was the next day, I |
18 | think -- or two days later. I'm not sure. |
19 | MR. MALLETT: And we subsequently presented an |
20 | amended Notice of Appeal after the time of your |
21 | xxxxxx. And we've -- we've -- we've looked at it |
22 | today and found it in the Clerk's file and I think |
23 | Clerk had not -- I think it had not been entered |
24 | of record. |
25 | THE COURT: Well, I mean -- those -- I think |
|
647
|
1 | that's really moot. I mean, it was appealed. My |
2 | ruling on the continuance was appealed, and the |
3 | Supreme Court heard it and ruled on it. So, I mean, |
4 | that's -- the record ought to be clear on that. |
5 | MR. MALLETT: There might be a time in a |
6 | different court where we would want to be sure that |
7 | we didn't make a procedural default or procedural |
8 | error because we filed the notice prematurely. |
9 | Could I have Mr. Dunlap explain what he learned |
10 | when he looked at the Clerk's file? if youíll look there in the file |
11 | MR. DUNLAP: Your Honor, there was a -- I think |
12 | if you'll look there in the file--I've got it file |
13 | marked -- there was a facsimile -- I want to say it |
14 | was dated October the -- the twentieth and in the -- |
15 | it was -- |
16 | THE COURT: Was that Wednesday? That's the day |
17 | I left to go to Fayetteville, so I'm sure -- |
18 | MR. DUNLAP: But anyway, a copy of your -- of |
19 | your Order was never denied, and the continuance was |
20 | never filed. There was--the facsimile was from |
21 | Mr. Mallett's -- |
22 | THE COURT: Well, it was filed because I signed |
23 | it. So I guess the record can reflect that the |
24 | Motion and the Order were filed before the Court by |
25 | facsimile and that the Court entered an appropriate |
|
648
|
1 | Order and that it was timely filed and that the |
2 | continuance was -- that the appeal of the -- or the |
3 | Motion to Stay -- the continuance was properly and |
4 | timely filed. So the record should so reflect, and |
5 | the Supreme Court appropriately ruled -- I think, |
6 | Saturday sometime, wasn't it -- Saturday morning. |
7 | Okay. |
8 | MR. MALLETT: And then I note -- and then that |
9 | we filed an Amended Notice of Appeal and I want it |
10 | understood and I talked to Mr. Newton about this, I |
11 | believe -- |
12 | THE COURT: I don't think there's any dispute or |
13 | problem with it. |
14 | MR. MALLETT: -- that we filed our Notice of |
15 | Appeal after the Court denied relief so that we were |
16 | not premature in filing our Amended Notice of Appeal. |
17 | THE COURT: Well, there's no question about it. |
18 | MR. MALLETT: I didn't think there was any |
19 | question until I read the state's pleading in the |
20 | Arkansas Supreme Court, and that's why I'm raising it |
21 | here. And I think Mr. Newton will agree that the law |
22 | of the case will be that the Amended Notice of Appeal |
23 | was timely filed. |
24 | THE COURT: I haven't read those pleadings. I |
25 | don't know. I just knew that you chose to appeal the |
|
649
|
1 | denial of a continuance and that you did so and that |
2 | an order was entered. So as far as I'm concerned, |
3 | the record in this court could reflect that you took |
4 | the denial of the continuance up on a Motion to Stay |
5 | and that was likewise denied, and it was timely |
6 | filed, including any amendments you might have filed. |
7 | All right. |
8 | MR. MALLETT: Thank you, your Honor. |
9 | Shall I move the lectern over and -- |
10 | THE COURT: Yeah, sure. Put it wherever you're |
11 | comfortable with it. |
12 | MR. MALLETT: I'd like to ask Mr. Price to come |
13 | down here. |
14 | One minute, your Honor, I need to admonish |
15 | witness. |
16 | THE COURT: Well, there are a whole bunch of |
17 | people, I assume, are witnesses in the courtroom. |
18 | Is the rule being requested by anybody? |
19 | MR. DAVIS: Yes, your Honor. |
20 | THE COURT: All of you that know yourselves to |
21 | be witnesses in this case, please stand. All the |
22 | witnesses please stand. |
23 | THE WITNESSES: (COMPLYING) |
24 | THE COURT: Any other witnesses in the |
25 | courtroom? |
|
650
|
1 | Is that it? All right, gentlemen, you need to |
2 | step outside. Yes, sir, you'll have to step outside, |
3 | too. |
4 | MR. MALLETT: Could we ask that we not have |
5 | transmitting or recording devices other than the |
6 | official Court Reporter? |
7 | THE COURT: As far as I'm concerned, that -- |
8 | that -- that doesn't even need to be said. But, yes, |
9 | in view of what happened the other day, that would be |
10 | -- |
11 | THE COURT REPORTER: They've already gone so |
12 | they didn't hear you. |
13 | THE COURT: Have the bailiff inform the |
14 | witnesses that they're not to in any way attempt to |
15 | hear, overhear, or record any conversation taking |
16 | place in the courtroom. |
17 | MR. MALLETT: I've been reminded -- housekeeping |
18 | again, Just for the record -- the Motion to Recuse |
19 | asking the Court -- the Court -- we would renew that |
2 | 0 for the record, your Honor. |
21 | THE COURT: I'll renew my ruling. That's |
22 | sealed. And there's no precedent for it. In fact |
23 | the trial court is expected under our rules of law |
24 | to hear matters involving post-conviction hearings, |
25 | and that's what I'm here to do. And all this talk |
|
651
|
1 | about whether it'll go before another tribunal is |
2 | premature, too, because I'm listening to what you've |
3 | got to say. |
4 | MR. MALLETT: Thank you, your Honor. |
5 | MR. DUNLAP: Your Honor, if I may before we get |
6 | started, I have a habit of when the Court has ruled |
7 | of saying, thank you, or I understand the Court's |
8 | ruling, I don't intend for that to mean in any way |
9 | that I'm waiving any objections to the Court's |
10 | rulings. |
11 | THE COURT: I thought when you said, Thank you |
12 | Chet, that meant you were pleased with the ruling |
13 | ( LAUGHTER. ) |
14 | MR. DUNLAP: I'm sorry. |
15 | THE COURT: And I'll -- I'll put that down. In |
16 | the future when you say, thank you, that's just a |
17 | matter of habit and that you're not pleased with the |
18 | ruling. |
19 | MR. MALLETT: Let the record reflect that when I |
20 | thank you, I mean I am pleased that the Court |
21 | has ruled, but Iím not necessarily pleased with it. |
22 | THE COURT: Well, you won't have any trouble |
23 | getting a ruling. You may not be pleased with it, so |
24 | -- |
25 | MR. MALLET: Yes, your Honor, I do that out of |
|
652
|
1 | habit and and courtesy and not -- not to waive the |
2 | objection. I think the Court understands. |
3 | THE COURT: Well, that's what I've always |
4 | accepted it as as a matter of courtesy. But since |
5 | Mr. Dunlap wanted to be clear that he wasn't waiving |
6 | any objection, we'll let the record reflect that |
7 | when he says, thank you, it's mere form. All right. |
8 | MR. MALLETT: Your Honor, in reviewing our |
9 | pleadings, I discovered that we have covered most of |
10 | the issues that we raised in our pleadings, and I'll |
11 | not go back into those. |
12 | THE COURT: Well, I'd appreciate that. |
13 | MR. MALLETT: There are some issues in our |
14 | pleadings that I believe we do not wish to abandon |
15 | and have not reviewed. I spoke to Mr. Price -- I |
16 | think it was probably Saturday just after the Motion |
17 | for Continuance was denied -- and indicated to him |
18 | that I would have some questions in areas where he |
19 | had not previously testified. |
20 | . THE COURT: All right. |
21 | MR. MALLETT: With the Court's permission we'll |
22 | xxxxxx under that. |
23 | THE COURT: Yes, sir. |
24 | MR. MALLETT: I'm gonna direct the state's |
25 | attention, if I may, and the Court's, to our |
|
653
|
1 | pleading where on page three on the Second Amended |
2 | petition for Relief under Arkansas Rules of Criminal |
3 | procedure 37, we plead as a complaint that counsel |
4 | was constitutionally ineffective in the guilt stage |
5 | for failing to preserve an adequate record of the |
6 | jury voir dire. That's the subject I want to start |
7 | with this morning, if I may. |
8 | THE COURT: All right. |
9 | VAL PRICE |
10 | having been first duly sworn to speak the truth, the whole |
11 | truth, and nothing but the truth, then testified as follows; |
12 | CONTINUED REDIRECT EXAMINATION |
13 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
14 | Q. Mr. Price, I recall from your earlier testimony that when |
15 | the time came to work on the direct appeal of the case, the |
16 | lawyers divided the record amongst themselves. Each of the |
17 | four lawyers working on the appeal on behalf of Echols and |
18 | Baldwin, being by agreement assigned to read separate quarters, |
19 | more or less, of the record, and then there was perhaps some |
20 | sharing of information and some of you had selected portions |
21 | of record but that no defense team -- and per agreement -- |
22 | xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx record on appeal on be half of Mr. Echols. Is |
23 | that correct? |
24 | A. I mean -- it was up until the last phrase that you |
25 | mentioned. I mean, I read the entire transcript. So your |
|
654
|
1 | statement that the defense team did not read the entire |
2 | transcript, that's incorrect. But we did -- essentially, |
3 | you're correct. We broke it up. There was about four thousand |
4 | pages, and each one of us took about a thousand pages of the |
5 | transcript to do the abstracting of. |
6 | Q. We have talked earlier about the fact that no issues |
7 | relating to jury selection were raised on appeal. |
8 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. |
9 | Q. And, as I recall, your explanation for that was that you |
10 | did not utilize all of your strikes. So that a complaint about |
11 | the Court's ruling on perhaps a challenge for cause would not |
12 | be reviewable on appeal because you could have overcome my |
13 | harm by using a peremptory in such a case where you had |
14 | peremptories to use, and since you didn't use all of your |
15 | peremptories, there was no possibility of reviewing the Court's |
16 | rulings on jury selection. Is that correct? |
17 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. |
18 | Q. Too many words, but you understand what I'm saying? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. Okay. Did you then read in preparation for the appeal the |
21 | transcripts on the jury selection portion of the trial? |
22 | A. No, sir. |
23 | Q. So when you say you read the entire record, you mean to |
24 | indicate you read the entire record from opening statements |
25 | through jury argument? |
|
655
|
1 | A. Well, the entire record on appeal. We did not designate |
2 | the voir dire as---as part of the record on appeal, and that |
3 | was not prepared. |
4 | Q. But you were in the courtroom when in these proceedings it |
5 | was agreed that the record would be supplemented with the |
6 | addition of the voir dire portion of the jury trial? |
7 | A. On the Rule 37? |
8 | Q. In the Rule 37. |
9 | A. I -- yeah, I -- I was either in the courtroom, or I was |
10 | aware of that. |
11 | Q. Let me read to you e few short portions of the jury |
12 | selection portions which is now part of the record. I'm on |
13 | page numbered fifteen of a transcript dated February twenty- |
14 | second and twenty-third, 1994. Beginning at line eight -- |
15 | and I believe that this is the Honorable David Burnett, |
16 | presiding Judge. |
17 | ìQuestion. This is a criminal case, of course. I'm sure |
18 | all of you know that. But in a criminal case, it's the duty |
19 | of the state to produce the evidence to convince you of the |
20 | defendant guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Do each of you |
21 | understand that? |
22 | ìAnswer: No audible response. |
23 | ìQuestion. Will you require the state to meet its burden |
24 | of proof? |
25 | ìAnswer: No audible response. |
|
656
|
1 | ìQuestion. That is a satisfy you by the evidence beyond |
2 | a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. Do each ---do you |
3 | each understand that. |
4 | ìAnswer. No audible response. |
5 | ìQuestion. And that -- and in that connection while each |
6 | of the defendants are on trial jointly, your verdicts must be |
7 | individual to each of them. Do you understand that as well? |
8 | ìAnswer. No audible -- no audible response. |
9 | ìQuestion. In a criminal case in our system of justice we |
10 | have what we call the presumption of innocence. That is, as |
11 | you sit in the jury box right now and throughout the trial, if |
12 | you look over at either of these defendants that I have |
13 | identified, you should have in your mind the presumption of |
14 | innocence. That is, they are innocent or should be innocent in |
15 | your mind unless and until you are convinced by the evidence of |
16 | their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Do each of you |
17 | understand the concept of presumption of innocence? |
18 | ìAnswer. No audible response. |
19 | ìQuestion. And can each of you give the defendants the |
20 | benefit of that presumption? |
21 | ìAnswer--- no audible response. . |
22 | xxxxxx, goes into discussion with an individual |
23 | juror. |
24 | The portion that I have read to you is a portion that you |
25 | probably have never read in your life. Is that correct? |
|
657
|
1 | A. That's correct |
2 | Q. And you were probably unaware that the Court Reporter |
3 | recorded no response from anyone on the panel with response to |
4 | the questions that I have read. |
5 | A. That's correct. |
6 | Q. On pages eighteen and nineteen, the Court raises the |
7 | important question about publicity -- which we did discuss |
8 | earlier -- with respect to raising -- to making a record of |
9 | jury voir dire. I'll start on page eighteen at line seventeen. |
10 | ìWe're asking you to disregard what youíve read , seen and |
11 | heard, and, of course, as you sit there, you're the ones |
12 | that know whether you can do that. And it's important that a |
13 | person have a fair and impartial trial and that your mind |
14 | should not be made up from outside influences. |
15 | ìIn fact, you will be told by the Court today that you're |
16 | not to read any news account, listen to any radio account, or |
17 | watch TV or let anyone -- family members, brothers, sisters, |
18 | spouses, children, anyone else -- influence your opinion in |
19 | this case from this day forward. Do each of you understand that? |
20 | Answer: No audible response. |
21 | Question: Do each of you feel that you are prepared to |
23 | listen to the evidence and let your mind be -- your decision in |
24 | this case be -- determined by what you hear in the courtroom |
25 | and the law given you by the Court? Will each of you do that? |
|
658
|
1 | ìAnswer. No audible response.î |
2 | Then the jury goes off to a discussion with the lawyers |
3 | about the-witness list. |
4 | That's the first time you have known that a response to |
5 | the Court's questioning of the panel, the Court Reporter |
6 | recorded for any appealing court, no response from those on the |
7 | panel. That's the first you've heard that? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. And finally, at the bottom of page nineteen, he resumes on |
10 | line twenty-two. Judge Burnett says, "All right, ladies and |
11 | gentlemen, let me ask it this way: Do any of you --there are |
12 | a number of persons that have been identified as witnesses. |
13 | Many of them, of course, are not from this area. Do any of you |
14 | know of any person or had any conversation with any person that |
15 | purported to be a witness or a person that had firsthand |
16 | information about this case? |
17 | ìAnswer. No audible response. |
18 | ìQuestion. I take it that none of you from your shaking |
19 | your heads and your blank looks that you haven't talked to any |
20 | persons |
21 | "Answer. No Audible response.î |
22 | Do you have a memory, as you now look back at the Court's |
23 | questioning of the panel, that the citizens assembled there for |
24 | jury selection were shaking their heads and keeping blank looks |
25 | through jury selection? Was that, as you remember, the way |
|
659
|
1 | it went ? |
2 | A. Just ---and this would mainly be by speculation. It's |
3 | quite common for jurors to nod their head particularly when -- |
4 | when a judge is asking questions during voir dire. And I |
5 | could speculate that that -- that may have been happening then. |
6 | I'm -- I don't know for sure of that. |
7 | Q. And you don't -- and, of course, this is all speculation, |
8 | so you don't know whether that reads everybody on the panel |
9 | snaking their heads, five people shaking their heads, everybody |
10 | having a blank look, two blank looks. We have no idea what was |
11 | going on from-- on the basis of the record collected do we? |
12 | A. On the basis of -- well, I thought that when, we did the |
13 | voir dire we were doing it in groups of three or four in the |
14 | back. You know, I know sometimes I've had cases where the |
15 | judge -- including Judge Burnett -- will voir dire the entire |
16 | panel with general questions, and then we go in the back with |
17 | specific questions. I thought in this case that we -- we -- |
18 | the Judge did all of the questioning, including the ones that |
19 | you were reading, in the back, but again, I -- since I haven't |
20 | looked at the transcript, I donít --I don't know for sure |
21 | THE COURT: My recollection is I asked the |
22 | general questions -- the general voir dire that |
23 | you're going over -- in the open courtroom in groups |
24 | of twelve or eighteen -- I don't -- whatever number |
25 | we called. Then we went back into the back three at |
|
660
|
1 | a time, I believe, and asked individual questions. |
2 | And while there was no audible response, the Court |
3 | was addressing the jurors en masse, and if there were |
4 | any responses in the negative, that would have been |
5 | recorded. And I think you'll probably find some |
6 | responses if you go through the whole thing. |
7 | Did the state waive an objection to -- to |
8 | opening up voir dire? Voir dire was not a matter of |
9 | a -- that was even subject to an appeal to the |
10 | Arkansas Supreme Court because the challenges-- |
11 | peremptory challenges -- were not exhausted . That |
12 | used to be the Arkansas law. Does the state care one |
13 | way or the other? I mean, I'll go ahead and listen. |
14 | MR. MALLETT: I think that -- |
15 | THE COURT: I don't know that that's any basis |
16 | for -- for a reversal or an appeal. |
17 | MR. MALLETT: To -- I believe that in these |
18 | proceedings, your Honor, we complained in our |
19 | Petition of defense counsel failing to preserve an |
20 | adequate record of jury voir dire. That's where I am. |
21 | xxxxxx |
22 | THE COURT: Well, but the record was kept. He |
23 | just didn't designate that record for appeal purposes |
24 | because they had not exhausted their peremptory |
25 | challenges, and that's the point I'm raising now. |
|
661
|
1 | If you think there's something to it for one of those |
2 | future ventures that you've got in mind, well, go |
3 | ahead |
4 | MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, the state's response to |
5 | their Petition -- that particular allegation of Rule |
6 | 37 -- was that they basically -- that the defense did |
7 | not use all of their strikes, therefore, there is a |
8 | presumption that the jurors were fair and unbiased |
9 | and, therefore, that the failure to designate that |
10 | portion of the record was of no consequence in terms |
11 | of-- |
12 | THE COURT: Well, that's what I'm pointing out, |
13 | Mr. Davis. If Mr. Mallett wants to tell me what |
14 | issues before me now would bear on that question, |
15 | I'll be happy to listen to it. But, I mean, I can't |
16 | see that failing to designate the record that was |
17 | made of the voir dire has any significance in this |
18 | post-conviction hearing at all. But if you can |
19 | convince me it does, I'll be happy to hear it. |
20 | MR. MALLETT: The jury selection has now been |
21 | xxxxxxxded to the record for Rule 37 proceedings. We |
22 | did that earlier. |
23 | THE COURT: Yeah. I -- I understand that. |
24 | MR. MALLETT: And when we have an opportunity to |
25 | present our briefing -- if we do -- then we would |
|
662
|
1 | brief for this Court the entitlement of a person |
2 | facing a possible sentence of death to a jury that is |
3 | qualified under Witherspoon and other cases so that |
4 | those who would automatically give the death penalty |
5 | in any case in which they found the person guilty, or |
6 | automatically give life, in any case in which they |
7 | found the person guilty -- |
8 | THE COURT: We did the Witherspoon. |
9 | MR. MALLETT: -- would be excluded. And we're |
10 | suggesting that the absence of any audible responses |
11 | to critical questions of -- really -- questions at |
12 | the very heart of whether a person can get a fair |
13 | trial at all -- |
14 | THE COURT: Well -- |
15 | MR. MALLETT: -- leaves a silent record as to |
16 | whether the panel is qualified under these important |
17 | Supreme Court decisions. |
18 | THE COURT: You're not gonna find a silent |
19 | record on the Witherspoon questions. Those |
20 | questions were asked, as I recall, in -- I might have |
21 | asked 'em out here, but they were asked in detail in |
22 | Chambers and that is recorded and they did give |
23 | Verbal responses to the Witherspoon test |
24 | So, go ahead. |
25 | MR. MALLETT: Well, I suppose the record will |
|
663
|
1 | speak for itself on that. |
2 | THE COURT: Well, it should |
3 | MR. MALLETT: All right. |
4 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
5 | Q. In connection with this process of observing and listening |
6 | as the Judge is qualifying the panel on publicity, prior |
7 | knowledge of the case, knowledge of witnesses, Witherspoon, |
8 | all these other things, when it came time for the lawyers to be |
9 | able to supplement the Judge's general questions with the |
10 | lawyers conducting their own interrogation of the prospective |
11 | panels, did Judge Burnett place any time limits on you, or |
12 | restrict you as to time and number of questions in any way? |
13 | A. No, I don't believe so. |
14 | Q. So that if you had wanted to go into some area where there |
15 | were no audible responses where you were dissatisfied with the |
16 | certainty of the response, you were free to go further had you |
17 | chosen to do so? |
18 | A. Yes, sir. |
19 | Q. It would be the attorney's responsibility because the |
20 | Judge did not limit you in any way at all? |
21 | A. That is correct. |
22 | Q. Thank you. And in that process, likewise, the Judge did |
23 | not limit you as to the topics about which you could question |
24 | prospective jurors, correct? |
25 | A. I believe that's correct. |
|
664
|
1 | Q. Now I have read in the Opinion of the Arkansas Supreme |
2 | Court on this case that it was the theory of defense propounded |
3 | by --- propounded on behalf of Mr. Echols at trial that the |
4 | state's effort to offer testimony about Satan or Satanism and |
5 | cults -- groups of people that worship religions other than the |
6 | Christian religion or the Jewish religion -- and trappings of |
7 | the occult -- I'm not quite sure what that means -- but I know |
8 | it was in the Dale Griffis testimony. |
9 | A. Right. |
10 | Q. I read in the Arkansas Supreme Opinion that it was |
11 | the theory of defense on behalf of Mr. Echols that this |
14 | on that? |
15 | A. I believe that's correct. |
16 | Q. Was there a -- a ruling -- any ruling of the Court that |
17 | restricted you from asking prospective jurors what beliefs they |
18 | had about the activities of so-called occult groups? Did the |
19 | Court restrict you from going into that on voir dire? |
20 | A. I believe hat there was a Motion in Limine that had been |
21 | Filed on behalf of Mr. Baldwin's lawyers dealing with the |
22 | Occult questions. We were not directly a part of that. That |
23 | was done at one of the pretrial hearings. So-- and think |
24 | the Judge had made a ruling and related to the occult questions |
25 | in connection with that. But as far as -- I don't recall -- I |
|
665
|
1 | don't think the day of our voir dire the Judge restricting us |
2 | specifically on any -- any of these areas. |
3 | Q. Assume for me hypo -- with me hypothetically because the |
4 | record will speak for itself. I'm not -- I'm not trying to |
5 | test your memory. So assume hypothetically that the record |
6 | reflects that at the voir dire portion of the trial on behalf |
7 | of Mr. Echols, you and Mr. Davidson did not ask the jurors Of |
8 | any prior knowledge of so-called satanic groups or practices. |
9 | That would have been a decision the lawyers made, not a |
10 | consequence of any Order or ruling imposed by the Court. |
11 | A. Yes sir |
12 | Q. And -- and continuing, assuming the hypothetical. If |
13 | there was no questioning of prospective jurors about someone |
14 | named Allister Crowley and someone named Anton Lavey, that |
15 | would have been a result of the decision of the lawyer, not |
16 | some rule imposed by the Court? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. And if you didn't ask anyone on the panel if they had any |
19 | knowledge of so-called cults or occult groups existing within |
20 | (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) of the court, that would be a decision that |
21 | the lawyer made, not a consequence of something the Judge |
22 | examined? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. How as a strategic decision did it help Damien Echols |
25 | defend his presumption of innocence and ultimately argue for |
|
666
|
1 | a finding of not guilty for you to seat a jury without asking |
2 | anyone on the panel their knowledge or thoughts about these |
3 | subjects.-- Allister Crowley, Anton Lavey, Satan worship, |
4 | cults, the occult -- how as a strategic matter did it help |
5 | Damien Echols for you to leave that out of jury selection |
6 | entirely? |
7 | A. Well, first of all, at that time, we didn't know exactly |
8 | what the state's evidence was gonna be concerning those issues. |
9 | Dr. Griffis -- you know, we had -- we were not aware of Dr. |
10 | Griffis at that point. We were not aware of what his testimony |
11 | was gonna be at that point. In addition, the -- there was the |
12 | testimony that came in about the -- during the trial about the |
13 | writings that -- I believe that Damien had -- some writing that |
14 | was found in his personal items at the jail and -- I forget, it |
15 | was either Lavey or Crowley's name was on that. That was |
16 | evidence we were not aware of until we got into the trial. You |
17 | know, we decided not to ask the -- the Jury about those areas. |
18 | Q. I'm not clear on your answer, so I'm gonna break it down a |
19 | little bit. |
20 | A. Sure |
21 | Q. xxx saying that the state's possession of the exhibits |
22 | that they xxxx and admitted to trial was withheld from you |
23 | until during the trial as to the exhibits with the writings of |
24 | Crowley and Lavey? |
25 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. |
|
667
|
1 | Q. Were they under some rule of open discovery or disclosure |
2 | that allowed them to withhold these materials until during the |
3 | trial? |
4 | A. Were they -- were they -- repeat your question. |
5 | Q. Were -- were they acting in accordance with the rules of |
6 | pretrial discovery in your case? |
7 | A. No, sir. |
8 | Q. All right. So they surprised you with some stuff -- |
9 | A. Right. |
10 | Q. -- that should have been disclosed? |
11 | A. That's correct. |
12 | Q. All right. And then a second subject introduced by your |
13 | answer a moment ago about, we didn't know what the state of |
14 | the evidence would be, makes me want to know: Did you decide |
15 | before the trial that you wanted all of this material in so |
16 | that you could refute it? |
17 | A. Not necessarily. I mean, we thought their theory that |
18 | this was a satanic killing was ludicrous, and part of their |
19 | theory was -- and this goes back to what Griffis had testified |
20 | xxxxxxxxxx satanic killing because the Satanists clean |
21 | everything up at the crime. And we thought the fact that |
22 | there was xxxxx at the crime scene -- the difference between |
23 | deductive and inductive reasoning. We didn't think that by |
24 | asking a lot of questions about what people think of the occult |
25 | -- you know -- we didn't think anyone would -- would give us an |
|
668
|
1 | answer that they're favorable -- they're in favor of the |
2 | occult, and we didn't know exactly what evidence would be |
3 | coming in during the trial. And so -- so that's why we didn't |
4 | ask the questions of the jury about the occult. |
5 | Q. Did you have any rulings from this Court excluding you |
6 | from letting this in as part of your defense of Damien Echols? |
7 | A. No, sir. |
8 | Q. All right. So you wanted it to come in pretrial and you |
9 | had no order excluding it from coming in pretrial? |
10 | A. Well, I mean, you're -- you're lumping -- which evidence |
11 | are you referring to? |
12 | Q. Evidence about satanic worship, occult groups. |
13 | A. Well, I mean, some -- some of that evidence that came in |
14 | during the trial we objected to. There was the group evidence |
15 | that -- that writing -- I believe the -- I'll kind of break it |
16 | -- there was some items that -- I think the writings of Mr. |
17 | Echols two years before that were found in his room, we |
18 | objected to those during the trial based -- based on relevancy. |
19 | There was some other items that came in that were about a year |
20 | prior to trial and objected to those when they come -- came |
21 | in also as is relevancy because it was our theory that items |
22 | that xxxxxx had in his possession a year or two before the |
23 | murders were not relevant to the motives of killing somebody |
24 | two years later. |
25 | Q. Maybe we're not communicating. |
|
669
|
1 | I mean you're referring to the satanic evidence which is |
2 | --- |
3 | Q. Iím trying to figure out if you wanted it in pretrial and |
4 | then chose to not voir dire the jury on it. |
5 | A. Well, there's different -- I mean, you're talking about |
6 | evidence in general. There's a -- there's a bunch of evidence |
7 | in there. I mean -- |
8 | Q. Any evidence. Did you want any of that evidence in |
9 | pretrial? |
10 | A. Some evidence -- some evidence we did. Some evidence we |
11 | didn't . |
12 | Q. And what is the reason -- the tactical reason that helps |
13 | Damien Echols that you did not qualify the jury -- the jury as |
14 | to that evidence of the so-called occult -- whatever that is |
15 | -- and satanic worship -- whatever that is -- this -- this body |
16 | of what I consider to be vague and amorphous but very |
17 | prejudicial and inflammatory material. Was there some |
18 | strategic advantage to Damien Echols advanced by not asking |
19 | prospective jurors their feelings on those subjects? |
20 | A. Repeat the question |
21 | Q. Yes xxxxing it that is the case as we read in the |
22 | Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion that you wanted this material |
23 | --material in about cults, the occult, and Satanism, was there |
24 | some reason-- |
25 | A. Well, I mean, that -- that's not correct. Because as I |
|
670
|
1 | Just stated in my earlier answer, we did object to some of that |
2 | evidence as it was coming in. So that's -- that's not correct. |
3 | Pretrial what did you want in -- what was your theory of |
4 | the case relating to this material? Did you want to keep it |
5 | out, or did you want it in? |
6 | A. It depended what evidence they were gonna put forth. |
7 | Q. You hadn't decided on your theory of the case at time of |
8 | jury selection. Is that what you're saying? |
9 | A. No, that's not what I'm saying either. We didn't know |
10 | specifically what evidence they would be admitting, what |
11 | evidence they would not be admitting, we--they had a book |
12 | that talked ---that was given to law enforcement officers in |
13 | dealing with investigation of satanic cases that had on the' |
14 | back cover of it, you know, this is only for law enforcement |
15 | officers, don't release this book to the general public. And |
16 | that was evidence that we thought would be favorable because we |
17 | thought that was absurd to have something that the police could |
18 | read but not the general public. |
19 | Q. You knew about that pretrial? |
20 | A. No I think that specific book came--we--we weren't |
21 | aware of that until the trial got rolling |
22 | xxxxxxx what evidence did you anticipate the jury would |
23 | hear on the subject of the occult or Satanism or anything |
24 | within what I would call the non-Christian, non-Judeo Christian |
25 | traditions? What did you anticipate? |
|
671
|
1 | A. We anticipated that there would be the eighteen questions |
2 | that were asked by the off -- the law enforcement officers with |
3 | almost every witness that they interviewed, and there were two |
4 | or thro -- two or three questions in that group dealing with |
5 | Satanism and the occult and we anticipated that -- that |
6 | evidence would be -- that they would be bringing that in |
7 | because we knew that they -- they had asked those questions of |
8 | almost anybody that was interviewed. |
9 | Q. All right. At least that much and then anything that came |
10 | out as a result of that? |
11 | A. Right. |
12 | All right, there some strategic reason that would |
13 | assist Damien Echols' defense that you neglected or Chose to |
14 | not ask the prospective Jurors their feelings on that subject |
15 | that was embodied within those questions you just described? |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. What was the reason? |
18 | A. We -- we decided not to ask 'em those questions. |
19 | Q. For what reason? |
20 | A. ëCause we didn't think it was important at that time |
21 | Q. xxxxxx I promise you I wouldn't test your memory and |
22 | xxxxxxxxxx approach it that way: In this whole discussion that |
23 | we had in the previous proceeding where we talked about the |
24 | contract with Home Box Office, there was a question left |
25 | pending, and I don't know if you've had a chance to look -- |
|
672
|
1 | look it up yet. I -- the question left pending was: Were you |
2 | ever shown the questions that Damien Echols was going to be |
3 | asked in advance? I think your answer was, ìI'm not sure. We |
4 | could look that up." |
5 | Have you had a chance to look that up? |
6 | A. No, sir. |
7 | Q. Okay. I'll stay away from that if you didn't -- as I say, |
8 | I thought maybe we had an answer by now. |
9 | Oh, and another related question is: Is it your view that |
10 | Home Box Office today still owes for the trust account of Mr. |
11 | Davidson twenty-five hundred dollars to Damien Echols? |
12 | Yes, sir. |
13 | Q. Let me go on to a different topic. |
14 | THE COURT: As long as it's not vague and |
15 | amorphous. |
16 | MR. MALLETT: How do you spell amorphous, your |
17 | Honor? |
18 | THE COURT: I don't know. |
19 | MR. DAVIS: It doesn't matter, your Honor, the |
20 | prosecutor doesn't know what it means. (LAUGHTER.) |
21 | MR. MALLETT: I think it's a form of Grecian urn |
23 | THE COURT: Well, you used it. |
24 | MR. MALLETT: -- used to store the ashes of a |
25 | dead -- |
|
673
|
1 | THE COURT REPORTER: He shouldn't be using |
2 | it if he doesn't know how to spell it. (LAUGHTER.) |
3 | THE COURT: Lord, I wouldn't be able to speak if |
4 | I had to spell everything. |
5 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
6 | Q. Going back to our Amended Petition. I am looking to |
7 | assist the state at Section B, Topic Number Eight which is on |
8 | page four. The subject is Michael Carson. Now that I've had a |
9 | chance to read the transcript of the testimony of the trial at |
10 | least once, I gleaned that Mr. Carson had been a client of |
11 | yours in a juvenile proceeding before the time that you were |
12 | appointed to represent Mr. Echols. |
13 | A. Yes, sir. |
14 | Q. Is that right? |
15 | A. That's correct. |
16 | Q. Was there ever a time that you discussed the prior |
17 | representation of the state's witness, Michael Carson, with Mr. |
18 | Damien Echols with a view to determining whether he would -- |
19 | Mr. Echols would waive any appearance of a conflict of interest |
20 | that might exist from a jury-- if a jury heard that you had |
21 | been a counsel for a stateís witness? |
22 | A. I don't know if I specifically discussed that with |
23 | Damien or not. |
24 | Q. I would like to indicate to you that -- I believe the |
25 | record will bear me out -- that when the subject came up and |
|
674
|
1 | was mentioned for the first time to Judge David Burnett who was |
2 | presiding and he heard this for the first time, there was a |
3 | representation made that Mr. Scott Davidson would cross examine |
4 | Mr. Carson. Do you recall something like that happening? |
5 | A. Recall -- |
6 | Q. Telling Judge Burnett that Scott -- |
7 | A. -- that conversation or Mr. Davidson -- |
8 | Q. -- Davidson -- about telling Judge Burnett that Scott |
9 | Davidson would cross examine Mr. Carson? |
10 | A. I recall -- yes, sir. |
11 | Q. And do you recall then that Mr. Davidson, in fact, did not |
12 | cross examine Mr. Carson, and there were no question asked of |
13 | Mr. Carson? |
14 | A. That's correct. |
15 | Q. Were you then within your mind possessed of information |
16 | that could have been used if it were permitted to impeach Mr. |
17 | Carson and make it appear that he is a person less likely than |
18 | the average law abiding and honest citizen to tell the truth |
19 | under oath? Did you have any impeachment material known to |
20 | you ? |
21 | A. xxxxxx? |
22 | Q. xxxxxxxxxxx asking you what it was |
23 | A. I don't believe so. We -- we decided not to cross examine |
24 | Michael Carson. |
25 | Q. Was that the reason that you chose not to cross examine |
|
675
|
1 | Michael Carson in part that you were not permitted by the Order |
2 | Of the court to call the probation officer, Mr. Danny Williams? |
3 | A. No, sir |
4 | Q. Did you speak to Mr. Williams about what his testimony |
5 | might be if he were permitted to testify? |
6 | A. Yes, sir. |
7 | Q. And so you did have some idea of what his testimony would |
8 | be if he were allowed to testify? |
9 | A. Yes, sir. |
10 | Q. And if I may be so bold, as one who has never spoken to |
11 | Danny Williams but has read the record in the case was the |
12 | essence of that testimony -- potential testimony --as followers |
13 | Everything Michael Carson knew he learned from Danny Williams? |
14 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. |
15 | Q. Were you barred then from presenting the testimony that |
16 | Mr. Carson was testifying to what he heard from Danny Williams |
17 | by the Arkansas rule that the communications with a juvenile |
18 | officer are confidential? Is that what barred Mr. Williams |
19 | from putting on that testimony? |
20 | A. We never saw Mr. Williams' testify. Mr. Baldwin's lawyers |
21 | did xxxxxxxxx Carson's testimony was not admissible against |
22 | Mr. Echols and therefore, we made the tactical decision not to |
23 | cross examine him, nor to seek an impeachment of -- by Mr. |
24 | Williams. |
25 | THE COURT: I think I gave a cautionary |
|
676
|
1 | instruction to the jury that -- that Carson's |
2 | testimony was not applicable to Mr Echols but |
3 | applied to Mr Baldwin I believe the record will |
4 | reflect that. |
5 | And, also, in -- in -- we conducted a hearing on |
6 | the probation officer's testimony, I think out of the |
7 | presence of the jury because -- the record should |
8 | show tender or at least an in camera hearing with him |
9 | giving testimony. |
10 | MR. MALLETT: I -- I suspect that's where I got |
11 | the essence of -- of what he would have had to say if |
12 | the jury could have heard it. That's probably where |
13 | I got it from, your Honor. |
14 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
15 | Q. Do I understand then that -- that your recollection is |
16 | that you made what we call a strategic decision. You would |
17 | rather rely on the Court's limiting instruction -- which was |
18 | one choice -- than the alternate choice of disputing Mr. Carson |
19 | and saying, Mr. Carson, you're a liar. Baldwin never said that |
20 | to you |
21 | A. Yes |
22 | Q. You were not limited by Judge Burnett from attacking |
23 | Michael Carson. That's a decision that you made, correct -- to |
24 | leave Mr. Carson unimpeached at least by Mr. -- the team of |
25 | Mr. Davidson and Mr. Price -- that's a decision that you made? |
|
677
|
1 | Yeah, that -- yes, sir, definitely. |
2 | Q. Do you believe as a practicing trial lawyer with |
3 | considerable experience in the courts that generally it's |
4 | better to rely on a -- that a jury will follow a limiting |
5 | instruction and that that is a better strategic decision than |
6 | -- hypothetically -- just destroying a witness and saying -- |
7 | showing he's a complete liar? |
8 | A. It -- it depends. I mean, generally it's better to |
9 | destroy the witness if you can do that. |
10 | Q. And if that could be done, and if it were -- and if that |
11 | could be done, but it relied upon the testimony of the juvenile |
12 | probation officer, Mr. Williams, then that attack would have |
13 | been restricted because of a law in Arkansas protecting the |
14 | confidentiality of communications with a juvenile officer. So |
15 | -- fair statement? |
16 | A. Well, not exact -- number one, Danny Williams officially |
17 | was not a juvenile officer. He worked with the Juvenile Courts |
18 | as a drug abuse counselor. But he was not a quote juvenile |
19 | probation or Juvenile intake officer. I mean -- |
20 | Q. Well then is there a privilege afforded communications to |
21 | drug abuse counselors? |
22 | A. xxxxxxxx think that's ---that was what -- the basis of it |
23 | was. |
24 | Q. Fine. So that what you were restricted by and this |
25 | balancing decision you had to make as a trial lawyer, whether |
|
678
|
1 | to rely on a limiting instruction or whether to go after the |
2 | witness and try to destroy him -- |
3 | A. Go after -- go after Carson or Danny Williams? |
4 | Q. To go after Carson. |
5 | A. Go after Carson. |
6 | Q. Your -- your -- your tool of destruction, in effect, was a |
7 | privileged communication which you could not use -- you were |
8 | restricted by the Arkansas privilege from using that weapon? |
9 | A. I mean -- yes, sir. But -- but we were able -- I mean, we |
10 | felt we are able to get the best of both worlds. I gave my |
11 | file on -- notes about Carson to Baldwin's lawyers, and they |
12 | were able to use that to try to cross examine Mr. Baldwin |
13 | try to cross examine Carson. So we were able to have co- |
14 | counsel cross examine him because we didn't want to emphasize |
15 | -- you know, we felt if we would get up and cross examine him |
16 | then the Judge may say, this evidence is admissible against |
17 | Mr. Davis (sic). So that's why -- the outline that I prepared I |
18 | gave to Mr. Ford and Mr. Wadley and they used to cross examine |
19 | Mr. Carson. |
20 | Q. xxxxxxx referring in part to the materials that you |
21 | xxxxxxxxxxx you were Mr. Carson's lawyer? |
22 | A. xxxxxxxxrt yes, sir. |
23 | Q. So you took the materials that you accumulated while you |
24 | were Mr. Carson's lawyer and -- any |
25 | A. Well, no. No, sir. I'm-- I misspoke. I didn't have any |
|
679
|
1 | materials when I was Mr. Carson's attorney. After I was |
2 | appointed on this case I obtained an Order from the Probate |
3 | Judge up in Lawrence County to get a copy of the juvenile |
4 | record of Mr. Carson. And -- and so I got those after I had |
5 | represented him. |
6 | Q. You had knowledge about Mr. Carson -- |
7 | A. Yes, sir, I had -- |
8 | Q Because you had been his lawyer? |
9 | A. Thatís correct. Yes, sir. |
10 | Q. You used the knowledge you had about Mr. Carson because |
11 | you had been his lawyer, and acting on that knowledge you went |
12 | and sought documents? |
13 | A. Yes, sir. |
14 | Q. You give the documents that were derivative of your |
15 | knowledge of Mr. Carson for co-counsel to use in cross |
16 | examining Mr. Carson? |
17 | A. Well, co-counsel of the other co-defendant. |
18 | Q. Counsel for the other defendant. |
19 | A. Along with other material as well. |
20 | Q. And then did not cross examine Carson at all? |
21 | A. xxxxxx yes sir. Right. |
22 | Q. And were protected by the cross examination of counsel for |
23 | a co-defendant and by the limiting instruction? |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | Q. And Carson, therefore, was not cross examined by you or |
|
680
|
1 | Davidson-- |
2 | A. That's correct. |
3 | Q. It was a matter of decision -- |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. -- when he -- when he said, Jason Baldwin confessed to me |
6 | in great detail, right? |
7 | A. Correct. |
8 | MR. MALLETT: If I may retrieve a paper, your |
9 | Honor. |
10 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
11 | Q. On page four of our Amended Petition at paragraph nine, we |
12 | present a complaint relating to the testimony of Officer Ridge |
13 | about Mr. Misskelley's statement. On earlier proceedings it's |
14 | been agreed for this record -- and I think you were in the room |
15 | ---- that everyone available for jury service knew that |
16 | Misskelley had made a statement against penal interest. Were |
17 | you in the courtroom for some of that discussion? |
18 | A. Yes, sir. Right. I remember it. |
19 | Q. On page nine twenty-two you are asking the questions and |
20 | about xxx xxxx and at the bottom of nine twenty-two-- |
21 | MR. DAVIS: Could I ask what volume this is? |
22 | . MR. MALLETT: Yes, sir. If I could step over |
23 | and help -- |
24 | (MR. DAVIS AND MR. MALLETT CONFERRING. ) |
25 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
|
681
|
1 | Q. Very briefly to put this passage into context -- beginning |
2 | at the bottom of page nine twenty-two-- which is in volume |
3 | five -- you were questioning and there's a conversation about a |
4 | stick. And you asked on line twenty, ìSo that stick was not |
5 | the stick that was at the crime scene?" |
6 | And Officer Ridge answers, "Yes, it is the stick that was |
7 | at the crime scene. |
8 | ìQuestion. I guess I'm confused. At the time you did not |
9 | take that stick into evidence at the time that ya'll recovered |
10 | the bodies.î |
11 | Ridge answers, ìNo, sir. I didn't take this article into |
12 | evidence until the statement of Jesse Misskelley in which he |
13 | said" -- and at that point you are on your feet cutting him off |
14 | ---- |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. -- at the word "said" because we know what's coming next. |
17 | A. Right. |
18 | Q. Don't we -- as trial lawyers? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. You xxxxx. You moved for a mistrial. That's denied. |
21 | The bench is approached. there's a conversation outside the |
22 | jury, and at the end of the conversation outside |
23 | the hearing of the jury, the proceeding picks up again, and |
24 | ultimately the Court gives a limiting instruction. And I think |
25 | it's many pages over, approximately nine thirty-four, that |
|
682
|
1 | you're given-- the Court is giving a limiting instruction. |
2 | When you heard Mr. -- Officer Ridge come out with that |
3 | statement, --his statement -- "I didn't find the stick until |
4 | the statement of Jesse Misskelley in which he said" -- you, as |
5 | trial lawyer, knew that he was in violation of a Motion in |
6 | Limine restricting him from making any reference to the fact |
7 | that there had been a confess -- a statement against penal |
8 | interest by Jesse Misskelley. You were aware -- |
9 | A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. |
10 | Q. That's why you are objecting? |
11 | A. Correct. |
12 | Q. And you knew that you were doing everything you can-- |
13 | could under the circumstances to keep that out of the trial. |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. And you wanted that out of the trial because you wanted |
16 | your jury to have the evidence submitted to them as a body of |
17 | evidence in which there was nothing about Jesse Misskelley |
18 | making a confession? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. All right. As you heard Officer Ridge making that |
21 | argument--making that statement, and you're cutting him off, |
22 | you xxxx xxxxly objection and then you talked about it with |
23 | the court, did you believe that Officer Ridge was---back up-- |
24 | let me withdraw that and ask it this way. |
25 | You were aware as a lawyer who has handled appeals that an |
|
683
|
1 | intentional--- an intentional wrong by the state --whether |
2 | it's the prosecutor or the state's witness -- is reviewed for |
3 | error more favorably to the defendant than some accidental or |
4 | inadvertent statement. You knew that, did you not? |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
6 | Q. All right. Was there any strategic decision that in the |
7 | record of proceedings with Judge Burnett in assisting him in |
8 | making a ruling and fashioning a limiting instruction, was |
9 | there any strategic decision on your part that you never |
10 | argued, your Honor, Judge Ridge -- Officer Ridge is doing |
11 | intentionally. Was there any strategic reason that you would |
12 | not argue that? |
13 | A. Is that in the record that we did not argue that? |
14 | Q. Did not. |
15 | A. Okay. |
16 | Q. I -- I represent to you that you did not. The record will |
17 | speak for itself. |
18 | A. Okay. I mean, I could speculate. Maybe there was no way |
19 | to prove whether he was intentionally doing it or accidentally |
20 | made that statement. |
21 | Q. But that's speculation. You--there's no affirmative |
22 | strategic reason that with the jury out, you would choose to |
23 | omit the argument, your Honor he's doing this on purpose. |
24 | There's no strategic reason for that error -- |
25 | A. Probably not. |
|
684
|
1 | Q. --or absence of argument if it's not in the record, |
2 | correct? |
3 | A. Probably not. |
4 | Q. Let's go to a different topic. On page six at paragraph |
5 | twelve at the top -- for the state's assistance -- we introduce |
6 | now in our Amended Petition the subject of your prior |
7 | representation of a co-defendant of Mr. Mark Byers. |
8 | A. In a civil case? |
9 | Q. In a civil case. As I understand it, Mr. Byers and your |
10 | clients, Mr. and Mrs. Barnes, were sued in a civil case. |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. On the claim that they wrongly entered a business---that |
13 | was the claim? |
14 | A. Right. |
15 | Q. Their defense was they did not wrongly enter the business? |
16 | A. Correct. |
17 | Q. On the claim that they wrongly removed some property -- |
18 | A. Yes, sir. |
19 | Q. -- and their answer was that they did not wrongly remove |
20 | some property. |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. And Mr. Byers and your clients, the Barnes, had a common |
23 | defense which was, we didn't wrongly enter the business and we |
24 | didn't wrongly remove any property, right? |
25 | A. Initially, that's correct. Yes, sir. |
|
685
|
1 | Q. Okay. And Mr. Byers, I now understand better, in the |
2 | course of those proceedings moved himself into the jurisdiction |
3 | of the Bankruptcy Court, right? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. And in part as a result of him being -- of the stay issued |
6 | by the Bankruptcy Court on getting after any assets of his, the |
7 | plaintiff's lawyer dismissed him from the case? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. At that point, he becomes a very material witness he's |
10 | just no longer a party? |
11 | A Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. All right. And, in fact, in the proceedings that |
13 | happened, did you call Mr. Byers to testify as a witness in |
14 | favor of Mr. and Mrs. Barnes, your clients? |
15 | A. I know he ended up being a witness. I don't recall which |
16 | side called him. |
17 | Q. If the records of the civil proceeding reflect that he was |
18 | sponsored by you as a witness, you would have no quarrel with |
19 | that? |
20 | A. No sir. |
21 | Q. Was there ever a record made at any time of you telling |
22 | Damien Echols that you had been a counsel for Mr. Barnes who |
23 | was sued with Mr. Byers and that Mr. Byers was a witness on |
24 | behalf of the Barnes with whom he had been jointly sued? |
25 | Anything about -- in these proceedings -- about Damien Echols |
|
686
|
1 | knowing that you had a prior representation----as you did with |
2 | Michael Carson--- involving Mr. Byers in the same side of the |
3 | lawsuit? |
4 | A. You mean a ---record-- a court record? |
5 | Q. Well, I'll start with the court record, yes. |
6 | A. I mean, I don't -- I don't think there was anything |
7 | mentioned in court. |
8 | Q. Any written acknowledgment or receipt or any document that |
9 | you obtained from Mr. Echols promising that he wouldn't |
10 | complain about that in a later proceeding? |
11 | A. Oh, no, sir. No. |
12 | Q. Fine. And, of course, there is no indication in any |
13 | correspondence or document that you talked to Judge Burnett and |
14 | said, we have a theory of the case. Our theory of the case is |
15 | that it's possible -- it's possible that Mr. Byers is |
16 | criminally responsible and he's been a witness for the Barnes |
17 | family that I represented, and he's testified favorably for |
18 | them, and I know him. You never put that like on the record |
19 | for Judge Burnett? |
20 | A. I don't believe so. |
21 | Q. Among other things in that civil case, one thing that |
22 | occurred was a continuance was granted because Mr. Barnes (sic) |
23 | was complaining that he had tumors within his brain. |
24 | A. Right. |
25 | Q. You remember that, don't you? |
|
687
|
1 | A. Byers were complaining. |
2 | Q. Byers--Mr. Byers was complaining. |
3 | Q. You just said Mr. Barnes. |
4 | A. Well, I withdraw that. I misspoke. |
5 | A. Okay. Right, that's correct. |
6. | Q. No, your witness, Mr. Byers, had tumors. |
7 | In connection with anticipating calling him as a witness |
8 | in the criminal case in defense of Mr. Echols, did you make an |
9 | effort to get the medical records on Mr. Byers to see if it was |
10 | true that he had brain tumors? . |
11 | A. No, sir. |
12 | Q. Did you know in terms of sort of general knowledge that |
13 | the information that we trial lawyers and people in the public |
14 | who are not lawyers learn that from time to time a massive |
15 | brain tumor is found as associated with bizarre and violent |
16 | conduct? Is that something you knew back in 1993 and ninety- |
17 | four? |
18 | A. I probably had some general knowledge of that. |
19 | Q. Do you know for example this is the -- I think it's the |
20 | twenty fifth or thirtieth anniversary this year of Charles |
21 | xxxxx xxxxng to the top of the University of Texas tower -- |
22 | A. Yes, sir. |
23 | Q. --and shooting up everybody on the ground as well as some |
24 | of the observers there at the top level? You read about that |
25 | in the newspaper in the last few days probably, didn't you? |
|
688
|
1 | A. Not the last few days. I was aware of that. |
2 | Q. And you know that when they -- when they did |
3 | his autopsy they found something the size of a walnut, at |
4 | least, in his head? |
5 | A. I wasn't aware of that, but -- |
6 | Q. Okay. He left a suicide note saying, I'd to have an |
7 | autopsy to see if there's something wrong with my brain. |
8 | A. Well, that's probably correct. |
9 | Q. So knowing that you would call Mr. Byers as a witness, and |
10 | knowing that Mr. Byers claimed to have a history of brain--- |
11 | brain tumors, what did you do to investigate Mr. Byers to |
12 | assist you in presenting the best possible case of the theory |
13 | that he had something to do with criminal responsibility for |
14 | this tragedy? Did you do anything? |
15 | A. Well, you asked me, did we get his medical records. No, |
16 | we did not. |
17 | Q. Did you do any -- what -- what investigation did you |
18 | conduct? |
19 | A. Conduct on Mr. Byers? |
20 | Q. Yes |
21 | A. In general? |
22 | Q. Yes. |
23 | A. I mean, we investigated him thoroughly. We -- we talked |
24 | to prior business associates of his in West Memphis. We got as |
25 | much information as we could on Mr. Byers. |
|
689
|
1 | Q. Did you learn that he had some sort of conviction for a |
2 | terroristic threat? |
3 | A. Was that the one at Marked Tree? |
4 | Q. In 1987? |
5 | A. Is that the one in Marked Tree? |
6 | Q. Yes. |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. Did you introduce that for the ladies and gentlemen of the |
9 | jury in Mr. -- restate it. |
10 | Q. Was there some tactical reason you didn't tell the ladies |
11 | and gentlemen of the jury about that in Mr. Echols' defense? |
12 | A. I believe -- believe that was in the Marked Tree Municipal |
13 | Court -- if I'm not mistaken -- and I don't -- and Municipal-- |
14 | I don't think that would have been admissible as impeachmentó |
15 | a misdemeanor conviction. |
16 | Q. Would it be admissible as 404(b) ñ circumstantial |
17 | evidence? |
18 | A. I don't believe so. It may have been. |
19 | Q. You're -- you're aware that defense lawyers can offer |
20 | evidence under rule 404(b)? |
21 | A. xxxx xxxx aware of 404(b), yes sir. |
22 | Q. xxxxs-- was the defense-- itís not limited to the |
23 | prosecution, but the defense counsel can also introduce |
24 | evidence of knowledge, plans, scheme, repetition, that sort of |
25 | thing? |
|
690
|
1 | A. Intent, motive, yes, sir. |
2 | Q. All right. This is sort of gruesome, but at the time that |
3 | you decided that you would call Mr. Byers as a witness, did you |
4 | know that Mr. Byers had made allegations that certain evidence |
5 | of the body of his son had been found in Mr. Echols' home? |
6 | Were you aware he had said that to newspaper or television |
7 | reporters? |
8 | A. I believe I was aware of that. |
9 | Q. Is there any reason -- any strategic reason that you would |
10 | not bring that out in Mr. Echols' defense? |
11 | A. Well, I don't think there was any basis for that. |
12 | Q. Oh, you mean, it was -- you knew about it and you believed |
13 | it was a lie, correct? |
14 | A. Well, I don't believe there were any body -- I think he |
15 | was complaining that his body parts were at Damien's house or |
16 | something of that nature. And there wasn't any -- none of that |
17 | was found at his house. |
18 | Q. So you knew that he had made statements that were not true |
19 | relating to the case, right? |
20 | A. Yes, sir. |
21 | Q. Is there some strategic reason you didn't tell the jury |
22 | that he had made false statements relating to the case? |
23 | A. We decided not to ask it. |
24 | Q. Can you articulate any strategic basis for deciding not to |
25 | ask that? |
|
691
|
1 | A. The gut feeling of cross examination. |
2 | Q. Is that a decision you made at the time, or is that what |
3 | you now think you might have been thinking at the time? Do you |
4 | have a present recollection that you decided, I don't want the |
5 | jury to know that he's been lying about this case because of my |
6 | gut telling me the jury won't want to know that he's been lying |
7 | about the case? |
8 | A. I mean, I don't specifically remember -- you know, that -- |
9 | making any conscious decision to ask that question or not ask |
10 | that question. |
11 | THE COURT: Is this a good point for a recess? |
12 | MR. MALLETT: Very well, your Honor. |
13 | THE COURT: All right, court will be in recess |
14 | for ten minutes. |
15 | ( RECESS. ) |
16 | (RETURN TO OPEN COURT. ) |
17 | THE COURT: All right, Court will be in session. |
18 | MR. MALLETT: May I continue, your Honor? |
19 | THE COURT: Yes, sir. |
20 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
21 | xxxxxxxx some supplemental comments on a new topic. Iím |
22 | on page xxx number one. We have already heard the testimony |
23 | in this Rule 37 proceeding about Doctor Moneypenny and his |
24 | testimony, and I believe that the state of the record now is |
25 | that you wanted Doctor Moneypenny to testify to help sustain a |
|
692
|
1 | mitigating Circumstance under the Arkansas Code. I wrote down |
2 | the whole code here -- I wrote it down. Sections 5.4-6048(c) |
3 | but for brevity, we'll just call it the Arkansas Death Penalty |
4 | law. Do you now know what we're talking about? |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
6 | Q. And under that death penalty law, there is a set of |
7 | aggravating circumstances that a jury may look for in the |
8 | evidence at the punishment stage of a capital case, correct? |
9 | A. Correct. |
10 | Q. And a set of mitigating circumstances? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. And under the charge of the Court, the jury is invited to |
13 | weigh the aggravating circumstances and weigh the mitigating |
14 | circumstances if they are found on either side of the ledger in |
15 | arriving at a verdict. |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. And I believe under the Arkansas scheme as instructed by |
18 | Judge Burnett, they are told that if they find that the |
19 | aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating |
20 | circumstances they shall impose the death penalty. Is that -- |
21 | xxxxxxxxxxx |
22 | xxxxxx the instruction our jury was given under the |
23 | law. |
24 | MR. DAVIS: No, sir, your Honor, I don't think |
25 | that -- I don't think that's an accurate statement of |
|
693
|
1 | the law. |
2 | MR. MALLETT: I don't want to get into a quarrel |
3 | what I think is a preliminary matter. The record |
4 | will reflect how the jury was instructed and I -- I |
5 | don't -- I cannot really debate it on what Arkansas |
6 | law says, so I'll restate my question. |
7 | THE COURT: Well, the record should reflect that |
8 | I read verbatim the instructions provided by Arkansas |
9 | Rules of Criminal Instructions whatever -- whatever |
10 | the language is. That's what I read. |
11 | Now, if the record reflects otherwise, then |
12 | we've got a problem because I read it exactly as it |
13 | came out of the instructions. |
14 | MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, what I was noting was |
15 | the statement was made that if aggravating factors |
16 | outweigh mitigating factors, then the jury is to find |
17 | for a sentence of death, and under Arkansas law that |
18 | leaves out a step, which is, if the Jury determines |
19 | -- the Jury has to determine beyond a reasonable |
20 | doubt that the facts and circumstances of the case |
21 | xxx the imposition of the death penalty, and thatís |
22 | xxxxxxx |
23 | THE COURT: Three steps. |
24 | MR. DAVIS: -- and that's the additional step |
25 | that's been left out in his description. |
|
694
|
1 | THE COURT: The third one, I tell the jury that |
2 | regardless of whether or not the aggravating |
3 | circumstances are found to outweigh the mitigation |
4 | that they may still, if they deem it appropriate, |
5 | return a verdict of life without parole -- words to |
6 | that effect. I'm not attempting to read the |
7 | instruction but whatever it -- however it's worded, I |
8 | followed the law. |
9 | MR. MALLETT: I'm not disputing that. |
10 | Could I have just one second? |
11 | THE COURT: Sure. |
12 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
13 | Q. What I wanted to get your attention on ñ and I appreciate |
14 | the Court helping me state the law correctly so it's not |
15 | misstated in this record -- what I wanted to get your attention |
16 | on was your earlier testimony that the testimony of Doctor |
17 | Moneypenny was helpful because the Jury found a mitigating |
18 | factor. Do you recall that testimony? I'm trying to take you |
19 | there in your previous testimony. |
20 | A. You mean today or - - |
21 | Q. xxxx earlier hearings back on the ñ probably September |
22 | xxx June nine, excuse me, June nine. |
23 | A. I mean, I remember some of the earlier testimony. |
24 | Q. Well, let me kind of back up this way then. You |
25 | called Doctor Moneypenny? |
|
695
|
1 | Q. He testified? |
2 | A. Yes, sir. |
3 | Q. He had with him a large volume of materials that he had |
4 | been given to review relating to the history of Damien Echols? |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
6 | Q. Had you read all of those materials yourself before he was |
7 | called to testify? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. So you knew -- at least in a general sense as well as any |
10 | ordinary person could remember -- the contents of those |
11 | materials that he took with him to the witness stand? |
12 | A. Yes, sir. |
13 | Q. It is the case that in considering what weight to give |
14 | Doctor Moneypenny's testimony a jury could also consider |
15 | whether from Doctor Moneypenny's testimony they can infer |
16 | aggravating circumstances, correct? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. The jury is not limited to considering Doctor Moneypenny |
19 | as a mitigation witness simply -- |
20 | A. xxxxx xxhatís ñ |
21 | Q. xxxx xxxx heís called by the defense, right? |
22 | A. xxxx with that. |
23 | Q. That under skillful cross examination, a witness can be |
24 | turned into a witness for the other side, correct? |
25 | A. Yes, sir. |
|
696
|
1 | Q. Like in this case, they asked Doctor Moneypenny whether |
2 | someone ever said to Damien Echols, you could be compared with |
3 | Charles Manson and Ted Mondy -- Bundy, right? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Damien Echols never said, I want to be Charles Manson or |
6 | Ted Bundy. That's nowhere in his records, right? |
7 | A. I believe that's correct. |
8 | Q. But the records that you read had some third party making |
9 | some off-hand comment to him ñ |
10 | A. Right. |
11 | -- and scribbling it down in the report, right? |
12 | A. Right. |
13 | Q. So that would be complete hearsay, right? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. Right. And now when that testimony came in, you'll recall |
16 | you made no objection to it? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. Was there some tactical reason -- was there some tactical |
19 | reason that in determining the presence or absence of |
20 | aggravating factors relating to Damien Echols you wanted the |
21 | xxxx xxx that a third party never called as a witness or |
22 | xxxx xxx made a comment in some psychological records? |
23 | A. That testimony wasn't an aggravator. |
24 | Q. You haven't -- you can't read minds, right? |
25 | A. That testimony wasn't an aggravating circumstance. If |
|
697
|
1 | youíll look at the sev -- I think he was either eight or nine |
2 | at the time -- that testimony does not go to any of those |
3 | aggravators. |
4 | Q. Well -- |
5 | A. Look -- look at the statutory aggravators and go down that |
6 | list. It doesn't go to any of those listed. |
7 | Q. Was there -- |
8 | A. So, no, it was not admissible towards an aggravator. |
9 | Q. Was it a statutory aggravating circumstance that the |
10 | defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in committing a murder? |
11 | A. Look to see exactly when was -- if you look at the |
12 | aggravator about -- I need to look at the Criminal Code. There |
13 | was -- I can't remember exactly if -- if at the time we had |
14 | that -- I believe it's -- I don't know if it's seven, eight, or |
15 | nine -- it's one of those aggravators about the -- the cruel |
16 | and heinous nature -- I don't recall exactly when that was |
17 | passed. |
18 | Q. Well, was it an aggravating circumstance for a jury to |
19 | find that a murder was committed in an especially cruel and |
20 | depraved manner? |
21 | A. xxxx xxx passed at the time of our trial? |
22 | Q. xxx xxx the reason I think it was is that Iím reading from Echols |
23 | versus State, 23 the Opinion of the Arkansas Supreme |
24 | Court. |
25 | A. Okay. |
|
698
|
1 | Q. Which is published at 936 S.W.2d 509, and at 36 Ark. 326 |
2 | Ark. Reports 917. |
3 | A. Okay. |
4 | Q. And I'm reading here, ìEchols contends that the statute is |
5 | vague because the jury can find an aggravating circumstance |
6 | upon finding that a murder was committed in an especially cruel |
7 | and depraved manner.î |
8 | A. All right. |
9 | Q. So for the reason that you raised this argument in your |
10 | appeal -- |
11 | A. Okay. |
12 | Q. -- I must assume that that was the law in the State of |
13 | Arkansas -- |
14 | A. That -- that -- then that's correct. |
15 | Q. -- at the time. |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. Well-- |
18 | A. Now, repeat the original question. |
19 | Q. Do you believe that statements -- hearsay statements that |
20 | a third party makes in comparison between Echols on the one |
21 | hand and Tom Bundy and Charles Manson on the other hand, could |
22 | be xxxx aggravating factor? |
23 | A. Is that an aggravator? No, sir. |
24 | Q. In your judgment. |
25 | A. Yes, sir. You're asking me the question. Because those |
|
699
|
1 | were statements made -- that conversation with Mr. Echols |
2 | occurred prior to the murders. The conversation that you're |
3 | talking about in the record there was with a -- some type of |
4 | mental health counselor sometime prior -- I don't recall the |
5 | exact date -- I'm sure it's in the records -- prior to the |
6 | murders and something that Damien said -- somebody asking him |
7 | and making reference to Charles Manson a year or two years |
8 | prior to the murders, I don't think goes to an aggravator that |
9 | he committed a crime that -- a cruel and heinous nature in a |
10 | murder committed two years later. |
11 | Q. Would you believe that the statements attributed to him in |
12 | this hearsay ñ so your ñ your contention is that the hearsay |
13 | was desirable, and you wanted it in, and it was not |
14 | objectionable because of helping some way? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. And how did it help defend the life of Damien Echols |
17 | having been found guilty of capital murder -- |
18 | A. It goes to-- |
19 | Q. -- for a jury to know that an unidentified third party |
20 | made this comparison? |
21 | A. It xxxx his mental state. When somebody such as Damien |
22 | goes to see a mental health counselor, you donít talk about how |
23 | wonderful things are. You talk about problems you're having. |
24 | And so the mental health counselor's comparisons to Ted Bundy |
25 | or Charles Manson -- you know, that's what you do in counseling |
|
700
|
1 | -- you talk about problems that you're having. And this took |
2 | place prior to the murders so that -- and -- but I do think it |
3 | goes toward what his mental state is. And if we would have |
4 | not put on the mitigating factor towards -- on -- and not tried |
5 | -- tried not to put on any mitigation towards his mental health |
6 | condition, I think that -- that would have been a bigger |
7 | blunder than -- than the way we did it. And I think we would |
8 | have been ineffective -- if we would not have put on evidence |
9 | of his mental health state, I think we would have been |
10 | ineffective. And, therefore, by doing that, I donít think we |
11 | were ineffective. |
12 | Q. So you thought it was good to put on evidence that a |
13 | party made this comparison or made some comment or another? |
14 | A. Yes, sir, because that was contained in five hundred pages |
15 | of records that was reviewed by Doctor Moneypenny who was our |
16 | mitigation expert to his mental health condition. |
17 | Q. And you did not see that various -- the declarations |
18 | elicited by the state on cross as supporting any of the |
19 | aggravating considerations under the Arkansas death penalty law |
20 | as then written? |
21 | A. No, sir. I donít think they were admissible as to the |
22 | cruel and heinous nature aggravator. Now, as far as did they |
23 | hurt in general, yes. I think that was -- that was bad |
24 | evidence that was coming out, and on mitigation is the only |
25 | time in a trial where a lawyer purposefully puts on bad stuff. |
|
701
|
1 | We are trained -- Motion to Suppress -- throw out evidence-- |
2 | exclude evidence -- object to evidence. On mitigation you |
3 | purposefully put on bad stuff to try to prove -- a good |
4 | mitigator to try to save the life of your client. We -- there |
5 | -- there may have been some better wit -- we may should have |
6 | done a better job explaining that to the Jury. But as far as |
7 | the evidence itself, it -- there was a -- there was a strategic |
8 | reason why we put that evidence on. |
9 | Q. Well, there was no effort by you to explain the nature of |
10 | mitigation evidence to the jury during jury selection, correct? |
11 | A. Ah, that's correct. |
12 | Q. All right. And having a jury which has been qualified and |
13 | seated without any education or acceptance of the concept of |
14 | mitigation, you went forward. Tell me what you then considered |
15 | to be the definition -- a reasonable lay -- a reasonable |
16 | attorney's definition of what is mitigation evidence. |
17 | A. Mitigation evidence is any evidence pertaining to support |
18 | the -- saving the life of your client. |
19 | Q. Can you amplify that definition or enlarge on that |
20 | definition in any way? |
21 | A. In - to what extent? |
22 | Q. Well, to mitigate -- a moment ago you said that mitigation |
23 | evidence was bad information about your client. |
24 | A. Yes, sir. I mean, sometimes. I mean, sometimes it's good |
25 | and sometimes it's bad. |
|
702
|
1 | Q. So-- |
2 | A. In connection with this issue, yes, sir, the mental health |
3 | -- or the mental state aggravator -- mitigator, sometimes it |
4 | comes across as bad information, certainly. |
5 | Q. At the time of this trial, did Arkansas law provide as |
6 | aggravating factors that the offense was committed in an |
7 | especially depraved manner? Was that part of the law at the |
8 | time? |
9 | A. I'm trying -- we originally had one cruel and heinous -- |
10 | that was struck down, then they passed another one. I believe |
11 | that that's -- that's -- that was the -- the one ñ one of the |
12 | ones in effect at the time. |
13 | Q. And at the time, did an aggravating factor at that time |
14 | include a finding that a defendant on trial for capital murder |
15 | and convicted relishes the murder? |
16 | A. I believe that's part of the definition. |
17 | Q. And as another part of aggravating factor, may the jury |
18 | find a defendant was indifferent to the sufferings of the |
19 | victim? |
20 | A. I believe thatís part of it. |
21 | Q. And at the time, was it an aggravating factor that a jury |
23 | might find that the defendant evidenced a sense of pleasure in |
24 | committing the murder? |
24 | A. I believe that's part of it. |
25 | Q. When we think about mass murderers -- Charles Manson, the |
|
703
|
1 | murder of Sharon Tate the movie star and others -- and a leader |
2 | of a large group of people -- we're talking about multiple |
3 | murders by the leader of the so-called cult, right -- as |
4 | Charles Manson? |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
6 | Q. All right. Ted Bundy -- we're talking about a serial |
7 | murderer -- a person who killed several people -- |
8 | A. Right. |
9 | Q. -- over a period of years, right? |
10 | A. Certainly. |
11 | Q. So the hearsay comparison is with homicide of the worst |
12 | sort -- a leader of a group that commits mass homicide or a |
13 | person who commits homicide over a period of years, right? |
14 | A. Right. |
15 | Q. Those hearsay comparisons then are consistent with, are |
16 | they not, a suggestion that a defendant acted in an especially |
17 | depraved manner? Fair statement? |
18 | A. Could be. |
19 | Q. And they could be heard as suggestion that a defendant |
20 | relishes the murder? |
21 | A. Could be. |
22 | Q. Is indifferent to the sufferings of the victim? |
23 | A. Could be. |
24 | Q. And evidenced a sense of pleasure in committing the |
25 | murder? |
|
704
|
1 | A. Could be. |
2 | Q. So these" hearsay comparisons from an unnamed person could |
3 | be used as supporting findings of aggravating factors? |
4 | A. It could be. |
5 | Q. And of giving weight to those aggravating factors -- |
6 | weight to compare with the weight to be given any mitigating |
7 | factors? |
8 | A. Did the jury find that aggravator? |
9 | Q. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be smart here, but I don't |
10 | remember the record perfectly ñ |
11 | A. Okay. |
12 | Q. -- and I'm trying to ask the questions of the lawyer who |
13 | was there. So you could tell me. |
14 | A. I mean, I -- I don't -- let me look at the record and let |
15 | me see. |
16 | Q. Assume hypothetically that they found that the aggravating |
17 | factors outweighed the mitigating factors and in addition found |
18 | that they believed the death penalty should result. Okay, |
19 | assume that. |
20 | A. Okay |
21 | Q. When these hearsay declarations are declarations which may |
22 | have given weight on the aggravating side, right? |
23 | A. Could be. |
24 | Q. Okay. So your earlier statement then -- we have to |
25 | qualify-- your earlier statement that this testimony that we |
|
705
|
1 | allowed to be admitted in the cross examination of MoneyPenny |
2 | is testimony the we need to at least qualify ëcause we canít |
3 | read the minds of the jurors. |
4 | A. Could be. |
5 | Q. And the weighing process that we impose on the good |
6 | citizens who come down to serve on the juries -- including this |
7 | jury -- is a weighing -- is a thought process that we don't |
8 | invade, we don't evaluate, we don't read, in fact, we don't |
9 | even impeach 'em. If they have regrets afterwards -- |
10 | A. Could be. |
11 | Q. -- there's nothing they can do about it, right? |
12 | A. Could be. |
13 | Q. I mean, that's -- isn't that the law in Arkansas ñ itís a |
14 | law that I'm familiar with. In my state, at least, that a |
15 | jury that has regrets a week later can't come in and say, I've |
16 | changed my mind -- that's called impeaching a verdict. |
17 | A. Right. That's -- yes, sir. |
18 | Q. You have that law in Arkansas, don't you? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
21 | Q. All right. So-- so -- so the jury does the weighing, and |
22 | the lawyers donít know what weight they give to any particular |
23 | point in the body of evidence, correct? |
24 | A. Well, not necessarily. It depends if they find for that |
24 | aggravator or not. |
25 | Q. Do you think that it would be -- was it possible at the |
|
706
|
1 | time to have Doctor Moneypenny testify and object to these |
2 | hearsay declarations as not the declarations of the defendant |
3 | nor a medical diagnosis on which Doctor Moneypenny relied? |
4 | A. You're asking, could we have made an objection? |
5 | Q. Sure. |
6 | A. Sure, we could have made an objection. |
7 | Q. Is there, again, a strategic and tactical reason that you |
8 | wanted this hearsay comparison admitted, and you waived any |
9 | right to object? |
10 | A. Yes, sir. |
11 | Q. Is this another of your judgment calls from your gut as a |
12 | trial lawyer that it would weigh more heavily in mitigation |
13 | than in aggravation? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. In making that decision, you're relying on your previous |
16 | experience as a trial lawyer? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. And the state of the evidence at the time? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. And your feelings on that day? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. Did you have any other party advising you and Mr. Davidson |
23 | in making that decision? |
24 | A. To make that specific objection or not or -- |
25 | Q. Right. To decide whether to object to that hearsay about |
|
707
|
1 | a declaration made to Damien Echols by someone out of court. |
2 | A. I'd say just -- Mr. Davidson was the main one I conferred |
3 | with about objection. |
4 | Q. Did you tell Damien Echols, we have a Doctor Moneypenny |
5 | that we'd like to call as a mitigation expert but if we call |
6 | him and when we call him, we're going to want the jury to hear |
7 | about these comments that are in your records comparing you -- |
8 | according to some case worker -- to Manson and Bundy? Did -- |
9 | did you ever talk to your client about that? |
10 | A. I mean, I don't recall that specifically discussed -- |
11 | those statements. I -- I -- we discussed it in general about |
12 | Doctor Moneypenny testifying and about that Doctor Moneypenny |
13 | had his records. |
14 | Q. Let me go on to a different topic. There was an issue in |
15 | the trial -- I'm gonna turn my attention, if I may, to a |
16 | subject found on page seven discussing the topic of |
17 | constitutional ineffective assistance on appeal in paragraph |
18 | five relating to threats of communications to jurors. |
19 | Do you remember that during the trial it was reported by |
20 | the court that there had been some communica -- some informal |
21 | communication to members of the jury? |
22 | Yes, sir. |
23 | Do you recall the Court reported that the Court conducted |
24 | an informal and brief investigation of the content of those |
25 | threats? |
|
708
|
1 | A. Yes, sir. |
2 | Q. Was there a tactical reason that you did not request that |
3 | a record be made at which the lawyers could ask questions of |
4 | the jurors about the contents of these threats? Is there some |
5 | reason that you left it up to the Court to handle? |
6 | A. We decided it would be better for the Judge to ask the |
7 | questions than the individual lawyers. |
8 | Q. Is -- is that what you sort of reason now as probably your |
9 | state of mind? |
10 | A. Probably. |
11 | Q. If the record reflects on the record, no effort by the |
12 | attorneys to propose questions to the Judge, or to object to |
13 | the Judge's questions, or to ask the Judge to ask additional |
14 | questions, then the record would be complete. There were no |
15 | proceedings off the record related to this, were there? |
16 | A. Not that I'm aware of. |
17 | THE COURT: Wait a minute. There were but it |
18 | was after the fact. We conducted a hearing after -- |
19 | it might have been after judgment. There was |
20 | additional voir dire taken on the matter and the |
21 | record -- it should be in the record. Additional in |
22 | xxxx hearing. |
23 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
24 | Q. And if that record that was made after the fact reflects |
25 | questions by the Judge and a report by the Judge about what |
|
709
|
1 | went on, with no insistence by counsel that counsel conduct the |
2 | questioning, no objection to the questions the Court had asked, |
3 | and no suggestion that the Court ask additional questions, did |
4 | you discuss the threats among yourselves, then that record -- |
5 | THE COURT: Mr. Mallett -- Mr. Mallett, it was |
6 | done after the fact, and the individual jurors were |
7 | all polled by defense counsel and the Court in |
8 | camera, in chambers, regarding whether or not threats |
9 | affected their ability to reason, rational and return |
10 | a fair and just verdict. You should have that. It |
11 | was done after the fact. You're correct on that. |
12 | But it was done, and a record was preserved on their |
13 | individual responses. |
14 | MR. MALLETT: Was that after the verdict? |
15 | THE COURT: Yes, sir. |
16 | MR. MALLETT: Thank you, your Honor. |
17 | THE COURT: It might have been between the -- |
18 | I'm not sure. It was after the first verdict, I'm |
19 | sure, and it might have been after the second |
20 | verdict, but it was -- |
21 | THE WITNESS: I think it was after the second |
22 | verdict, also. |
23 | THE COURT: Was it? It may have been. |
24 | THE WITNESS: 'Cause we were -- we were -- I |
25 | believe we were in the jury room and we -- they had |
|
710
|
1 | their -- their notes up on the wall. |
2 | THE COURT: But they were called in -- yeah, I |
3 | believe you're right. They were called in |
4 | individually and polled on that -- that matter. |
5 | MR. MALLETT: If I may have a minute, your |
6 | Honor. |
7 | THE COURT: Yes, sir. |
8 | MR. MALLETT: If I may have a minute, your |
9 | Honor. |
10 | THE COURT: Sure. |
11 | MR. MALLETT: Ms. Martin's trying to help me get |
12 | educated |
13 | THE COURT: That might take more than minute, |
14 | but go ahead. |
15 | MR. MALLETT: I -- I resemble that comment, your |
16 | Honor. (LAUGHTER.) |
17 | THE WITNESS: You resemble that? |
18 | MR. MALLETT: For the record, your Honor, I am |
19 | looking at pages marked at the top right, twenty- |
20 | seven seventy-four of what I have as a transcript of |
21 | the proceedings of the trial. The Court of, course is |
22 | absolutely right. After the conclusion of both |
23 | proceedings in the Court, a conference was held in |
24 | chambers -- beginning at line twenty-three and bottom |
25 | of what I have as page twenty-seven seventy-four -- |
|
711
|
1 | and in these proceedings -- turning the page -- the |
2 | court discusses telephone calls, contacts with jurors |
3 | and whether the jurors -- |
4 | THE COURT: As I remember it, it wasn't a direct |
5 | contact with the jury, but it was a contact with one |
6 | of the juror -- juror's daughter and that daughter -- |
7 | after the fact -- some days or two later -- mentioned |
8 | it to a father and then I believe there was a mother |
9 | of a child that had been approached or contacted by |
10 | someone, and then we questioned those two jurors as |
11 | well as all of the other jurors. |
12 | MR. MALLETT: There's -- the names of the jurors |
13 | -- it's not confidential, is it? |
14 | THE COURT: Well, I remember one, but I don't |
15 | remember the other. |
16 | MR. MALLETT: I'm -- I'm reading at twenty-seven |
17 | seventy-five about a Mrs. Dacus. |
18 | THE COURT: I believe it was Mrs. Dacus and Mr. |
19 | Arnold. |
20 | THE WITNESS: Yeah, Arnold. |
21 | MR. MALLETT: All right. |
22 | THE COURT: And they were asked about whether of |
23 | not they relayed that information to the other jurors |
24 | and whether or not it was discussed, and whether or |
25 | not it had any bearing or factor on their weighing |
|
712
|
1 | the issues or ultimate decisions. And each juror, as |
2 | I recall, indicated that it did not, and it wasn't |
3 | discussed further from the time it occurred which was |
4 | early on in the first week of the trial. |
5 | Is that when it was? |
6 | THE WITNESS: I don't remember exactly when it |
7 | was. |
8 | THE COURT: Well, I'm getting old and my |
9 | memory's not as good as it used to be, but that's the |
10 | way I remember it. |
11 | MR. MALLETT: And -- and it goes over to twenty- |
12 | seven seventy-nine. May I take it then that there is |
13 | no other record of any complaints by defense counsel |
14 | or proposals for questions by defense counsel than |
15 | what we see on these pages? |
16 | THE COURT: As far as I know. I took it as the |
17 | Court's function. Of course, the jury's told that if |
18 | anyone contacts them, attempts to influence 'em, or |
19 | intimidates 'em, or -- or in any way affects -- tries |
20 | to affect their judgment, to report that to the |
21 | bailiff and the Court. And thatís what was done. |
22 | xxx I should have immediately told the lawyers. I |
23 | donít think I told 'em until a day or two later, but |
24 | that was my mistake, and I own up to it. That's the |
25 | only one I made though. (LAUGHTER.) |
|
713
|
1 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
2 | Q. And since that time, I take it you have not taken it upon |
3 | yourself to go out and interview the jurors on your own and to |
4 | conduct any additional investigation into these threats or any |
5 | matters that might affect the legality of their verdict -- or |
6 | have -- or have you? |
7 | A. About the threats? |
8 | Q. Yes, sir. |
9 | A. No, sir. |
10 | THE COURT: I've got some question about a |
11 | lawyer after the fact going out and interviewing |
12 | jurors. I guess you can, but it might be an ethical |
13 | problem involved. |
14 | MR. MALLETT: We can talk about that informally |
15 | at sometime. That's not a point that I'm raising at |
16 | this -- in this conversation. |
17 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
18 | Q. A Joyce Cureton. I am looking at the bottom of page eight |
19 | of our Amended Petition. Do you know who Joyce Cureton is? |
20 | A. She was a jail matron at the time. |
21 | Q. And you spoke to her sometime prior to the trial or |
22 | during the trial? |
23 | A. I believe so. |
24 | Q. All right. Do you remember if you did or not? |
25 | A. I don't know. |
|
714
|
1 | Q. Did you probably speak to Mr. Ford or Mr. Wadley about |
2 | her? |
3 | A. Concerning what topic? |
4 | Q. Her availability as a witness for Damien Echols. |
5 | A. I -- on what topic? I mean -- |
6 | Q. Well, let me back up and ask it this way: Do you have any |
7 | recollection of a Subpoena being issued by Mr. Ford for her |
8 | testimony for the punishment hearing? |
9 | A. Not -- not 'til you told me, no, sir. |
10 | Q. Okay. So this will be very brief then. If I suggest to |
11 | you that there was -- back up one more. In Arkansas is a |
12 | lawyer entitled to rely on a Subpoena issued by another party |
13 | so if the state has a proper Subpoena served and executed on a |
14 | -- on a witness, are you entitled as defense counsel to -- to |
15 | access to that witness and to assume that their attendance will |
16 | be at court without issuing a Subpoena of your own? |
17 | A. I mean, that's always been my practice with Mr. Davis, |
18 | yes, sir. |
19 | Q. And likewise, if you have two or more defense counsel -- |
20 | two or more defendants in the case -- and counsel for one |
21 | defendant issues a Subpoena, then counsel for the other |
22 | defendant can rely on that Subpoena ñ you donít have to |
23 | duplicate it? |
24 | A. Right. Yeah. Generally, if you -- if -- if the party |
25 | that subpoenaed 'em says -- has decided they're not gonna call |
|
715
|
1 | ëem you generally check with the other side or the co- |
2 | defendant. |
3 | Q. You don't excuse the witness you have under Subpoena until |
4 | being sure that the other lawyer wasn't relying on that |
5 | Subpoena? |
6 | A. Right. That's -- yes, sir. |
7 | Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection of interviewing Joyce |
8 | Cureton or having an interview of Joyce Cureton conducted on |
9 | Damien Echols' behalf in the report provided to you? |
10 | A. I don't remember. |
11 | Q. Then do you have any recollection of -- I'll just say |
12 | hypothetically-- a Subpoena was issued to her and she received |
13 | a suggestion message or instruction that rather than receive |
14 | and obey the Subpoena, she should leave the jurisdiction. Is |
15 | that suggestion I've made as a hypothetical come as complete |
16 | news to you and about which you don't really know anything? |
17 | A. Very vaguely, I remember something about that, but I don't |
18 | -- the details, I don't -- I don't recall. |
19 | Q. All right. On the subject that you wanted into evidence |
20 | -- which is this -- if the Court Reporter will excuse me -- |
21 | amorphous ñ and by that I mean vague, uncertain, indefinite, |
22 | unspecific (sic), intangible, unscientific, and ñ and not very |
23 | reliable ñ thatís what I mean by amorphous. |
24 | On this amorphous topic of satanic practice, satanic |
25 | worship, the occult, cults, witchcraft, white witchcraft, black |
|
716
|
1 | witchcraft, or any other color of witchcraft, on that body of |
2 | knowledge -- maybe we should call it the metaphysical area in |
3 | the case that we discussed earlier, the state had a witness and |
4 | you had a witness. I think you had Mr. Hicks. |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
6 | Q. Okay. In anticipating the presentation of the defense |
7 | case, did you read the writings of Mr. Hicks -- did you read |
8 | his publications? |
9 | A. Yes, I read it over the week-end. |
10 | Q. Before the -- before he testified? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. Okay. And there is a reference in the record to a |
13 | quotation by a book by Mr. Ken Lanning. Did you read |
14 | publications by Mr. Ken Lanning? |
15 | A. I don't think I read his -- I think there was a reference |
16 | in Hicks' book, Pursuit of Satan, where there might have been |
17 | a chapter or a couple of paragraphs or some pages about |
18 | Lanning. I thank that's what I read on -- concerning Lanning. |
19 | Q. So you did not read the works of Lanning directly but only |
20 | as referenced by Hicks? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. I believe thatís right. |
22 | Q. Are you aware that under the Rules of Evidence when a book |
23 | has been accredited by an expert as a treatise on which people |
24 | in his field relies and on which he relies, that the words |
25 | published in that treatise after it's accredited are admissible |
|
717
|
1 | as evidence and are not hearsay? |
2 | A. I believe so. Yes, sir. |
3 | Q. So that you can take the book itself and while you don't |
4 | mark the book as an exhibit and offer it into evidence, you can |
5 | read from the book and say, we offer as evidence in the case, |
6 | and read from the book? |
7 | A. Certain passages. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. You could have read from Mr. Hicks' book, for example? |
9 | A. Yes, sir. |
10 | Q. So when the state was objecting that what was in Mr. |
11 | Hicks' publication was hearsay, did you have it in mind that |
12 | materials that he has published and relied on are admissable |
13 | as an exception to the rule excluding hearsay? |
14 | A. I don't recall. I mean, I don't think -- I'm assuming we |
15 | didn't make that response to their objection. |
16 | Q. And I wanted to find out if there was any tactical reason |
17 | why when they were objecting to admissible material you chose |
18 | not to assert its admissiblity under Rule 803 810 of the |
19 | Arkansas Rules of Evidence, or whether that was simply an |
20 | inadvertent waiver that happened in the trial? |
21 | A. It could have been an inadvertent waiver. I don't recall. |
22 | MR MALLETT: Thatís all I have. Thank you |
23 | very much, Mr. Price. I'm sorry it took longer than |
24 | I said. |
25 | THE WITNESS: All right. |
|
718
|
1 | MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, I -- I need -- I have a |
2 | medical appointment to get a shot over the lunch |
3 | hour. If we could -- if we could break now. |
4 | THE COURT: 1:00 o'clock? |
5 | MR. DAVIS: Yeah, it'd be better for me. |
6 | THE COURT: I have a conference call at 1:00 |
7 | o'clock. So we'll make it 1:15. |
8 | MR. DAVIS: Okay. |
9 | ( RECESS. ) |
10 | (RETURN TO OPEN COURT. ) |
11 | THE COURT: All right. |
12 | RECROSS EXAMINATION |
13 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
14 | Q. Mr. Price, I have a few questions for you. Mine may skip |
15 | around a little more haphazard. |
16 | A. That's fine. |
17 | Q. I'm trying to look back over my notes. I believe the |
18 | first area of inquiry that was made -- at least today -- by |
19 | defense counsel was regarding -- let me be sure -- your |
20 | preserving an adequate record of the jury voir dire for |
21 | purpose of appeal. |
22 | A. Yes, sir. |
23 | Q. And you were aware at the time that the case was appealed |
24 | and you and Mr. Davidson had prepared the appellate briefs, |
25 | that there was a transcript of the voir dire proceedings. Is |
|
719
|
1 | that right? |
2 | A. I don't know if there was actually a transcript at the |
3 | time we did our appeal. I knew that the Court Reporter had |
4 | taken down what was said during the -- during the voir dire. |
5 | Q. Okay. And so you knew that it was available should you |
6 | desire or feel that it was necessary to make that a part of the |
7 | record? |
8 | A. Yes. |
9 | Q. Okay. And you made a decision not to do that? |
10 | A. Yes, sir. |
11 | Q. Okay. And what was the basis for that? |
12 | A. Well, the primary basis was because we did not use all of |
13 | our strikes, and Arkansas law on voir dire is you can't argue |
14 | something on an appeal relating to jury selection unless you've |
15 | used all your -- your strikes. |
16 | Q. Okay. And why did you not use all your strikes in |
17 | selecting the panel? |
18 | A. As a matter of trial strategy, we -- we struck the people |
19 | that we decided we wanted to strike and the people that we |
20 | didnít want to strike, we didn't strike 'em. So they were |
21 | selected to serve on the jury. |
22 | Q. Without the use of all of your peremptory challenges, did |
23 | you feel you were able to select a jury of twelve people |
24 | that were able to fairly sit, hear and decide the issues in |
25 | this case? |
|
720
|
1 | A. Yes, sir. |
2 | Q. Now, you also -- Mr. Mallett asked you a number of |
3 | questions about the Court's questioning of the jury panel prior |
4 | to us voir diring them on a three -- at three or four at a |
5 | time. You heard that? |
6 | A. Yes, sir. |
7 | Q. Okay. Do you recall that taking place in terms of the |
8 | logistics of how that occurred? |
9 | A. I had thought that we -- the Judge did the introductory |
10 | questions as well as the attorneys doing the specific |
11 | questioning all in the back -- in chambers in the jury room. I |
12 | think the Judge has stated earlier in court today that he |
13 | thought we -- he questioned them twelve or eighteen all-at one |
14 | time in the panel and I don't -- I don't specifically recall |
15 | which way we did it. |
16 | Q. Okay. |
17 | MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, may I approach the |
18 | witness? |
19 | THE COURT: Yes. |
20 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
21 | Q. I want to show you the transcript of the voir dire |
22 | proceedings at page twelve. Could you look at that -- twelve |
23 | -- bottom of page twelve and the top of page thirteen, and does |
24 | that appear to you to be the initial questions that the Court |
25 | was asking to the jury panel that had been -- the first |
|
721
|
1 | eighteen that had been placed in the box? (HANDING TO |
2 | WITNESS. ) |
3 | A. (EXAMINING.) Yes, sir. The first question deals with |
4 | being related by blood or marriage to any of the lawyers, and |
5 | then the Judge introduces the people at the table, and he also |
6 | -- and then he asked if anybody had any business, professional, |
7 | or social dealings with any of the lawyers involved. |
8 | Q. Okay. And those appear to be questions that the Judge is |
9 | asking of the jury panel -- |
10 | A. Yes, sir. |
11 | Q. -- in -- en masse? |
12 | A. Yes, sir. |
13 | Q. Okay. And on a bunch of those questions the majority of |
14 | them the response listed by the Court Reporter is ìNo Audible |
15 | Response." Is that correct? |
16 | A. That's the response listed to some. Some -- apparently |
17 | some of the jurors raised their hands. |
18 | Q. Right. |
19 | A. Yes, sir. ìNo Audible Responseî is listed several times. |
20 | Q. Okay. And because the transcript reflects that there is |
21 | no audible response -- that does not cover or does not |
22 | indicate that the jurors were not nodding their heads in |
23 | agreement with the Judge, or indicating agreement with the |
24 | questions that he was asking, does it? |
25 | A. That's correct. |
|
722
|
1 | Q. Okay. All it says is they didn't say yes? |
2 | A. Right. |
3 | Q. Or make some verbal response? |
4 | A. That's correct. |
5 | Q. Now, as a defense attorney, if a juror is up there and |
6 | he's asked one of these preliminary questions that the Judge |
7 | was putting to them, and you see a juror up there who's making |
8 | no audible response but they're shaking their head like that |
9 | (DEMONSTRATING) when he asks them, can you be fair to the |
10 | defendant, and they're giving you body language that irritates |
11 | that they might not be a juror that would be receptive to |
12 | hearing your side of the case, would you make note of that and |
13 | deal with that later in voir dire? |
14 | MR. MALLETT: Excuse me, your Honor. I |
15 | apologize for interrupting, and I'll try not to do |
16 | this very often. |
17 | Could he rephrase the questions so that he's |
18 | asking about this case? My objection is that the |
19 | question is too broad to be helpful to this Court in |
20 | deciding this case. |
21 | THE COURT: Well, I think Iím gonna allow you to |
22 | ask it in two ways. You can ask him specifically in |
23 | this case and in general as his practice as an |
24 | attorney, would he conduct a voir dire in that |
25 | fashion. I think it's -- they're both appropriate. |
|
723
|
1 | You're challenging it on the basis of him not being |
2 | competent in this trial, so limit it to this trial |
3 | and then his practice in general. |
4 | BY THE WITNESS: |
5 | A. Basically, the same answer is for both. I would make note |
6 | of body language responses by the prospective jurors. |
7 | Q. And so when the Judge is asking questions -- generally in |
8 | any trial when the Judge asks those type of questions, you're |
9 | observing the jury not only to determine what their verbal |
10 | response may be, but also what their physical reaction to |
11 | certain questions might be, correct? |
12 | A. Yes, sir. |
13 | Q. Okay. And did you observe this jury panel when the Court |
14 | put these questions to them during this case? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. Okay. And do you recall any specific physical responses |
17 | in terms of shaking of the head or anything that caused you |
18 | to later ask additional questions or other questions back in |
19 | the jury room? |
20 | A. I donít specifically recall any -- I mean -- any verbal or |
21 | -- excuse me -- any body language type movements that I later |
22 | followed up on it. I haven't reviewed any of my voir dire |
23 | notes and that -- that material. |
24 | Q. Okay. When the jury panel's in that situation before -- |
25 | in that specific case when the Judge is asking this jury panel |
|
724
|
1 | those general questions are you assessing the jury in terms of |
2 | visual appearance, what they look like, how they react -- |
3 | things of that nature? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Okay. And does all of that go into and assist you in |
6 | formulating what questions you then ask more specifically when |
7 | you go back and voir dire those jurors three on three or four |
8 | on four? |
9 | A. Yes, sir. |
10 | Q. Okay. And did you do that -- make those assessments and |
11 | make those determinations -- use that in assisting you in |
12 | evaluating what questions you would put to them during your |
13 | later voir dire? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. Now, let me flip over here in the transcript. On page |
16 | twenty-five on line thirteen, the Court says, ìAll right, |
17 | gentlemen, I'm ready to go to the back.î |
18 | Does that appear to you to be that at that point in time |
19 | was when the Court began to have the voir dire done in the back |
20 | jury room on a three-on-three basis, or four-on-four basis? |
21 | A. Yes, sir, because he makes reference to, ìI see no reason |
22 | reason to keep the other hundred and thirty prospective jurors here. |
23 | Itíll probably take an hour or two to go through the |
24 | questions.î |
25 | Q. Okay. And you were physically present during the entire |
|
725
|
1 | voir dire process when the questions were asked not only by |
2 | yourself, by Mr. Ford, by myself, and by the Court back there |
3 | in the back room; is that right? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Okay. And during that time period in making your |
6 | determination as to whether to exercise strikes or peremptory |
7 | challenges, did you -- are you making that decision solely on |
8 | verbal responses that are made, or do you also consider |
9 | physical responses, reactions, appearance -- that sort of |
1 | 0 thing? |
1 | 1 A. We consider everything -- the verbal responses, the body |
1 | 2 language -- you know, back -- the jury questionnaires that they |
1 | 3 filled out -- other things of that nature. |
1 | 4 Q. Is there a way that a transcript can gather or reflect |
1 | 5 what a person's physical reaction, his body language, |
1 | 6 mannerisms, that might -- that you might consider in making a |
1 | 7 determination to keep or strike a juror? Can that be reflected |
1 | 8 in a written transcript? |
1 | 9 A. No, sir. |
2 | 0 Q. And did you consider all those things in making your |
21 | determination as to what peremptory challenges to use? |
22 | A. Yes, sir. |
2 | 3 Q. Now there were questions asked you, did you ask any |
2 | 4 questions of the group of -- of the -- either as a group or |
2 | 5 individually in the back about their views on satanic or occult |
|
726
|
1 | practices. Do you recall Mr. Mallett asking you that? |
2 | A. Yes, sir. |
3 | Q. Okay. Do you recall if you asked any of those type of |
4 | questions? |
5 | A. I -- I -- independently, I don't recall. I believe |
6 | through his questions and my answers this morning, I think he |
7 | indicated that I didn't -- didn't go into that, but I don't |
8 | recall. |
9 | Q. Okay. Did I hear you say something this morning to the |
10 | effect that to ask people their views on that that you -- one |
11 | of the reasons you didn't was because you didn't expect to get |
12 | a positive response -- any juror saying, yes, thatís -- I |
13 | follow those beliefs. I'm a Satanist myself and I -- I'm a |
14 | firm believer in that, or somebody who was supportive of those |
15 | thoughts and ideologies. You just didn't anticipate you would |
16 | get any positive feedback of that nature, right? |
17 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. |
18 | Q. Okay. And is there -- when you question a juror about |
19 | topics of that, is there a danger that that can cause an |
20 | overemphasis in that particular subject matter in a juror's |
21 | mind if you spend time asking questions about a topic of that |
22 | nature? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. Did that in any way impact your decision as to whether or |
25 | not to inquire as to their feelings regarding those particular |
|
727
|
1 | subjects? |
2 | A. I'm sure it did. |
3 | Q. Now, if I understood your testimony this morning, you said |
4 | something to the effect that you didn't know exactly what the |
5 | state was going to present in the way of that type of evidence, |
6 | correct? |
7 | A. Correct. |
8 | Q. Okay. And, in fact, you didn't know whether the state |
9 | intended -- but you knew that they had listed Doctor Griffis as |
10 | a witness, but you didn't know whether the strategy of the |
11 | state was to go ahead and use him or not, correct? |
12 | A. That's correct. |
13 | Q. Okay. And so you were at that point at least aware that |
14 | it could come in but in terms of how much and to what extent |
15 | and what form, you weren't -- you had no idea, right? |
16 | A. That's correct. |
17 | Q. Now, in regard to what you said this morning -- if I |
18 | understood it -- to some extent you were happy to fight this |
19 | field -- or fight this battle on the field of this being a |
20 | satanic killing, correct? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. Okay. In terms of the position of your defendant, you |
23 | felt like the stateís case was so weak in that area in being |
24 | able to establish that, that if the state took that track, that |
25 | that would be a very effective way for you to be able to |
|
728
|
1 | challenge the state's evidence, right? |
2 | A. Yes, sir. |
3 | Q. Okay. And as the trial unfolded from your recollection of |
4 | the testimony of Doctor Griffis, which was presented by the |
5 | state, did you feel like that was damaging to your client? |
6 | A. I think some of Griffis' testimony was damaging, but I |
7 | also think a lot of his testimony and his theories were |
8 | ludicrous. |
9 | Q. And one of the very foundations of your case was being |
10 | able to attempt to expose how ludicrous you thought that |
11 | theory was? |
12 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. |
13 | Q. Okay. And in order to take that avenue, it was necessary |
14 | for the state to take certain steps in that direction for that |
15 | to occur, right? |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. In other words, if the state doesn't put on a Doctor |
18 | Griffis, then you don't have the opportunity to attack and |
19 | lambast him to show as you described that you thought his |
20 | testimony was ridiculous -- was ludicrous? |
21 | A. Thatís correct. |
22 | Q. Okay. So there was strategy involved? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. A number of the jurors are asked during the voir dire |
25 | proceeding about where they heard, or where they've gathered |
|
729
|
1 | their information. Is that true? In other words, the source |
2 | for whatever information they've heard about this case? |
3 | A. Yes, sir. |
4 | Q. Okay. And when a juror responded and said, I read about |
5 | it in the Jonesboro Sun, or I've seen it in the Arkansas |
6 | Democrat-Gazette, were you familiar and had you read the vast |
7 | majority of the information that had been published in those |
8 | newspapers? |
9 | A. Yes, sir. I think almost all of it. |
10 | Q. Okay. So when a juror would make mention of that -- even |
11 | though the juror did not mention specifically, I read about |
12 | this specific instance -- you could be -- at least have some |
13 | idea as to the general information that that juror was exposed |
14 | to? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. Did you feel there was an advantage at this trial in |
17 | having jurors that came in anticipating the strength of the |
18 | state's case before the trial? I may need to rephrase that. |
19 | A. Well, I mean -- yes, sir, I think so. You know, the |
20 | statements -- a lot of the jurors, I think, were aware of |
21 | statements by Officer Gitchell previously that -- you know, |
22 | from a scale of one to ten the state's case is an eleven, and |
23 | now --- you know, at the trial -- I think, as a matter of |
24 | fact, that the state objected to the -- us being able to |
25 | question Gitchell about that, and I think the public's |
|
730
|
1 | perception of the strength of the state's case going into the |
2 | trial diminished as the trial went on. |
3 | Q. And were you -- was it your theory that the jury panel had |
4 | some preconceptions or that prevalent within the jury panel |
5 | were preconceptions that there would be extensive evidence as |
6 | to the satanic and cult nature of these killing? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. I think the jury was expecting more of that |
8 | testimony than came forth at the trial. |
9 | Q. Did you feel that that could in effect work as an |
10 | advantage to your client that the jury panel of this locale |
11 | that had been exposed to certain information might come in with |
12 | very high expectations of the testimony in the area of satanic |
13 | worship and occultism and things of that nature? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. Okay. Would that fact or the possible existence of that |
16 | fact be beneficial to you if you felt you could blow that |
17 | theory out of the water? |
18 | A. Yes, sir. |
19 | Q. And is that one of the reasons that you decided or made |
20 | the strategic decision that the case would be -- fall -- if you |
21 | could have it your way on the field that the -- on the theory |
22 | that the state was putting all their eggs in that basket -- |
23 | that this was a satanic and cult killing? |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | Q. And so a jury that had been -- panel that had been |
|
731
|
1 | indoctrinated by news media accounts that had emphasized that |
2 | particular aspect might in effect be an advantage to a |
3 | defendant in this case? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Also, the -- had the newspaper accounts and television |
6 | accounts described the graphic nature or the horrendous type |
7 | of injuries that the three youths had sustained? |
8 | A. To a certain extent. |
9 | Q. And I know during the time it occurred until the arrests |
10 | were made, there was a period where there was very limited |
11 | information about that, but by -- by post Jesse Misskelleyís |
12 | trial, most of the details, including descriptions -- graphic |
13 | descriptions of the autopsy photos and all that -- had already |
14 | been published, correct? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. Is there -- when you know that a jury panel is going to be |
17 | faced with evidence of that -- that can be that emotionally |
18 | charged, and that can have such a severe impact, is it better |
19 | or worse to have a panel that has had some exposure to it and |
20 | isnít being hit with this the first time in the course of |
21 | the trial? |
22 | A. Itís usually better to have a jury exposed to damaging |
23 | materials such as that the more times you can and so that by |
24 | the time they get to it at -- at the second trial, for example, |
25 | it's -- they're not -- they're a little bit more conditioned |
|
732
|
1 | to accept that evidence coming in and it's not as -- the shock |
2 | value isnít there as much. |
3 | Q. So having the jury panel that was somewhat aware -- or at |
4 | least had some information about the case -- is -- is a two- |
5 | edged sword. It can be damaging at times, but it also can |
6 | provide benefits? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. Okay. And your job as a defense attorney in this case was |
9 | to try to assess those jurors to determine if their mindset was |
10 | such that they could still be fair and provide your client with |
11 | a fair trial, or to see if this information or if other things |
12 | might have affected or colored their viewpoint to the point |
13 | they couldn't be fair, correct? |
14 | A. Correct. |
15 | Q. And you made those assessments based on all the things |
16 | you've described previously during your voir dire process? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. And you felt confident that you'd picked a fair jury? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. You were also asked this morning by Mr. Mallett about were |
21 | you ever shown the questions that Damien was going to be asked |
22 | in advance. |
23 | A. From the HBO interview? |
24 | Q. Right. Right. |
25 | A. Yes, sir. |
|
733
|
1 | Q. Do you remember if you were or not? |
2 | A. I donít recall if we were actually shown the questions or |
3 | told -- I remember conversations that we will ñ that they will |
4 | not go into full detail about the case itself, and we did have |
5 | conversations about that. I donít ñ I donít specifically |
6 | remember if they showed us a set of questions or not. I mean, |
7 | I was present during -- the whole time during their interview. |
8 | Q. Okay. They didnít interview him without you present, |
9 | right? |
10 | A. Not a bit, no, sir. |
11 | Q. Okay. And you told the people from HBO, I assume, these |
12 | are certain areas I donít want you to go into? |
13 | A. Yes, sir. |
14 | Q. Okay. And was Damien present when you were having these |
15 | discussions? Was he -- you were saying, now, look guys, I |
16 | donít want you to talk about this, this, and this, and heís |
17 | present when these things are going on, or do you recall? |
18 | A. I think we had several conversations with ëem. We |
19 | probably had some not in his presence ñ and by saying, ìwe,î |
20 | myself, Scott Davidson and probably Ron Lax, our investigator |
21 | were involved in discussions. I know we had some conversations |
22 | without him, but I seem to recall even -- the day of that |
23 | particular interview which was done in the jail down in Augusta |
24 | that we may have even talked to them with him present before |
25 | they actually turned the camera on and started asking |
|
734
|
1 | questions. |
2 | THE COURT: Did you object to any questions they |
3 | asked or find any reason to object to any question |
4 | they asked? |
5 | THE WITNESS: We certainly had that opportunity. |
6 | I donít -- I donít remember specifically if we -- if |
7 | we objected to questions or asked to go off the |
8 | record. |
9 | THE COURT: Did they stay within the guidelines |
10 | you proposed as to propriety of the questions? |
11 | THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. |
12 | THE COURT: All right. |
13 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
14 | Q. You viewed the video -- or the ìParadise Lostî HBO |
15 | documentary? |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. Okay. Is there anything that you recall from having |
18 | reviewed that -- and I realize itís hard to recall everything |
19 | thatís in there -- but when you viewed it the first time, |
20 | second time -- however many times youíve seen it -- were there |
21 | things in there that you saw in the interview given by Mr. |
22 | Echols that you thought were damning to him or hurt his case? |
23 | A. No, sir. |
24 | Q. And were there questions asked or responses given that you |
25 | thought damaged his case on appeal or at any point in |
|
735
|
1 | time -- would be a problem -- would be problematic in the |
2 | future if you had to retry this case? |
3 | A. No, sir. As a matter of fact I think a lot of what he |
4 | said was favorable. |
5 | Q. And when you watched it, were you kind of -- I mean, did |
6 | you kind of watch it with an eye to that thinking, you know |
7 | now that itís -- now that we're gonna see the finished product, |
8 | what in the world -- is there gonna be anything in here that |
9 | comes across -- that the world could perceive my client in |
10 | a negative fashion? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. Did you -- did you notice those things? |
13 | A. I don't -- I don't recall noticing anything that -- of -- |
14 | of our participation in the -- in the -- in the film that was |
15 | negative towards Mr. Echols and I think it -- a lot of it was |
16 | favorable. |
17 | Q. So if -- if you didnít specifically go over the questions |
18 | prior to them being asked, with the method in which they were |
19 | asked, was it such that you had a chance to counsel with your |
20 | client and to instruct him if you thought the answer would be |
21 | injurious to his case? |
22 | A. We could have stopped the questioning at any |
23 | time. |
24 | Q. Okay. And so whether or not you were given the questions |
25 | in advance, or reviewed them in advance, in terms of the |
|
735
|
1 | ultimate effect on the interview process, it had none, correct? |
2 | A. I -- that's correct. |
3 | Q. Now, there were questions asked this morning about your |
4 | cross examination or failure to cross examine Michael Carson. |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
6 | Q. Now, there's something about you'd represented Carson |
7 | before? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. I'd represented Carson in Lawrence County when |
9 | I was public defender over there on a -- on a juvenile case. |
10 | Q. And when did you become aware that this person who was |
11 | listed on the state's -- as the state's ñ potential stateís |
12 | witness is the same guy that you had represented |
13 | at some other time? |
14 | A. I think fairly soon after finding out his -- his name and |
15 | his age. I kind of put two and two together and figured that |
16 | was the same -- same Michael Carson. |
17 | Q. Okay. And did that give you any insight into his |
18 | background or past experiences that someone who maybe had not |
19 | had that opportunity would have asked? |
20 | A. Yes, sir. |
21 | Q. Okay. And the testimony that was elicited from Carson at |
22 | trial, the xxx was instructed that that testimony didnít even |
23 | apply to your client, correct? |
24 | A. That's correct. |
25 | Q. Okay. And, in fact, the jury was instructed at trial that |
|
737
|
1 | that testimony was given only in regard to Jason Baldwin. |
2 | A. That's correct. |
3 | Q. Now, if after the jury -- and that -- that instruction was |
4 | given to the jury before Carson testified, right? |
5 | A. Yeah. I think before and also after or something -- or a |
6 | similar instruction, but, yes, sir, it was given at that time, |
7 | not -- yeah, it was given the first time at that time. |
8 | Q. Okay. So Carson takes -- before Carson takes the witness |
9 | stand, the Judge has told the ladies and gentlemen seated in |
10 | the jury box that Michael Carson's testimony does not apply to |
11 | Damien Echols but goes solely and can be considered for them |
12 | only to determine the guilt or innocence -- for whatever weight |
13 | it's to be determined -- in determining the guilt or innocence |
14 | of Jason Baldwin. |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. And so after he's testified, does Mr. Ford get up to cross |
17 | examine him? |
18 | A. Yeah, after recess, I believe either Ford or Wadley. |
19 | Q. Okay. And they tried to rip into him pretty good, |
20 | correct? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. Okay, Now, just -- as a lawyer who observed what was |
23 | going on with the cross examination of Michael Carson, was it |
24 | your impression that -- I think the words were used by Mr. |
25 | Mallett this morning -- you can either -- you have options -- |
|
738
|
1 | you can either sit there and rest on the admonition the Court's |
2 | given, or you can go up and destroy a witness. Is that what he |
3 | gave you this morning? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Okay. Now, is that always the scenario that plays out in |
6 | the courtroom -- that you destroy a witness on cross |
7 | examination? |
8 | A. No, sir. |
9 | Q. Okay. What happens sometimes when you get up and cross |
10 | examine a witness? |
11 | A. I mean, sometimes you don't succeed in destroying him. |
12 | You -- that -- there -- I mean, in essence, you bolster the |
13 | witness, or they become even stronger, or they come across as a |
14 | better witness than they were before. |
15 | Q. This may tell us what quality Mr. Mallett is as an |
16 | attorney. Maybe he's never experienced something less than |
17 | destruction of a witness in his cross examination. |
18 | But when that occurs, is that beneficial -- |
19 | MR. MALLETT: Objection to the ad hominem, the |
20 | personal attacks, your Honor I don't think that's |
21 | necessary |
22 | THE COURT: Well, avoid personal references. |
23 | MR. DAVIS: Okay. |
24 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
25 | Q. In the instance where you get up to cross examine a |
|
739
|
1 | witness in an attempt to destroy that witness, and it turns out |
2 | to be a bust, and it doesn't work, and you don't destroy them, |
3 | how does that affect your case? |
4 | A. I mean, itís -- itís worse. |
5 | Q. Does it underscore and make that testimony even more |
6 | damaging than it was before you stood up? |
7 | A. Sometimes it does, yes, sir. |
8 | Q. Okay. In a scenario where testi -- where a jury has .... |
9 | specifically instructed that testimony does not even apply to |
10 | your client, is there a strategic decision in whether to get up |
11 | and cross examine and run that risk, or to just let the |
12 | testimony come in and let the other attorneys cross examine |
13 | him? |
14 | A. Right, and that's exactly what we did in this case. We |
15 | felt that if we would -- if the Judge made the admonition it |
16 | didn't apply to us, if we would then get up and cross examine, |
17 | we thought maybe the Judge might turn around and say, now that |
18 | we've opened the door, Carson's testimony could be admissible |
19 | against Echols as well. |
20 | You know, I knew that Mr. Ford was -- was a very effective |
21 | lawyer. As a matter of fact, I gave -- I had a file on Carson |
22 | with -- and having nothing to do -- well, part of it was my -- |
23 | my earlier representation, but a lot of the questions were |
24 | typical questions that we would have asked Carson. As a matter |
25 | of fact, I think Mr. Davis (sic) was the one -- if we would |
|
740
|
1 | have cross examined Carson, he would have done it -- Mr. |
2 | Davidson rather than myself. So I had sketched out potential |
3 | questions, and we gave all that material over to Ford and |
4 | Wadley so that they could use it during their cross examination |
5 | of Carson. |
6 | Q. Okay. Was there any -- was -- was the decision not to |
7 | cross examine Carson, was that in any way premised based on the |
8 | fact you had represented him in juvenile proceedings before? |
9 | A. No, sir. |
10 | Q. Okay. I mean, was there any discussion, or was there any |
11 | thought process that -- you know, well, we'd kind of like to |
12 | cross examine this guy and go after him, but, you know, I used |
13 | to represent him so, therefore, I'd better -- we better not -- |
14 | we better not go that route. We'll just let this dog lie right |
15 | now. |
16 | A. Well, no. The discussion was if we decided to cross |
17 | examine him, Scott needed to do it and not I. I didn't need to |
18 | do it. But as far as the fact that I had the previous -- had |
19 | previously represented him so we -- we -- we shouldn't question |
20 | him at all -- that -- that was not--that was not an issue at |
21 | all. |
22 | Q. Okay. Do you know if -- if Mr. Echols was aware, or had |
23 | you mentioned to him when Carson's name comes up and during the |
24 | time you're preparing for the case, did you mention to him that |
25 | you had, in fact, represented this Michael Carson back in |
|
741
|
1 | juvenile proceedings sometime before? |
2 | A. I don't recall -- I don't know if I specifically talked to |
3 | Damien about that or not. A lot of times we would discuss with |
4 | him what we were doing on different aspects of the case, but |
5 | there were other things that we would -- would primarily do |
6 | without -- without discussing with him. |
7 | Q. Okay. And during the time that -- that Michael Carson's |
8 | name --- you become aware that he's a witness, he may testify, |
9 | he does testify, is Mr. Lax -- Ron Lax -- your investigator, is |
10 | he aware of Carson as a potential witness? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. Okay. Did Mr. Lax do anything in terms of preparing |
13 | information or going over statements to try to assist in being |
14 | prepared for that witness and what he might do? |
15 | A. I'm sure that Mr. Lax reviewed Mr. Carson's statement. |
16 | When we -- when we got any discovery, we'd turn it over to Mr. |
17 | Lax, and he kind of outlined it and said what was there and |
18 | what -- what was missing, and different -- how this piece of |
19 | evidence fits in with another part and how -- how to respond to |
20 | it. So Iím sure that he reviewed that testimony -- or that |
21 | statement of Carson. |
22 | Q. Okay. Do you know whether -- you said that you had some |
23 | information -- acquired information from the juvenile files |
24 | because you knew you had represented him and, therefore, you |
25 | knew to ask for it? |
|
742
|
1. | A. That's correct. |
2 | Q. Okay. So when you -- you then -- after you get that |
3 | information, you give that to Mr. Lax, right? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Okay. And did you tell Mr. -- did Mr. Lax know about this |
6 | prior? |
7 | A. I'm sure that when I gave him the information, he became |
8 | aware of it. |
9 | Q. Okay. And was it common in your preparation for trial |
10 | that some of the contact in terms of what was going on and |
11 | explanation of what you were doing in preparation of the trial |
12 | some of that information was relayed to Mr. Echols by Mr. Lax? |
13 | A. Was relayed to Mr. Echols? |
14 | Q. Right. |
15 | A. Yes, sir, some of it -- some of it was. |
16 | Q. Okay. In other words, Mr. Lax might have contacts with |
17 | Mr. Echols to explain, I met with Mr. Price and Mr. Davidson |
18 | last night. We were doing this, this, and this, and I've been |
19 | tracking down these witnesses. He would pass that information |
20 | along to Mr. Echols if you and Mr. Davidson had it? |
21 | A. Right. Now there's also a Glori Shettles who also works |
22 | with Mr. Lax, also had a lot of contact with Damien, and she |
23 | may have also passed on additional information. |
24 | Q. Okay. How early on in the case was -- was Inquisitor, |
25 | Inc. or Ron Lax or his group involved? |
|
743
|
1 | A. Within the first week of my being appointed. |
2 | Q. Okay. If the -- the psychiatric reports that were |
3 | referred to earlier -- if they show requests for medical auth |
4 | -- for medical authorization and release forms dated June |
5 | thirteenth of ninety-three -- |
6 | A. Yes, sir. |
7 | Q. -- and they're on the heading of Inquisitor, Inc. signed |
8 | by your client, Mr. Echols, would they have been involved in |
9 | the -- |
10 | A. Right. |
11 | -- preparation of this case that early on? |
12 | A. Yes, sir. |
13 | Q. And that -- that was within less than two weeks of the |
14 | date of arrest, correct? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. Okay. And this is the same Ron Lax that -- that Mr. |
17 | Stidham referred to as the best criminal investigator he'd ever |
18 | been involved with? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. Is that your assessment of him, also? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. In death penalty cases, yes, sir. |
22 | Q. Now, the testimony -- I may have it -- |
23 | MR. DAVIS (TO MR. MALLETT) May I borrow your |
24 | volume five since I don't have one? |
25 | MR. MALLETT: (HANDING.) |
|
744
|
1 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
2 | Q. Mr. Mallett asked you some questions this morning about |
3 | the volley of questions with Officer Ridge where -- I think |
4 | it's on page nine twenty-two of the transcript -- where you |
5 | asked, ìOkay. So that stick is not the stick was at the |
6 | crime scene?î |
7 | His response, ìYes, sir, it is the stick that was at the |
8 | crime scene.î |
9 | And then your next question was, ìI guess I'm confused. |
10 | At the time you did not take that stick into evidence at the |
11 | time you all recovered the bodies.î |
12 | That's the question you asked. |
13 | A. Yes, sir. |
14 | Q. Now, there are times during the trial when you ask |
15 | questions that you wished you hadn't asked sometimes, correct? |
16 | A. Correct. |
17 | Q. Okay. And we -- everybody who is involved as a trial |
18 | lawyer occasionally asks a question which they wished they had |
19 | left it at home, or just kept their mouth shut, right? |
20 | A. Right. |
21 | Q. Okay. In hindsight, looking at that question, is that one |
22 | you wish you hadn't asked Officer Ridge? |
23 | A. Not necessarily. I mean, the response that he gave was |
24 | not the response I wanted, but the fact that I was trying to |
25 | get -- get across the point that -- you know, the crime scene, |
|
745
|
1 | there were certain items taken into evidence at the time the |
2 | bodies were recovered, and he went back to the crime scene a |
3 | month later and got these sticks, and that's what I was trying |
4 | to get across. And I thought he could have answered my |
5 | question without saying -- without referring to Jesse's |
6 | confession. |
7 | Q. Okay. So and at times when you start focusing -- in this |
8 | case, your focus was, I want to show to this jury that this guy |
9 | didn't get the -- these sticks or these items that are being |
10 | introduced as evidence -- he didn't get ëem out there at the |
11 | crime scene simultaneously with doing the crime scene |
12 | investigation. |
13 | A. He waited a month later. |
14 | Q. Okay. And so that -- you were focused on that issue? |
15 | A. Right. |
16 | Q. And in focusing on that issue, you kind of lost sight of |
17 | the fact that he had a reason why he went back a month later to |
18 | get ëem? |
19 | A. Right. |
20 | Q. Okay. And when you asked that question, the question was |
21 | intended to elicit a response that was, yes, it took -- it was |
22 | a month later before I went back and get--got them. I didn't |
23 | right there immediately. That's what you wanted? |
24 | A. And stop -- right. |
25 | Q. Okay. But in your zeal to get that information out, would |
|
746
|
1 | you agree that you asked a question that offered him an |
2 | opportunity to explain why he got them a month later which was |
3 | because that was after Jesse Misskelley had given him a |
4 | statement indicating that certain sticks had been used? |
5 | A. I mean, it was certainly his response. |
6 | Q. Okay. And would it be fair to say that when you asked the |
7 | question, you weren't thinking at that time that that was a |
8 | particular response he might give? |
9 | A. Either were thinking or didn't think he'd give that |
10 | answer, but -- |
11 | Q. But as soon as he starts to open his mouth and you hear |
12 | the words ìJesse Misskelley,î the bells go off, right? |
13 | A. That's correct. |
14 | Q. Okay. Now, would you admit that the way in which that |
15 | question is asked in terms of, at the time you did not take |
16 | that stick into evidence at the time that you all recovered the |
17 | bodies, that that possibly invites a response from Officer |
18 | Ridge as to why it was they didn't take that stick into |
19 | evidence at that time? |
20 | A. Do -- as of now, looking at that question? |
21 | Q. Right |
22 | A. Yes. Yes, sir. |
23 | Q. Okay. And under that scenario, it wouldn't be ethical or |
24 | proper to allege that he intentionally threw that before the |
25 | jury in violation of any Motion in Limine, would it -- if the |
|
747
|
1 | question invites such a response? |
2 | A. That' s correct. |
3 | Q. And was there anything from your observation of Officer |
4 | Ridge from the question that was asked that led you to believe |
5 | that he was laying up there in wait -- waiting for any slim |
6 | opportunity for the door to be opened so that he could rush in |
7 | and throw Jesse Misskelley's statement before this jury? |
8 | A. Not with Officer Ridge. |
9 | Q. Okay. In other words, his response was to counter the |
10 | impression that he was -- he didn't get 'em until a month later |
11 | because he was some incompetent investigator, right? |
12 | A . Right. |
13 | Q. Okay. And in your zeal to focus on that area you |
14 | overlooked that possibility? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. But as soon as you realized that something was happening |
17 | -- that he had said -- he mentioned the statement of Jesse |
18 | Misskelley and before he could even explain what was in that |
19 | statement of Jesse Misskelley that made that important, you |
20 | entered your objection, right? |
21 | A. Very loudly, yes sir. |
22 | Q. Okay. And cut him off at the pass, right? |
23 | A. Yes |
24 | Q. In fact, the record reflects that -- that you moved for a |
25 | mistrial? |
|
748
|
1 | A. Yes, sir. |
2 | Q. Okay. And the Court overruled that, but you took all the |
3 | steps necessary at that point in order to insure that that |
4 | information did not come before the jury and that it went no |
5 | further than chat? |
6 | A. Yes, sir. |
7 | Q. What else could you have done? |
8 | A. Well, we asked for the cautionary instruction which I |
9 | believe the Judge gave. I mean, legally, that's it. I mean, |
10 | we -- you ask for a mistrial, you make the objection, the Judge |
11 | made his ruling, I think we approached the bench to -- to put |
12 | forth the -- I mean, I could have made the formal objection at |
13 | the -- at the table -- counsel table and then the jury would |
14 | have heard exactly what I was objecting to, and that's why we |
15 | approached the bench to make that particular objection. And |
16 | then, we asked for the -- for the cautionary instruction. |
17 | Q. Did you sense it was a situation where that had |
18 | intentionally been done to cannonball your case, so to speak? |
19 | A. Perhaps. I mean, it may have been or may not have been. |
20 | Iíve had other cases where officers have testified and made |
21 | references to polygraph tests, for example, in other trials |
22 | where I think theyíre purposefully trying to enter that into |
23 | evidence in -- in violation of Motions in Limine before, you |
24 | know. On those cases, you know, the times I've seen that -- I |
25 | think that's a definite intentional act on their part but -- |
|
749
|
1 | but with this one, I -- |
2 | Q. And if you object -- if you -- in a situation where you -- |
3 | where you really don't feel or sense that it was done |
4 | intentionally, if you make these arguments time and again, your |
5 | honor, he's intentionally trying to ruin my case by |
6 | intentionally violating this previous order, if you make those |
7 | frequently when you don't think there's been an egregious |
8 | error, how does that affect your credibility with the Court and |
9 | your -- your likelihood of getting favorable rulings in a |
10 | serious situation? |
11 | A. I mean, I think that affects the way the Judge will rule |
12 | on future objections. The Judge can say that that's invited |
13 | error and state a legal reason why it's admissible. You know, |
14 | the Judge could have said, well, Mr. Price, you -- you opened |
15 | the door to that question and not even done a cautionary |
16 | instruction. |
17 | Q. Now, let me jump to the questions that were asked -- let |
18 | me give Mr. Mallett his notebook back. |
19 | You were asked questions about your representation of |
20 | these people who were the co-defendants of Mr. Byers civil |
21 | suit. |
22 | A. Yes, sir. Bruce and Linda Barnes. |
23 | Q. Okay. And when did that -- when did that start? When did |
24 | your representation -- |
25 | A. It started -- I want to say a year or two prior to the |
|
750
|
1 | murders-- I think, ninety-one. |
2 | Q. And who were your clients that you represented in that |
3 | case? |
4 | A. Bruce and Linda Barnes. |
5 | Q. Okay. Now, was -- was Mr. Byers a client of yours? |
6 | A. No, sir. |
7 | Q. Okay. He was a co-defendant in that case? |
8 | A. In that civil case, yes, sir. |
9 | Q. And he became a witness in that case? |
10 | A. Yes, sir, later on. |
11 | Q. Okay. Did you ever represent him in that case? |
12 | A. No, sir. |
13 | Q. Before, during or after the trial -- represent Mr. Byers |
14 | in that matter. |
15 | A. In that case, no, sir. |
16 | Q. In any case? |
17 | A. Well, technically, I'm Chief Public Defender for this |
18 | district and Mr. Byers has had a -- a -- another case before |
19 | this Court and Bill Howard, one of my conflicts lawyer, has |
20 | been appointed to represent him on that matter. That's already |
21 | been disposed of. |
22 | Q. And thatís something that's occurred long since the |
23 | appeal? |
24 | A. Way past this, yes, sir. Past the appeal, also. |
25 | Q. Did you provide any advice to Mr. Byers in regard to that |
|
751
|
1 | particular action, or was he represented by separate counsel? |
2 | A. He was represented by C. B. Nance, separate counsel from |
3 | West Memphis. |
4 | Q. Okay. So did you during that incident -- you didn't |
5 | represent him -- did you advise him and counsel him on what he |
6 | should do? |
7 | A. No, sir. I mean, I -- at one time I talked with him -- |
8 | well, more than once -- a couple -- a few times I've had |
9 | conversations with him and Mr. Nance because originally they |
10 | were -- the Barneses and Mr. Byers were accused of . |
11 | basically, it was the same -- there was a woman named Shirley |
12 | McNamara had left her husband who is an optician or an optometrist |
13 | and taken some glasses and set up a optical store and a jewelry |
14 | store together and then the Barneses was -- were partners with |
15 | her, and then Mr. Byers came in to run the jewelry store, so |
16 | they had a business relationship. And then they had a falling |
17 | out, and eventually Mr. Barnes and Mr. Byers left and took some |
18 | items, and there was a dispute over -- whether who owned the |
19 | items that were taken and whether certain items were taken or |
20 | not. That was kind of the gist of that. |
21 | Q. So Mc --McNamara instituted the lawsuit? |
22 | A. Yes, sir. |
23 | Q. And she named as defendants Mr. Byers, and -- |
24 | A. And the Barneses. |
25 | Q. -- the Barneses? |
|
752
|
1 | A. Yes, sir. |
2 | Q. And you represented the Barneses? |
3 | A. Yes, sir. |
4 | Q. And I believe there was some testimony this morning -- you |
5 | may or may not have -- Mr. Byers was at least a witness in some |
6 | action involving that civil proceeding? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. And you -- do you recall if you called him as a witness or |
9 | who called him? |
10 | A. I don't recall which side called him. |
11 | Q. And was there anything other than his involvement between |
12 | you and him in that case other than him being a witness and |
13 | being a co-defendant along with your clients? |
14 | A. Was there anything -- |
15 | Q. Any other contact you had with him other than in that |
16 | respect? |
17 | A. No, sir. |
18 | Q. Okay. Did you -- was there ever a discussion of this |
19 | between you and Mr. Lax, or you and Mr. Echols, or in the |
20 | presence of Mr. Echols that -- you know, as -- as things |
21 | happened that this person that is the father of one of the |
22 | victims in this case, that -- that there was a civil suit a |
23 | few years back in which he was a witness in a case or something |
24 | of that sort? |
25 | A. I believe I told Mr. Lax about -- about my involvement and |
|
753
|
1 | the circumstance of that. I don't specifically recall whether |
2 | or not I discussed it with Mr. Echols. |
3 | Q. Did you -- was there ever any point in time where not -- |
4 | not under ethical rules or violations -- but you began to get |
5 | that gut feeling or think, you know, gosh, this puts me in a |
6 | precarious situation because I represented a co-defendant of |
7 | his in a civil action two years ago? |
8 | A. I mean, I never thought that was a problem. I thought it |
9 | was actually favorable to us. |
10 | Q. And was there anything about that contact with him in the |
11 | past that would have caused you to be less aggressive toward |
12 | him in a trial setting? |
13 | A. None whatsoever. |
14 | Q. Okay. Isn't it in fact true that the clients that you |
15 | represented at that time that were the co-defendants with him |
16 | had a pretty good grudge against Mr. Byers, right? |
17 | A. Yes, sir, that -- that's putting it mildly, but, yes, sir. |
18 | Q. Putting it mildly? |
19 | A. Yeah. |
20 | Q. Okay. In fact, the people you represented not only had a |
21 | grudge against him but they actively viewed the trial during |
22 | the course of this trial that we're here on -- that's the |
23 | thatís the subject of these proceedings? |
24 | A. They were here almost every day during -- during Mr. |
25 | Echols' trial. |
|
754
|
1 | Q. Okay, and it wasn't because they were strong supporters of |
2 | Mr. Byers, right? |
3 | A. Complete opposite. |
4 | Q. And so the interest that you represented in that civil |
5 | action with people who not only had a bone to pick with Mr. |
6 | Byers, they don't -- they don't even like him, right? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. Now, there were also questions asked of you this morning |
9 | about, you know, did you really investigate Mr. Byers, did you |
10 | do what you needed to do to be prepared to ìdisî him when he |
11 | took the witness stand. Was Mr. Lax working -- you said he was |
12 | working for you as early as June thirteenth of ninety-three, |
13 | right? |
14 | Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. Okay. And you've characterized Mr. Lax as an excellent |
16 | investigator. |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. Okay. When it comes to tracking down information, running |
19 | down leads, putting together a file on relevant information on |
20 | somebody, how would you rate Mr. Lax? |
21 | A. Excellent. |
22 | Q. Okay. How, did Mr. Lax in his professional opinion, did |
23 | he discuss trial strategy as to how to handle the case |
24 | and things of that nature? |
25 | A. Yes, sir. |
|
755
|
1 | Q. Okay. Was it Mr. Lax's opinion, based on your working |
2 | with him, that you should focus in on Mr. Byers as a real |
3 | culprit in this case? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. He agreed with that -- that had been one of our |
5 | strategies. |
6 | Q. Okay. And, in fact, did he assist in invest -- in |
7 | focusing his investigation to help you establish that strategy? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. Did he spend time investigating background on Mr. Byers? |
10 | A. Yes, sir. |
11 | Q. Now, I know he investigated a lot of things, but was that |
12 | something he really focused on? I mean, did you all -- did -- |
13 | in your discussions and your talks, is that something that you |
14 | all spent a great deal of time delving into is how we're gonna |
15 | point the finger at Mr. Byers? |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. And Lax was heavily involved in that, right? |
18 | A. Yes, sir. |
19 | Q. Okay. Now, you called Mr. Byers to the witness stand, |
20 | right? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. Okay. And, that again, was a strategic move, right? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. And explain to us the strategy behind that. |
25 | A. We were trying to put forth that Mr. Byers was a -- was |
|
756
|
1 | just as much or more so of a suspect in this case as Mr. Echols |
2 | was. And we had -- we had the evidence of the -- the pocket |
3 | knife that had -- that HBO had -- actually, Mr. Byers had given |
4 | to HBO when there was blood on one of the hinges that matched |
5 | -- potentially matched some of the evidence involved in this |
6 | case. |
7 | Q. And would it be fair to say that in the general effort to |
8 | point the finger or paint Mr. Byers as the culprit in this |
9 | deal, that the -- the biggest piece of evidence to nail him |
10 | with was that knife? That's what you wanted to use as your |
11 | real hammer on him, right? |
12 | A. It may not be the biggest piece, but certainly a -- a -- a |
13 | very strong piece of evidence, yes, sir. |
14 | Q. Okay. And, in fact, in your examination of Mr. Byers, you |
15 | impeached him or attacked his credibility in regard to prior |
16 | inconsistent statements about that knife, right? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. Okay. And the strategy there was why -- why -- why did |
19 | you want to do that? |
20 | A. Well, by impeaching him to point him out that he was a |
21 | liar. |
22 | Okay. Now, as a trial attorney, when you've got something |
23 | that you consider to be a big hammer or something important |
24 | that you can wield against a party -- adverse party such as Mr. |
25 | Byers, like the knife was, what happens when you start throwing |
|
757
|
1 | a little -- other little minor things in to attack him with |
2 | that pale in significance in comparison to that item? |
3 | A. I mean, quite often you -- you tend to lose focus if you |
4 | -- if you have one main area or two or three primary areas that |
5 | you're -- you're directing at, if you ask -- if you go into a |
6 | lot of other minor things, sometimes it takes away the emphasis |
7 | that you're trying to put on for the main -- for the primary |
8 | point you're trying to get out of a witness. |
9 | Q. So in this case, you -- you hammered him on the knife, |
10 | right? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. Okay. And Mr. Mallett questioned your judgment in terms |
13 | of not asking him about a prior terroristic threatening |
14 | conviction that was a misdemeanor -- a Municipal Court |
15 | conviction? |
16 | A. Yes, sir. I believe it was sometime in the eighties. |
17 | Q. Okay. It happened years before this? |
18 | A. Several years, yes, sir. |
19 | Q. Okay. And what was your -- I mean, in terms of making |
20 | decisions, why do you not throw in a -- attempt |
21 | in front of the jury to get in this misdemeanor terroristic |
22 | threatening conviction from a number of years back that was out |
23 | of Municial Court when you've got other evidence that you |
24 | think would be very vital and very pertinent? |
25 | A. I mean, I think sometimes a jury will think that a lawyer |
|
758
|
1 | is picking on particular witness by asking -- kind of nit- |
2 | picking in certain points that if they don't fit into the big |
3 | picture -- if it's not really relevant from a legal standpoint |
4 | or even a factual -- if you don't get that much damage or |
5 | mileage out of cross examining a witness on a misdemeanor |
6 | conviction, then -- then sometimes that takes away -- again, |
7 | takes away from the focus of your -- your main points of cross |
8 | examination. |
9 | Q. And so your decision not to use those items was strategic? |
10 | A. Yes, sir. |
11 | Q. Okay. In -- in hindsight looking back at it, would you |
12 | still make that same strategy call in terms of the decision, |
13 | whether to use that prior Municipal Court conviction under |
14 | those circumstances? |
15 | A. I'd probably make the same call. |
16 | Q. There was also questions about Mr. Byers having made some |
17 | statement to somebody about -- I don't know -- body parts being |
18 | found in your client's house during the search -- or something |
19 | like that -- at least that's what the question was this |
20 | morning. Were you aware that statements like that may have |
21 | been made by Mr. Byers? |
22 | A. I was aware of some statements to that -- that general |
23 | nature. |
24 | Q. And is that something that you felt like from a strategic |
25 | standpoint would be important or vital in establishing Mr. |
|
759
|
1 | Byers as the culprit in this case? |
2 | A. No, sir. |
3 | Q. If you posed that question to Mr. Byers and Mr. Byers |
4 | says, I may have said that, but I was -- I got that information |
5 | from somebody that it turned out to be incorrect, what would |
6 | you gain? |
7 | A. Absolutely nothing. |
8 | Q. And, therefore, you made a strategic decision not to |
9 | attempt to attack credibility based on that issue? |
10 | A. Yes, sir. |
11 | Q. Okay. Now, I want to move on to some questions |
12 | surrounding Doctor Moneypenny. |
13 | Who put together the -- the file on your clientís mental |
14 | health records? |
15 | A. Glori Shettles that worked for Mr. Lax. |
16 | Q. Okay. So that was another employee of Inquisitor, Inc. |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. Okay. Was she assigned, also, to work on this case? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. And itís your information that she's a criminal |
21 | investigator just like Mr. Lax? |
22 | A. Her main area is mitigation. |
24 | Q. And sheís actually a specialist in the area of mitigation? |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | Q. Okay. |
|
760
|
1 | A. I mean, by-- by specialist, I mean -- I don't know if she |
2 | has a --- that -- mitigation is certainly the main area that she |
3 | does. |
4 | Q. So you mean Mr. -- this Inquisitor, Inc., the |
5 | investigating agency that you had the benefit of their |
6 | services, they've actually got somebody in-house that focuses |
7 | on the sole issue of mitigation in criminal prosecution? |
8 | A. In death penalty cases, yes, sir. |
9 | Q. And so she's had experience and background in that area? |
10 | A. Yes, sir. |
11 | Q. Okay. And was she -- were her services provided to you to |
12 | assist in gathering this information? |
13 | A. Yes, sir. |
14 | Q. And is the one who started back in June of nineteen |
15 | ninety-three putting this information together? |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. Now, did you have discussions with her in terms of the |
18 | pros and cons, or with Mr. Lax what she had found in her |
19 | investigation, how it was gonna play out, the pluses, the |
20 | minuses, things of that sort? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. We had discussions with Mr. Lax and with her |
22 | concerning mitigation evidence and the data that she had |
23 | been gathering. |
24 | Q. Did you all meet specifically to discuss what was gonna be |
25 | involved in the mitigation phase? |
|
761
|
1 | A. Several times, yes, sir. |
2 | Q. Okay. And on those occasions, would it be you, Mr. |
3 | Davidson, Mr. Lax, and her? |
4 | A. Primarily, yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Okay. And did you share with your client, Mr. Echols, |
6 | what they were doing in regards to gathering information on |
7 | mitigation, and how that was -- how you viewed it playing out |
8 | at the trial? |
9 | A. I'm sure we had some discussions with him concerning the |
10 | mitigation evidence. As far as how many conversations and the |
11 | extent of it, I'm -- I don't recall -- you know, how many times |
12 | we met to discuss mitigation with him and things of |
13 | nature. |
14 | Q. Was he aware you were gathering his mental health records? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. And in the -- in the process of her gathering this |
17 | information, did you get a chance -- I believe you indicated |
18 | that you reviewed everything that she provided? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that along with the good things |
21 | that goes to benefit your client in that stack of information, |
22 | there are some damaging things? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. Okay. And is that what I understood you to say about the |
25 | unique nature of mitigating testimony that oftentimes the good |
|
762
|
1 | goes with the bad? |
2 | A. Yes, sir. |
3 | Q. And-- |
4 | THE COURT: Are you gonna be much longer? |
5 | MR. DAVIS: I've got some more questions, your |
6 | Honor. |
7 | THE COURT: All right. Then we're gonna take a |
8 | ten minute recess with the admonition not to discuss |
9 | the case. |
10 | ( RECESS. ) |
11 | (RETURN TO OPEN COURT.) |
12 | THE COURT: All right. |
13 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
14 | Q. Mr. Price, let me -- let me jump -- I think we're on Mr. |
15 | -- Doctor Moneypenny and that testimony. Let me jump to |
16 | something else briefly and then I'll get back to that. |
17 | We were discussing a minute ago your strategy in not |
18 | watering down what you considered to be pertinent evidence |
19 | about the knife that Mr. Byers gave to HBO with other less |
20 | significant matters. |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. In other words, focus on what you think were your big |
23 | points. In regard to appellate procedures in terms of |
24 | itemizing the issues that you note for appeal, how many points |
25 | of error did you note or did you list on your appellate brief |
|
763
|
1 | that you submitted on behalf of this defendant? |
2 | A. I'm estimating thirty to thirty-five. |
3 | Q. Okay. And is -- when you list -- and so you allege at a |
4 | minimum thirty points that you were appealing the decision of |
5 | the lower Court on? |
6 | A. Right. |
7 | Q. Okay. Now, is there some -- in appellate procedure and in |
8 | writing the appellate brief, is there any theory about trying |
9 | to not water down your good with the bad or get too extended in |
10 | terms of the number of issues that are involved? |
11 | A. The general theory is to -- to focus primarily on your |
12 | strongest points. In a death penalty case the Supreme -- the |
13 | Supreme Court has ordered -- we're obligated to abstract every |
14 | point that's -- every ruling that's adverse to the defendant |
15 | and we did that. But as far as arguing those points, you still |
16 | -- it's kind of a balance between -- you put more time and |
17 | effort into the stronger points that you think you have a |
18 | better chance at winning on, and less time both pagewise and |
19 | argumentwise on the -- what are considered, you know, minor |
20 | trivial points on an appeal. |
21 | Q. Okay. Did you consider thirty to be a -- I mean, to focus |
22 | on these thirty, did you consider that to be a conservative |
23 | approach, or did you -- was that throwing in a lot of items |
24 | that -- that you considered were marginal in terms of their |
25 | ability to be successful on appeal? |
|
764
|
1 | A. In this case, I think we had logical reasons to put forth |
2 | all thirty points. We origin -- normally, there is a twenty- |
3 | five page limit on the argument portion on a brief. We filed a |
4 | hundred page brief, and the Supreme Court came back and cut it |
5 | to sixty-five pages. So the final brief portion was sixty-five |
6 | pages of argument as far as we were concerned. |
7 | On a couple of points dealing with the search warrant |
8 | issues, we knew that Mr. Ford and Mr. Wadley would be -- they |
9 | -- they had fewer points to argue and that was -- was one of |
10 | the areas that they were gonna emphasize, so we ñ we mentioned |
11 | it, I think, some, but they made the -- the major points that |
12 | way but we -- and, of course, the Opinion itself was over a |
13 | hundred pages long -- was the longest in the history of the |
14 | Arkansas Supreme Court. |
15 | Q. And so you had sixty-five pages -- that's what the court |
16 | -- Supreme Court limited you to in terms of your arguments that |
17 | you submitted? |
18 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. |
19 | Q. Okay. So within those sixty-five pages you had to |
20 | adequately address the thirty issues that you cited for appeal? |
21 | A. Right, by referring to the -- the objection that we made |
22 | at the trial level, the supporting authority for it. We had to |
23 | include both our objection and the -- of course, the state's |
24 | response and the Judge's ruling on each of those points because |
25 | we couldn't -- we couldn't argue anything on appeal that we |
|
765
|
1 | didn't raise at the trial court level. |
2 | Q. Okay. So you're -- you as an appellate attorney in that |
3 | situation, you are required to kind of discard certain things |
4 | or minimize certain arguments in order to give you more time |
5 | for the more important arguments you want to make and more |
6 | pages for those more relevant and, hopefully, more successful |
7 | arguments, right? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. Okay. So when you made decisions not to put the |
10 | transcript or ask that the transcript of voir dire be made a |
11 | part of the record and object to voir dire proceedings, is that |
12 | also a strategic decision in terms of limiting how -- how |
13 | watered down your appellate issues are? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. And did you -- would -- in your opinion as an attorney |
16 | representing Mr. Echols, would it have been beneficial to you |
17 | to raise such an issue and lessen the amount of time that you |
18 | could devote in your brief to other issues you thought were |
19 | more important or relevant? |
20 | A. No, it would have hurt us if we would have raised issues |
21 | concentrating on voir dire on the appeal because, you know, we |
22 | didn't |
22 | use -- bottom line, we didnít use all our strikes, and we |
23 | couldnít argue any of those points on appeal even if we had |
24 | wanted to, and that would have taken away pages and time and |
25 | effort that we devoted to the other aspects -- or the other |
|
766
|
1 | issues raised on the appeal. |
2 | Q. Now, let me get back to Doctor Moneypenny. You put Doctor |
3 | Moneypenny's testimony on to establish the aggravating |
4 | circumstance that -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- but something |
5 | to the effect that at the time of the occurrence of the acts |
6 | the defendant was suffering from mental illness or -- |
7 | A. Prove mitigating -- you said aggravating -- mitigator. |
8 | Q. Right, to mitigate -- a mitigator. |
9 | A. Right. |
10 | Q. You put that on for the purpose of establishing and hoping |
11 | that the jury would find a mitigator exists that at the time of |
12 | the occurrence of this the defendant may have been under the -- |
13 | had some mental condition that influenced his behavior -- |
14 | something to that effect? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. And did you actually study what those mitigators are that |
17 | are listed in the instruction that you have a shot at proving? |
18 | A. Yes, sir. |
19 | Q. Okay. And in doing that, you consulted with the lady from |
20 | Inquisitor, Inc. who had a vast experience in this? |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. And did she -- did she object to your strategy to use |
23 | Doctor Moneypenny? |
24 | A. No, sir. |
25 | Q. How did you locate Doctor Moneypenny? |
|
767
|
1 | A. We had tried to find some other witnesses and -- we tried |
2 | two or three that weren't available and I think -- I think I |
3 | contacted some attorneys in Little Rock and asked him who's a |
4 | good doctor to use in mitigation, and that's how we came across |
5 | Doctor Moneypenny. |
6 | Q. Okay. Was it your understanding he'd had experience in |
7 | these matters before? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. I believe at least two or three other trials he |
9 | testified in. I think I even got copies of his transcripts in |
10 | earlier trials. |
11 | Q. Okay. And did the investigator or the mitigation |
12 | specialist at Inquisitor, Inc., did she have contact with |
13 | Doctor Moneypenny? |
14 | A. I believe -- I believe she did. Maybe she had it |
15 | directly. She may have -- Mr. Lax may have been a go-between. |
16 | I'm sure that she -- well, I know that she -- we got the |
17 | materials she prepared. She may have sent 'em directly to |
18 | Moneypenny, or we may have sent 'em to him. I don't recall, |
19 | but I believe that she had had some dealings with him. |
20 | Q. Okay. And in getting an expert to testify about your |
21 | clientís mental health condition, do you feel itís incumbent |
22 | upon you to obtain all of those mental records that |
23 | might assist him in formulating an opinion? |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | Q. Okay. And is that the reason that you had the Inquisitor, |
|
768
|
1 | Inc. acquire all those records and supply those to Doctor |
2 | Moneypenny? |
3 | A. Yes, sir. |
4 | Q. Okay. And in any situation like that where you put on an |
5 | expert witness to testify based on a review of medical records, |
6 | there's always the possibility that there's something harmful |
7 | in those medical records, right? |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. Okay. And if you're gonna ask them to render an opinion |
10 | based on their review of those records, then you recognize as |
11 | an attorney on the front end that they may also be inquired |
12 | about -- about some of the less positive things about your |
13 | client? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. Okay. And so you recognized that that situation was going |
16 | to occur on the front end? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. And the reason you put him on was to establish that |
19 | mitigator, right? |
20 | A. Thatís correct. |
21 | Q. Did it work in terms of establishing that mitigator? |
22 | A. Yes, sir. |
23 | Q. Did the jury in their deliberations, in fact, find that |
24 | that mitigator existed? |
25 | A. Yes, sir, on the jury instructions. |
|
769
|
1 | Q. Now, Mr. Mallett asked you a lot of questions about the |
2 | hearsay that -- he was talking about some hearsay statement in |
3 | the medical records or -- |
4 | A. In Robert Hicks' book and Lanning -- |
5 | Q. No, I'm still on Moneypenny. In the psychiatric reports |
6 | which Doctor Moneypenny reviewed, there was some reference in |
7 | there to somebody who had treated or counseled Mr. Echols as |
8 | saying -- and I'm paraphrasing again -- something ñ |
9 | A. It was the Bundy and -- |
10 | Q. -- that he -- that he had all the characteristics of a Ted |
11 | Bundy or a Charles Manson. |
12 | A. Yes, sir. |
13 | Q. Okay. And that was mentioned and brought out in cross |
14 | examination of Doctor Moneypenny? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. And Mr. Mallett asked you, couldn't that be considered as |
17 | evidence to go toward establishing the aggravator that the |
18 | defendant acted in an especially cruel and depraved manner. |
19 | Okay, what -- |
20 | A. Yes, sir. |
21 | Q. What are your views on that? What do you think? |
22 | A. I donít think that -- that evidence is -- is a basis to |
23 | support that aggravator. |
24 | Q. Okay. Now, in terms of when you look and you're trying to |
25 | weigh whether to enter something that could be good, it could |
|
770
|
1 | be bad and balancing, in this particular case, what evidence |
2 | was already before the jury that they had found your client |
3 | guilty of that would establish that this crime was committed in |
4 | a cruel and depraved manner? |
5 | A. They'd already found him guilty of the three murders. |
6 | Q. Okay. But was there any evidence that was presented up to |
7 | the point that they hear this hearsay reference that Mr. |
8 | Mallett referred to as something about Ted Bundy and Charles |
9 | Manson -- is there other evidence in the record that already |
10 | goes a long way toward establishing that this crime was |
11 | committed in an especially cruel and depraved manner? |
12 | A. The damage to the -- the private part and the genitals of |
13 | one -- one of the boys. |
14 | Q. From a standpoint of what you thought going in as an |
15 | attorney once your client had been convicted, and knowing the |
16 | state of the evidence, the photographs they had seen, the |
17 | descriptions from the medical examiner, the terrible torture |
18 | and mutilation of these three children, was there really any |
19 | hope from a defense standpoint that the jury wasn't going to |
20 | check the box that this crime was committed in a particularly |
21 | cruel and depraved manner? |
22 | A. There was -- there was hope but whether it was realistic |
23 | or not, I mean, it -- there certainly was evidence there that a |
24 | jury could check that aggravator based on the evidence up to |
25 | that point. |
|
771
|
1 | Q. Okay. Besides -- without anything coming in in the |
2 | punishment phase of the trial at all, there was an abundance of |
3 | evidence in which that box would have in all likelihood could |
4 | have been checked -- |
5 | A. Could have been checked. |
6 | Q. In this case? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. Okay. So your decision in terms of the mental health |
9 | records is ---in the balancing of whether I let the bad in with |
10 | the good -- your decision is, what difference is a little more |
11 | that goes toward this cruel and depraved aggravator versus the |
12 | benefit I can get from establishing that my client has had a |
13 | prolonged history of treatment for mental illness and disease, |
14 | correct? |
15 | A. Correct. |
16 | Q. Okay. And you made the strategic decision that whatever |
17 | harm -- additional harm might come from this reference to Ted |
18 | Bundy or any of the damaging things, that seeing hundreds of |
19 | pages showing that your client had been treated and had an |
20 | ongoing mental condition for which he was being treated and |
21 | medicated and other things, would be more beneficial than |
22 | whatever harm it caused? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. Now, Mr. Mallett asked questions about the threats and |
25 | comm -- threats or communication of the jury. I believe it was |
|
772
|
1 | Mr. Arnold and Mrs. Dacus brought those up. You were present |
2 | when the Court had the jury questioned about those particular |
3 | instances? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Were they brought in -- do you recall if they were brought |
6 | in one by one or individually or in a group? I'm asking this |
7 | honestly because I can't remember. |
8 | A. I don't recall. I remember we were back in the jury room |
9 | and I remember they still had the charts up comparing what they |
10 | thought of each of the witnesses. |
11 | THE COURT: The way I remember it-- |
12 | THE WITNESS: I don't -- |
13 | THE COURT: -- we brought in Mrs. Dacus and Mr. |
14 | Arnold and then individually all the jurors one at a |
15 | time. |
16 | BY THE WITNESS: |
17 | A. 'Cause I don't believe that we would have had six |
18 | attorneys, the Judge, the Court Reporter, plus the two |
19 | defendants, plus twelve additional jurors all in that room -- |
20 | plus the security all in there at the same time Iím |
21 | speculating it was one at a time, but I don't -- I don't have |
22 | any independent knowledge either way. |
23 | Q. Okay. And that procedure is done after three weeks worth |
24 | of trial, a punishment phase is just concluded, your client has |
25 | just received the death penalty, and we're going back there and |
|
773
|
1 | -- and asking these questions of jurors who served on the |
2 | case, right? |
3 | A. Right, four weeks of trial, but yes, sir. |
4 | Q. All right. Pretty -- as a defense counsel, I donít -- |
5 | I assume the defense attorneys were like us -- pretty exhausted |
6 | at that point in time? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. Okay. Did -- was there anything from the response of the |
9 | jurors or from the way it was conducted that made you seriously |
10 | feel like any of those contacts that the Court was inquiring |
11 | about had actually affected or prejudiced or caused the jury to |
12 | vote one way or another in this case? |
13 | A. No, sir. |
14 | Q. And were you satisfied with the manner in which the Court |
15 | inquired of the prospect -- of the jurors that served in terms |
16 | of inquiring into this issue and making a record of it? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | MR. DAVIS: One second, your Honor. |
19 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
20 | Q. And as far as interviewing jurors individually other than |
21 | what the Court did back there, you indicated you didnít do |
22 | that? I mean, after -- after all -- after the Court goes |
23 | through this procedure and brings the jurors in one by one and |
24 | take them, did this come out and did it affect you, anything ñ |
25 | you didnít go back after that procedure is over with and |
|
774
|
1 | contact the jurors one by one and inquire further of them about |
2 | this? |
3 | A. About that issue? |
4 | Q. Right. |
5 | A. No, sir. |
6 | Q. Okay. Did you talk to some jurors about generally what |
7 | their observations were and -- |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. -- that sort of thing? |
10 | A. But we had one of the jurors contact us several weeks |
11 | after the trial and said they -- they wanted to talk to us |
12 | about the trial. So we didn't initiate it, but we went and |
13 | talked to that -- that juror. |
14 | Q. Okay. And were there any -- did you initiate any contact |
15 | with jurors -- call them up and say, we're interested in |
16 | finding out what you were thinking? |
17 | A. I'm trying to remember it there was any -- no, sir, I -- |
18 | there -- I can't remember if there were any of the jurors that |
19 | I personally knew that I may have had brief conversations with |
20 | but as far as calling any of 'em up, |
21 | particularly immediately after the trial, I don't think I did |
22 | that. |
23 | Q. Have you ever done that in a case before -- after |
24 | trial, call up all the jurors and try to find out what their |
25 | responses were? |
|
775
|
1 | A. I've had some cases actually after the term's over with -- |
2 | because, you know, normally, we have two or three week terms |
3 | and after the entire termís over, somebody that I have |
4 | personally known from before, I will sometimes inquire with |
5 | them. And a couple of times I've had jurors call me up to just |
6 | discuss, you know, the case in general. |
7 | Q. And when you do that, sometimes they talk with you and |
8 | sometimes they don't? |
9 | A. Right. I mean, if they -- yeah -- if they don't want to |
10 | talk I don't do anything -- go further with 'em. |
11 | Q. And sometimes they-- they don't like your side and they |
12 | don't want to give you anything that they think would be |
13 | beneficial, right? |
14 | A. That's correct. |
15 | Q. Okay. And so in this case, you decided from a strategic |
16 | standpoint there wasn't anything to be gained from doing that, |
17 | correct? |
18 | A. Right. We didn't -- we didn't just generally go down the |
19 | list and call all the -- all the jurors. |
20 | Q. Mr. Mallett asked you questions about Joyce Curetonís |
21 | availability as a witness. This is one of their allegations in |
22 | the petition that they didnít flesh out, so this is the first |
23 | time Iíve heard about it. |
24 | Did you subpoena her as a witness? |
25 | A. I don't think we did. |
|
776
|
1 | Q. Okay. Do you feel like if you didn't subpoena her and |
2 | hadn't issued a Subpoena for her, do you think you did anything |
3 | in terms of lacking effectiveness of counsel for Mr. Echols by |
4 | not subpoenaing her? |
5 | A. No. No, and I -- I could speculate that Jason was in the |
6 | Craighead County Juvenile Jail during the entire time prior to |
7 | the trial. And Ms. Cureton was in charge of the juvenile jail |
8 | And I know sometimes attorneys will call jailers in as |
9 | mitigating witnesses. And I speculate that's what they may |
10 | have done with Ms. Cureton. Mr. Echols was housed |
11 | other jails until a week or so before our trial started, so she |
12 | didn't have that exposure to him. |
13 | Q. So I would guess that if you were able to call her as a |
14 | mitigator and, you know, we're -- we're now speculating, but |
15 | what she could testify to would be her experience with Damien |
16 | while he was here for the three or four weeks during the trial? |
17 | A. Right. But even then Damien was -- was eighteen so he was |
18 | not a juvenile, and he was not housed in the juvenile part of |
19 | the jail. I think they -- there was some time where they |
20 | housed him separately from other inmates and she may have been |
21 | -- had something to do with that part of the jail. |
22 | Q. But at best, all -- I mean, from where you stand here |
23 | today looking back at things, Ms. Cureton, if she had been |
24 | subpoenaed, if she had been available, and if she were called, |
25 | could have testified that Damien was a good inmate for the |
|
777
|
1 | three or four weeks he was out here in our juvenile facility -- |
2 | would be the kind of mitigator that she could have provided? |
3 | A. But even that I think is -- is wrong because he wasn't in |
4 | the juvenile part of the jail. I'm trying to think -- 'cause I |
5 | know they've moved -- they've moved -- they've done some |
6 | changing of moving females and juveniles and juvenile females |
7 | and the juveniles -- I do remember one part of the jail that we |
8 | --- we talked to Mr. Echols on some occasions, and she may have |
9 | been the matron in charge of that portion at that time. But as |
10 | far as -- I mean, I -- I -- I don't think her testimony would |
11 | have helped at all. |
12 | Q. Okay. And so you sure can't see much reason why somebody |
13 | would have gene out of their way to suggest she leave the |
14 | jurisdiction so she wouldn't have to provide that crucial type |
15 | of testimony that he had been out at the jail for three or four |
16 | weeks? |
17 | A. It certainly has -- I don't see any -- any relevance to |
18 | Mr. Echols at all. |
19 | Q. Okay. Now, the testimony by Mr. Hicks, your -- I guess |
20 | heís the -- |
21 | A. -- anti-cult expert. |
22 | Q. -- anti-cult expert. Now, how did you find Mr. Hicks? |
23 | A. Mr Lax did some checking and researching on the |
24 | different sources of people who had written and -- in this |
25 | field, and his name came across -- and I don't know if Mr. |
|
778
|
1 | Echols (sic) may have found his book first and then contacted |
2 | him or found him and he mentioned that, I've got a book out. |
3 | But I know at some point ill there, we -- we obtained his book |
4 | and then talked to him on the phone. |
5 | Q. Okay. So -- so you do that after you realize the state |
6 | has listed Doctor Griffis as a witness, right? |
7 | A. Right. |
8 | Q. Okay. And so when we list Griffis, you and Lax, or Mr. |
9 | Lax by himself, or somebody, finds out what Griffis is all |
10 | about in terms of what his particular testimony is, and then |
11 | you -- you all make the determination that you need an expert |
12 | to counter it? |
13 | A. Right. And I think we had conversations with him at the |
14 | -- you know, since -- since he would be an expert witness. I |
15 | think -- I believe Mr. Griffis testified on more than one day |
16 | and we may have -- I think we had -- we called him at nighttime |
17 | to tell him what Griffis has said so far that day and got his |
18 | responses on how to cross examine him plus we used him, and we |
19 | decided to call him as a direct examination as our witness as |
20 | well. |
21 | Q. Okay. And so you evaluated what Griffisí testimony was |
22 | gonna be with the assistance of Mr. Lax, your investigative |
23 | expert, you determined it was a good idea to have an expert of |
24 | your own, right? |
25 | A. Yes, sir. |
|
779
|
1 | Q. And then with the assistance of Mr. Lax you go out and |
2 | secure an expert from ñ who is from Virginia -- is that right? |
3 | A. Richmond, Virginia, yes, sir. |
4 | Q. Okay. And he had written books -- |
5 | A. Writ (sic) a book The Pursuit of Satan, against the |
6 | anti-cult experts and we read that one week-end during the |
7 | trial. |
8 | Q. Okay. And did you have a chance -- he also assisted you |
9 | not only by providing testimony but assisted you in your |
10 | preparation and examination of Doctor Griffis, correct? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. Did you appeal the -- in terms of your -- the issues |
13 | involving what he wasn't allowed to go into in his testimony |
14 | referring to other treatises and things of that nature -- was |
15 | that issue raised on appeal? |
16 | A. There were two issues -- and I get 'em confused -- but the |
17 | Judge had made a ruling, I think when I was questioning Griffis |
18 | about -- I want to say Ken Lanning, the FBI expert -- and the |
19 | Judge had made a ruling concerning that testimony and then the |
20 | Judge had made another ruling on whether or not we could |
21 | question Hicks on the same -- or similar testimony, and I |
22 | believe I raised both those points. I mean, I was alleging |
23 | that the Judge had -- had changed his mind because he allowed |
24 | it one time and didn't allow it the other time and I believe we |
25 | raised that -- both those issues. I don't have my brief in |
|
780
|
1 | front of me, but I thought -- thought we raised both of 'em. |
2 | It ought to be under the Table of Contents or -- |
3 | Q. Number nineteen, the trial court erred when it sustained |
4 | the state's objection to hearsay when Echols attempted to ask |
5 | Hicks about the scholarly treatise of Lanning? |
6 | A. Right. And I think there's another related one -- it |
7 | might have been a couple of points before that. |
8 | Q. So that issue was raised on appeal? |
9 | A. Yes, sir. |
10 | Q. And the Supreme Court had an opportunity to address it? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. Okay. And -- |
13 | MR. DAVIS: One second, your Honor. |
14 | Your Honor, may I approach the witness? |
15 | THE COURT: Yes. |
16 | BY MR. DAVIS: |
17 | Q. I'm showing you what is on the bottom of page five thirty |
18 | of the Supreme Court's decision in this case where it says -- |
19 | where it makes its ruling on that particular issue of appeal. |
20 | A. Yes, sir. |
21 | Q. Where it says, ìMoreover,î could you read that, please? |
22 | (HANDING TO WITNESS) |
23 | A. Moreover, Echols could not have suffered any prejudice |
24 | from the ruling because the information was later given to the |
25 | jury." |
|
781
|
1 | Q. And so that issue was preserved for appeal, was appealed |
2 | and the Supreme Court determined that there was no error that |
3 | could be attributed to that -- or no damage because, in fact, |
4 | that information was provided? |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. Okay. |
7 | THE COURT: Didn't I reverse myself on that and |
8 | allow you to read from the treatise? I thought I did |
9 | but maybe I didn't. |
10 | MR. DAVIS: Pass the witness, your Honor. |
11 | THE COURT: Anything else? |
12 | MR. MALLETT: Yes, sir. |
13 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION |
14 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
15 | Q. Mr. Price, when Mr. Davis began his cross examination, he |
16 | said, I have just a few questions. I'm reluctant to make that |
17 | same statement. |
18 | In your time as public defender here in this county and |
19 | the three counties in Arkansas, I take it that you frequently |
20 | find yourself in court with Mr. Davis, do you not? |
21 | A. The other two counties, no, but in Craighead, yes, sir. |
22 | Q. And likewise over the years frequently in court with Judge |
23 | Burnett? |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | Q. You are professional colleagues and pursuant to the laws |
|
782
|
1 | of the State of Arkansas work together within the system of |
2 | Justice -- the elected Judge, the public defender, the |
3 | prosecuting attorney? |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. As a matter of choice, these are professional decisions |
6 | that you have, at least, made and presumably decisions that |
7 | they have made freely and voluntarily? |
8 | A. Professional decisions -- |
9 | Q. That you would work as public defender and -- |
10 | A. Oh, yes, sir |
11 | Q. -- Mr. Davis as the prosecuting attorney, and Judge |
12 | Burnett as the Judge. |
13 | A. Yes, sir. |
14 | Q. And within the context of the adversary system, you may |
15 | not be close personal friends, but you are at least |
16 | professional colleagues working within the same system and |
17 | frequently at the same courthouse? |
18 | A. Yes, sir. |
19 | Q. Have you also had occasion to travel together from time to |
20 | time to attend professional meetings and conferences and |
21 | training sessions? |
22 | A. Weíve traveled some together. |
23 | Q. And tell us about that, please. |
24 | A. I know there was a -- a -- I guess a seminar on alternate |
25 | sanctions that we went to Tampa, Florida, as part of five |
|
783
|
1 | different judicial districts in Arkansas. And Judge Burnett |
2 | went and Mr. Davis went and the public -- probation officer |
3 | went and I went as the public defender and then we had the same |
4 | teams for four -- I believe, four or five other counties plus |
5 | other people from the Department of Community Punishment, |
6 | Sentencing Commission and some other state officials from |
7 | Little Rock. |
8 | Q. And is it fair to say -- and I say this not as a criticism |
9 | at all but just simply a statement of fact that everyone knows |
10 | -- that even after these proceedings are over, your |
11 | professional relationship with the prosecuting attorney and the |
12 | Judge presumably will go on. You probably have many cases in |
13 | pending right now? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. All right. And you understand that it's in the nature of |
16 | a Rule 37 proceeding -- in a proceeding seeking post-conviction |
17 | relief after the assessment of the death penalty -- that under |
18 | the pleadings that we have filed and that are filed in such |
19 | cases, the lawyer who is the trial lawyer at the time of trial |
20 | in a sense in forced or asked or requested to defend the work |
21 | he did during the trial. |
22 | A. Yes, sir. |
23 | Q. And so without there actually being a pleading stating |
24 | that you're a party, you become -- at least along with your |
25 | colleague, Mr. Davidson -- a necessary witness -- |
|
784
|
1 | A. Yes, sir. |
2 | Q. -- to the fair disposition of the claims under the Rule 3 |
3 | proceeding. |
4 | A. Yes, sir. |
5 | Q. All right. So it's not really that you're on trial but |
6 | maybe to some extent your work is under examination? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, this whole -- I mean, |
9 | to establish a record -- I don't know whether Mr. |
10 | Mallett is apologizing to Mr. Price as to why he's |
11 | ripped him for three days -- I don't know what it is, |
12 | but it's not relevant. I mean, we could be up here |
13 | for years if he goes into all this stuff on every |
14 | redirect with every witness. I mean, he can cover |
15 | the things I covered on cross examination of his |
16 | witness -- but, Lord, we'll be here for months. |
17 | THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what your |
18 | objection is, but I guess -- |
19 | MR. DAVIS: My objection is there's nothing |
20 | relevant -- |
21 | THE COURT' I sustain it if it's -- |
22 | MR. DAVIS: -- to what he's asked in the last |
23 | five minutes. |
24 | THE COURT: Is it relevancy alone? Okay. Let's |
25 | move along. |
|
785
|
1 | MR. MALLETT: I will, your Honor. |
2 | THE COURT: All right. |
3 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
4 | Q. As I was listening to you answer Mr. Davis' questions -- |
5 | which he asked in a leading form -- that is, it was suggestive, |
6 | I think, to you as a witness what answer he would prefer that |
7 | you give -- is that a fair statement? Was he generally leading |
8 | you throughout the last interrogation? |
9 | A. Quite a bit of his questions were leading. |
10 | Q. All right. And, for example, to illustrate, one of the |
11 | questions that he asked you in this undertaking that we've been |
12 | listening to this afternoon was, if you had to do it again, |
13 | would you make the same call. I think at that time we were |
14 | discussing what questions you were asking Mr. Byers, correct? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. And you said, yes, I would make the same call, right? |
17 | A. Yes, sir. |
18 | Q. And that is an answer that, in fact, doesn't (sic) defend |
19 | the call that you previously made. |
20 | A. Doesnít defend it?' |
21 | Q. Well, does it, yeah -- don't you think? |
22 | A. Yes, sir. |
23 | Q. Okay. Now, hindsight is a powerful thing, and I know that |
24 | if we had the power of hindsight we probably wouldn't be here, |
25 | we'd be down investing in the stock market because we would |
|
786
|
1 | know what was gonna happen tomorrow. We'd only do cases to |
2 | advance social causes or appropriate personal agendas perhaps. |
3 | But we don't all have the power of hindsight. |
4 | In hindsight -- using the power of hindsight we know that |
5 | the sum result of the tactical and strategic decisions that you |
6 | made at trial were that Damien Echols was convicted of capital |
7 | murder, assessed the death penalty by a jury, and his |
8 | conviction was affirmed on appeal, right? That's -- that's |
9 | what happened -- that's what hindsight tells us. |
10 | A. That's what hindsight say happened. |
11 | Q. All right. So that if every decision you made at trial |
12 | was different, the result wouldn't have been worse from the |
13 | standpoint of the case as it existed the day the Supreme Court |
14 | affirmed the conviction. With the power of hindsight, you lost |
15 | on everything -- in all the courts -- guilt, punishment, appeal |
16 | -- thirty points on appeal. None meriting a new trial. You |
17 | lost everything. |
18 | A. And the U.S. Supreme Court, yes, sir. |
19 | Q. And the U.S. Supreme Court. |
20 | A. Yes, sir. |
21 | Q. So are you absolutely sure then in hindsight |
22 | that if you had it to do over again, you would want to do |
23 | everything exactly the same? |
24 | A. Am I absolutely sure? |
25 | Q. Sure. |
|
787
|
1 | A . No. |
2 | Q. All right. Let's then go through a few of the points |
3 | about which you gave testimony under questioning by Mr. Davis. |
4 | The issue of whether you had a fair jury to decide the |
5 | case. You have known since law school that this is taught in |
6 | law school to be an adversary system of justice in which one |
7 | side -- the plaintiff or the prosecution -- puts on the |
8 | strongest case they can. The other side -- defense -- civil or |
9 | criminal -- puts on the strongest case they can, the jury |
10 | decides. The jury decides in effect the truth of the truth of the case |
11 | under the rules of evidence and the law that is |
12 | given to them by the Court. |
13 | A. Yes, sir. |
14 | Q. That's what is called the adversary system of justice, |
15 | right? |
16 | A. That's correct. |
17 | Q. So when we discuss what kind of jury a lawyer wants |
18 | prosecuting a criminal case, wouldn't you speculate that a jury |
19 | in a capital -- excuse me -- that a prosecutor in a capital |
20 | case probably wants a jury of twelve people that are strongly |
21 | in favor of the death penalty and willing to participate in |
22 | giving it. I mean, that's what a prosecutor should call a fair |
23 | jury, donít you think? |
24 | A. Perhaps, and I've never been a prosecutor. I've never |
25 | picked a jury for -- |
|
788
|
1 | Q. I mean, Just in your own mind, wouldn't a prosecutor |
2 | prefer to have, you know, twelve homicide detectives or prison |
3 | guards? |
4 | A. Quite possibly. |
5 | Q. All right. And likewise when we talk about wanting a fail |
6 | jury to decide a case, as an advocate -- as an advocate, you |
7 | want as best you can to have jury -- jurors on your jury in a |
8 | capital case who have reservations about the death penalty -- |
9 | even though theyíre qualified to give it in a proper case -- so |
10 | that when they read the evidence you hope they will find -- in |
11 | the event of a conviction -- that your client is on whose |
12 | situation under the facts would justify a vote for life and not |
13 | death, right? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. Okay. And likewise when you select a jury and you have a |
16 | client who has told you he was innocent -- has Damien Echols |
17 | has always -- always told you he is innocent of this offense, |
18 | hasn't he? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. All right. So when you have a client who has denied at |
21 | times the commission of the offense, you as an advocate in |
22 | the adversary system of justice want to seat a jury that will |
23 | -- you hope -- believe in and follow the law which is that |
24 | there is a presumption of innocence, hold the prosecution to |
25 | its burden of proof and, you hope, find at the end of all the |
|
789
|
1 | evidence they are not persuaded and the proper verdict is not |
2 | guilty, right? |
3 | A. Yes, sir. |
4 | Q. Right. So generally then, it is fair to say that what is |
5 | a fair jury is -- from your standpoint -- a jury most likely to |
6 | acquit and in the event of conviction return a sentence of life |
7 | and not death. That's what you want. |
8 | A. Yes, sir. |
9 | Q. Okay. Then when you seated your jury, you seated a jury |
10 | whose audible responses didn't appear of record in many cases |
11 | as both sides have said, but you have indicated that you would |
12 | make note of the body language of the prospective jurors at any |
13 | trial. Is that what you told Mr. Davis and Judge Burnett -- |
14 | that if the jurors were quiet you would make note of the body |
15 | language? |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. All right. Do you mean to indicate to me that we can go |
18 | to the file boxes of notes that you've retained in this case, |
19 | and we'll find notes that you've made of body language of all |
20 | of these silent jurors -- a hundred and thirty of them -- being |
21 | questioned as a group by Judge Burnett? |
22 | A. I donít recall that a hundred and thirty of 'em were |
23 | questioned by Burnett. |
24 | Q. well -- |
25 | A. I recall -- that we put the box -- we put eighteen in the |
|
790
|
1 | box. I don't think -- I recall his questions being -- the |
2 | initial questions to the ones in the box -- not -- not to the |
3 | hundred and thirty -- |
4 | Q. With -- with the remaining people out in the courtroom? |
5 | A. Yes, sir. |
6 | Q. All right. A hundred and thirty people in the courtroom. |
7 | A. A hundred and thirty people -- right. |
8 | Q. And then a smaller group in the box, and it was the group |
9 | in the box that was not responding, right? |
10 | A. That's my -- my recollection. |
11 | Q. All right. And then do you have notes that every time |
12 | there was no audible response you took notes of physical |
13 | responses? |
14 | A. Well, you know, Mr. Schay has looked at all my notes. I |
15 | don't specifically recall exactly what's in all my notes. |
16 | Q. Well, I mean, do you -- do you believe that you would have |
17 | taken notes of physical responses every time they sat there |
18 | silently? |
19 | A. You mean, if I nodded (sic) down, all eighteen jurors have |
20 | nodded their head after each question, I don't think I did |
21 | that. I do think I would look at, you know, the juror, Ms. |
22 | Smith, and -- and I may have made some mental notes as to, you |
23 | know, my impressions of a particular juror. |
24 | Q. Mental notes. Of course, you understand that in a capital |
25 | case there is always a possibility for a hearing like this |
|
791
|
1 | hearing. You understand that. I mean, you understood that |
2 | when you undertook this representation? |
3 | A. Yes, sir. |
4 | Q. So you understand the importance of having a record of |
5 | what exactly occurred in the courtroom? |
6 | A. Yes, sir. |
7 | Q. All right. Mr. Davis asked you whether physical responses |
8 | can be reflected in the record, and I believe you answered, no |
9 | those would not be reflected in the record. Do you recall |
10 | giving that answer? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. Well, is that completely correct? For example, have you |
13 | ever been in a courtroom when a lawyer said, may the record |
14 | reflect that the witness is smiling, or the witness is |
15 | laughing? |
16 | A. His question dealt with the jurors' responses. |
17 | Q. Have you ever been in a courtroom where lawyers said, may |
18 | the record reflect that the prospective juror is standing up, |
19 | sitting down, smiling, talking to the Juror to their right or |
20 | looking at the ground, reading a book, sleeping |
21 | -- anything of that nature? |
22 | A. I donít believe so, no, sir. |
23 | Q. So youíre not aware -- |
24 | A. As far as a juror. Now, as far -- the second part of |
25 | your question dealing with -- as a witness, yes, I -- I've |
|
792
|
1 | seen responses where, you know, let the record reflect that |
2 | the witness is doing such and such, or the witness is making a |
3 | gesture, or the witness is -- yeah -- doing something, and, |
4 | you know, sometimes I will physically -- I will state, well, |
5 | the juror (sic) is standing up and moving their hand in a -- as |
6 | if they're firing a pistol or something of that nature. |
7 | Q. Oh. So that's called -- might be called verbalizing |
8 | conduct or verbalizing your observations, right? |
9 | A. Observations of witnesses, yes, sir. |
10 | Q. So we can protect the record from being silent and |
11 | inaudible by verbalizing observations for the record, right? |
12 | A. Are you talking about as a witness, or as a juror? |
13 | Q. As a juror. |
14 | A. I mean, I don't think I've ever verbalized jurors' |
15 | responses like that. |
16 | Q. Interesting. Have you ever heard a judge say something |
17 | substantially like this: I take it from your silence that all |
18 | of you feel the same as Mr. Brown? |
19 | A. Yes, sir. |
20 | Q. Hypothetically, Mr. Brown. |
21 | A. Yes, sir. Iíve heard that quite often. |
22 | Q. Okay. So that is another way of verbalizing observation |
23 | of what goes on, right? |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | Q. But you've now seen in this record a series of questions |
|
793
|
1 | followed for this Court to review today and any other court to |
2 | review at any time with the recording of no audible response, |
3 | right? |
4 | A. Yeah, I've seen no audible response in the record, yes, |
5 | sir. |
6 | Q. Now, when Mr. Davis then took you from the fact that you |
7 | had no idea of how a non-verbal response could be made a part |
8 | of the record, the next thing he went and asked you about was |
9 | the fact that you didn't ask any questions in jury selection |
10 | about this notion that there are people who are Satanists which |
11 | I translate as they worship Satan or who prefer, I guess, a |
12 | life of fire and brimstone to a life of eternal bliss -- at one |
13 | with God -- I guess that's what that means. You -- you didn't |
14 | ask any questions of the prospective panel -- |
15 | A. That's correct. |
16 | Q. -- of how they felt about that notion -- |
17 | A. That's -- |
18 | Q. -- at all? |
19 | A. Yes, sir, that's correct. That's correct. |
20 | Q. Because you assumed that these people who had sworn an |
21 | oath to God to tell the truth would if they were Satanists just |
22 | lie about it. |
23 | A. No, I don think they were sworn to God -- |
24 | Q. Well, did you swear the panelists to give true answers? |
25 | A. Swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give. |
|
794
|
1 | Q. That's not -- in Arkansas it's not a religious oath? |
2 | A. No, sir. |
3 | Q. But they did swear or affirm, I presume, under -- what -- |
4 | risk of perjury if they told a deliberate lie -- I presume the |
5 | statute would still apply -- |
6 | A. Yes, sir. |
7 | Q. -- to a false statement under oath? |
8 | A. I mean, there's -- there is an oath that they take prior |
9 | to voir dire. |
10 | Q. All right. So you assumed that they would not tell the |
11 | truth and that's why you didn't ask these questions about Satan |
12 | worship? |
13 | A. I assumed that no one would -- would admit that they were |
14 | -- believed in occult or Satanism. |
15 | Q. Or did you consider asking them how they felt about the |
16 | notion that satanic cults might exist in rural Arkansas? |
17 | A. We may have talked about it. |
18 | Q. But you didn't ask that question either? |
19 | A. I mean, you'd have to look at the record. |
20 | THE COURT: I've got to interject here just a |
21 | minute, Mr. Mallett. |
22 | Have you read the entire voir dire? |
23 | MR. MALLETT: Yes, sir. |
24 | THE COURT: Extensive questions were asked by |
25 | defense counsel of three witness -- three prospective |
|
795
|
1 | jurors at a time, and those were verbal responses |
2 | that are recorded. You're pointing out questions in |
3 | general that the Court asked. Somewhere in that |
4 | record, I suppose, I probably asked tile very question |
5 | you did -- I assume from your silence that each of |
6 | you have no response to the question -- or words to |
7 | that effect. |
8 | But, as I recall, Mr. Ford and Mr. Price both |
9 | asked numerous questions, and they were voir dired on |
10 | the issue of their beliefs in the occult, or |
11 | whatever, in great detail. And I think that the |
12 | record that you have obtained would ñ would support |
13 | and reflect that. |
14 | I mean, you're leaving it as if Mr. Price asked |
15 | no questions or left unanswered a question hanging in |
16 | the air. That's -- that's not what happened. I want |
17 | the record to be clear on that. So whatever is in |
18 | the voir dire record will reflect the specific |
19 | questions and answers. |
20 | So I think you need to ask him -- |
21 | MR. MALLETT: I donít mean -- I donít mean to |
22 | quarrel with the Court, so Iíll start by answering |
23 | the Courtís question. |
24 | THE COURT: All right. |
25 | MR. MALLETT: Yes, I read the voir dire. |
|
796
|
1 | THE COURT: All right. Did it not reflect |
2 | questions and answers? |
3 | MR. MALLETT: It did not reflect questions and |
4 | answers into the belief of those who were available |
5 | to serve on the jury into their feelings about this |
6 | notion of satanic beliefs, satanic cults, the |
7 | occult -- |
8 | THE COURT: That wasn't asked by anyone present? |
9 | MR. MALLETT: I look at those twelve people, |
10 | your Honor, and I look at the questions that were |
11 | asked them in small groups and the way that it was |
12 | handled, and it is as though a vacuum was placed |
13 | around them, and the Court very carefully asked them |
14 | that if whatever it was that they have heard about |
15 | the case, they can set it aside and decide the case |
16 | through the evidence. |
17 | The question, how do you feel about this notion |
18 | of satanic cults -- whatever -- I'm not finding it. |
19 | THE COURT: Of course, that's the reason we |
20 | sequestered the -- the -- did a -- a inquiry in the |
21 | back so those sensitive questions could be asked and |
22 | I am under the impression that they were asked. But |
23 | you say they weren't then -- |
24 | MR. MALLETT: And I -- I -- I'm -- I'm not -- I |
25 | mean, I'm not -- you know, you're the Judge and not a |
|
797
|
1 | witness, and I'm not meaning to sound like I'm |
2 | interrogating the Court. |
3 | THE COURT: Well, I understand that. I mean, it |
4 | -- it -- well, go ahead. |
5 | MR. MALLETT: And, in fact, your Honor -- |
6 | THE COURT: I'm not sure what point you're |
7 | trying to make is what I'm getting at because I -- I |
8 | have a different recollection of -- of what did |
9 | happen in the voir dire. |
10 | MR. MALLETT: Well, of course, now I'm reviewing |
11 | matters that Mr. Davis reviewed that in turn are |
12 | claims in our Petition for a Rule 37 ruling. |
13 | THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. |
14 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
15 | Q. And do I understand from your earlier testimony that you |
16 | did not consider at the time of jury selection this subject of |
17 | the satanic here in rural Arkansas wasn't an important subject |
18 | worth asking about? Is that what I understood you to say when |
19 | Mr. Davis was asking you questions? |
20 | A. Did we ask any questions on voir dire about that subject? |
21 | Q. Iím asking if you thought it was important. |
22 | A. Before I could answer that question, I have not looked at |
23 | voir dire. Did we ask any questions on that subject on the |
24 | voir dire? |
25 | Q. No. |
|
798
|
1 | A. No. I anticipate we probably thought about that -- that |
2 | subject, but we decided not to ask any questions about it. |
3 | Q. You have no present recollection of what the agreement was |
4 | between you and Mr. Davidson about how you would deal with this |
5 | here in rural Arkansas -- this idea of cults and satanic |
6 | meetings and satanic killings. |
7 | A. What agreement are you referring to? |
8 | Q. Any agreement between you and Mr. Davidson about what -- |
9 | A. You mean discussions about how we -- |
10 | Q. How -- whether you would ask it -- raise it to the jury -- |
11 | educate them, bring it up, let them -- let them know -- find |
12 | out what their feelings were, see if they would be inclined to |
13 | believe that if those were the circumstances under the state's |
14 | theory they would disregard all other evidence and find guilt |
15 | because of their profound religious -- |
16 | A. I mean, I would anticipate that we talked about that |
17 | subject, but as far as any specific knowledge of that |
18 | discussion, no, I don't -- don't recall that. |
19 | Q. Do you believe that a constitutionally adequate voir dire |
20 | would have included probing questions into this very sensitive |
21 | area? |
22 | A. I think this was a constitutional voir dire. |
23 | Q. Well, thatís defending the voir dire that you -- |
24 | A. That's -- that's correct. |
25 | Q. -- did but if -- |
|
799
|
1 | A. That's what you're asking me to do and I'm -- I'm doing |
2 | that. |
3 | Q. There was testimony about what publicity to which the |
4 | jurors had been exposed. And you said, well, if I knew where |
5 | they lived I would know what newspapers they read, or what the |
6 | media was, so I would know what they had been exposed to. Do |
7 | you recall giving us that information? |
8 | A. Today or on -- back in -- |
9 | Q. Today. Today. If a juror identified the source of |
10 | information, I would know what they'd read because I knew what |
11 | stories had been published. |
12 | A. All right. |
13 | Q. Did you say that to Mr. Davis? |
14 | A. I believe I did. |
15 | Q. How did you know what stories they'd read? |
16 | A. Well, because the primary newspapers that were covering |
17 | this were the Commercial Appeal from Memphis, the Arkansas |
18 | Democrat-Gazette, the Jonesboro Sun, and the West Memphis |
19 | Times were the three -- or the four newspapers that primarily |
20 | covered this story. |
21 | Q. And by knowing that a prospective juror had read any one |
22 | of those publications, would know which story they had read |
23 | that there were trappings of Satanism, that Misskelley had |
24 | confessed, that Damien Echols wore black -- would you know what |
25 | content they had read from knowing the -- |
|
800
|
1 | A. I read all those stories. |
2 | Q. Did you know if the jurors had read all the stories? |
3 | A. Had read any specific stories? |
4 | Q. Yes. |
5 | A. No, sir. |
6 | Q. Yes. How did you know the jurors had read specific |
7 | stories? |
8 | A. I mean, I didn't know that the jurors had -- |
9 | Q. So you only knew what information they might have been |
10 | exposed to, correct? |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. And did not ask them to tell you the contents of the |
13 | information they had previously received about the case'? |
14 | A. Yes, sir. |
15 | Q. As I was listening to you answer Mr. Davis' questions |
16 | about the Jury anticipating more evidence of the satanic than |
17 | was presented, I thought you were telling me that what you |
18 | wanted to have was a jury who knew everything about the |
19 | Misskelley trial. Is that what you intended to be telling us? |
20 | A. No, sir. |
21 | Q. It was as though you believed that the more prejudiced in |
22 | favor of these boys being the murderers of those three little |
23 | boys -- the more prejudiced they were in that favor at the |
24 | beginning of your trial the better off you were because your |
25 | case would be a different case than the Misskelley case. Is |
|
801
|
1 | that what you intended to tell us? |
2 | A. No, I didn't say that. |
3 | Q. What did you say? |
4 | A. You know, you're saying, the more prejudiced -- I'm -- I'm |
5 | -- |
6 | Q. Well, what did you intend to say -- to communicate when |
7 | you were saying that we believe the Jury anticipated a very |
8 | strong state's case in this area, and it wasn't so strong. |
9 | What was -- what was you trying to tell us? |
10 | A. I was trying to say I -- the jury thought there would be |
11 | more evidence of the crime itself and of Satanism and the |
12 | occult and that type of -- of evidence, and that evidence |
13 | didn't come forward. |
14 | Q. And so you wanted a jury that already had all that |
15 | accusation, the Misskelley trial, the Misskelley confession, |
16 | the Misskelley conviction, you wanted that as part of your |
17 | theory of defense in the trial that started two weeks after the |
18 | Misskelley verdict? |
19 | A. Well, now you're saying -- Misskelley didn't have that |
20 | much evidence about the occult. In the confession of |
21 | Misskelley there was evidence of the occult, but there was not |
22 | that much other evidence in Misskelley's trial about this being |
23 | a satanic, cult-related killing. |
24 | Q. So you wanted a jury that knew all about the Misskelley |
25 | trial, right? |
|
802
|
1 | A. Well-- |
2 | Q. Did -- I mean, that -- |
3 | A. They did know about it. |
4 | Q. And you -- I'm trying to figure out as you were listen -- |
5 | answering questions for Mr. Davis if that's the kind of jury |
6 | you wanted. Was it? The jury who was fully informed about the |
7 | Misskelley trial so they would see your trial was different. |
8 | Was that your strategy? |
9 | A. That -- that was one of our strategies. |
10 | Q. All right. So you didn't want a jury that was gonna set |
11 | aside everything they had heard. You wanted a jury that was |
12 | gonna remember everything they had heard and then know that |
13 | your case was different. That's what you told Judge Burnett |
14 | today. |
15 | A. Not necessarily, no, sir. I did not want the jury to know |
16 | the details of the Misskelley confession, and they didn't know |
17 | about that from our trial. |
18 | Q. Well, what did -- |
19 | A. 'Cause the Misskelley confession didn't -- didn't come in |
20 | in our trial. |
21 | Q. How did you know what the juries knew from reading all of |
22 | these fine publications that you had read? The Misskelley |
23 | confession was certainly reported by all the media widely |
24 | spread and widely reported, right? |
25 | A. Yes, sir. |
|
803
|
1 | Q. Al1 right. So you wanted a jury, not that would set aside |
2 | what they had heard from the Misskelley trial, but would |
3 | remember the evidence from the Misskelley trial and then |
4 | compare it to the evidence adduced in Mr. Echols' trial. |
5 | A. In a certain aspect. That's -- that's one of the factors |
6 | we looked at. |
7 | Q. Thank you. |
8 | A. We -- there were other witnesses in Misskelley's trial |
9 | that didn't take -- that didn't testify in our trial. So, |
10 | no, that's not a complete answer. |
11 | Q. It was one of your desires? |
12 | A. It was one of 'em. |
13 | Q. As I was listening to you talk about Michael Carson and |
14 | how the choice you made was to rely on the Court's limiting |
15 | instruction rather than assist in undermining the truthfulness |
16 | of Michael Carson -- if it could have been done -- because of |
17 | the possibility you might fail. |
18 | A. I didn't say that. |
19 | Q. Well, what did you say? |
20 | A. Youíre saying that I didn't assist. I assisted Mr. Ford |
21 | in his cross examination. |
22 | Q. By -- by choosing that Mr. Davidson and you -- |
23 | particularly Mr. Davidson -- would not cross examine, right? |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | A. That -- that was a conscious decision, wasn't it? |
|
804
|
1 | A. Yes, sir. That's correct. |
2 | Q. I was wondering if you ever considered arguing that the |
3 | evidence against Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Echols was different? In |
4 | the case of Mr. Baldwin there was a person in jail who said |
5 | that Mr. Baldwin confessed to him that he, Baldwin, had done |
6 | this and giving that confession on two occasions. Did you |
7 | consider arguing that to the jury so they could see that the |
8 | evidence about Echols was less than the evidence about Baldwin? |
9 | A. I thought we did argue that in closing. |
10 | Q. Well, the record would speak for itself on that matter. |
11 | A. Yes, sir. |
12 | Q. On Officer Ridge, when you asked a question, ìI guess Iím |
13 | confused. At the time -- you did not take that stick into |
14 | evidence at the time you all recovered the bodies.î You are |
15 | asking a question that Officer Ridge can answer, yes or no. |
16 | Is that true? |
17 | A. Yes, sir, that's true. |
18 | Q. And Officer Ridge was then under the authority of Judge |
19 | Burnett pursuant to a Motion in Limine instructed either |
20 | directly of indirectly through state's counsel -- instructed |
21 | to not make reference to the Misskelley confession, true? |
22 | A. True. |
23 | Q. So you asked him a yes or no question, right? |
24 | A. Right. |
25 | Q. He was under a Motion in Limine not to make any reference |
|
805
|
1 | to the Miskelley confession, right? |
2 | A. Right. |
3 | Q. And he then answered, no, sir -- which is a complete |
4 | answer to the question, did you take the stick into evidence at |
5 | the time you recovered the bodies. So when he says, no, sir, |
6 | he has given a complete answer, right? |
7 | A. Right. |
8 | Q. And so when you hear that, no, sir, you have received an |
9 | answer to the question that you have asked, right? |
10 | A. Right. |
11 | Q. Okay. You didn't have any regret about asking that |
12 | question, did you? |
13 | A. At -- |
14 | Q. It was answered, right? |
15 | A. At that time, no, sir. |
16 | Q. All right. So what happens next is he begins making a |
17 | speech, and he makes a speech explaining when he did recover |
18 | the stick without you asking him when did you recover it, why |
19 | did you go and recover it at that time and so forth. |
20 | MR. DAVIS: Your Honor, I'm gonna object. This |
21 | isnít a question. This is testimony by Mr. Mallett, |
22 | and I donít get to cross examine him. |
23 | MR. MALLETT: I'll rephrase it. |
24 | MR. DAVIS: He didn't -- he didn't put it in the |
25 | form of a question. He's just testifying. And |
|
806
|
1 | that's great for the record for federal habeas, but |
2 | I'd just as soon deal with a witness I can cross |
3 | examine. |
4 | THE COURT: Rephrase your question. |
5 | MR. MALLETT: I don't mean to be argumentative, |
6 | but I certainly learned something of leading |
7 | questions when I was listening to the state's |
8 | prosecutor earlier today. |
9 | MR. DAVIS: I was cross examining a witness, |
10 | too. |
11 | THE COURT: Well, both of you could be pulling |
12 | little red wagons around. Let's get on with it. |
13 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
14 | Q. The problem was not your question, Mr. Price, was it, but |
15 | that your question was a perfectly good question calling for a |
16 | yes or no answer, true? |
17 | A. Is there another -- true. |
18 | Q. Right. You had no regret about asking that question, |
19 | right? |
20 | A. The regret is to the answer that he ñ the second part of |
21 | the answer that he gave. |
22 | Q. But thatís the part that was not responsive to your |
23 | question. |
24 | A. Yes, sir. |
25 | Q. And it was not responsive to your question, and it was |
|
807
|
1 | contrary to a direct order from Judge Burnett or an indirect |
2 | order from the state -- from the prosecuting attorney. |
3 | A. Yes, sir. |
4 | Q. So it was not one question too many, it was one illegal |
5 | answer too many -- an answer not permitted under the rules and |
6 | not required to answer the question, right? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. You did nothing wrong in that regard, did you? |
9 | A. I don't think I did. |
10 | Q. Well, did it occur to you that you could improve your |
11 | position on appeal or subsequent review if you said, your |
12 | Honor, that's an intentional act by Officer Ridge in direct |
13 | violation of the rule of this honorable Court. The basis for |
14 | a mistrial is not only that we now have a statement of a |
15 | confession infecting the jury, but we have it done deliberately |
16 | to contaminate the jury. Is there any reason you wouldn't make |
17 | that argument? |
18 | A. I mean, I didn't make that argument. I don't know the |
19 | reason I didn't. |
20 | Q. And it certainly -- certainly would not be non-ethical to |
21 | suggest in your motion to Judge Burnett that it appears Officer |
22 | Ridge was intentionally violating Judge Burnettís argument. |
23 | That would not be unethical, would it? I'm referring to Mr. |
24 | Davis' question. Nothing unethical about making that argument, |
25 | right? |
|
808
|
1 | A. I don't suppose. |
2 | THE COURT: Was that a point not a point for |
3 | appeal? It was, wasn't it? |
4 | MR. MALLETT: He neglected to point out to the |
5 | Supreme Court, your Honor, respectfully, that it was |
6 | in direct violation of your order and that it was a |
7 | deliberate act by Officer Ridge done to insert the |
8 | confession into a trial that this Court had worked so |
9 | hard to sanitize from that trial. |
10 | THE WITNESS: But I don't think I made that |
11 | specific objection at trial. |
12 | BY MR. MALLETT: |
13 | Q. No, you didn't object at trial it was done intentionally. |
14 | A. So you couldn't argue on -- on appeal. |
15 | Q. And was your decision, I will not object and claim he did |
16 | this intentionally in violation of Judge Burnett's argument -- |
17 | orders. Was that because as part of your theory of the case |
18 | you wanted the jury to know that Misskelley was convicted on |
19 | the strength of his own confession -- you wanted to remind them |
20 | of that? Was that a trial strategy relating back to -- |
21 | A. Trial strategy of not objecting that it was intentional-- |
22 | Q. Yes. |
23 | A. -- ëcause I didn't want it brought up? |
24 | Q. Because you -- because you wanted to remind them that |
25 | Misskelley was convicted on the strength of his confession. |
|
809
|
1 | A. I wouldn't say that because they'd already heard that. |
2 | Q. They'd already heard that from the media that they all |
3 | knew -- |
4 | A. No. No, they'd already heard that from Ridge's answer. |
5 | You're saying that I would ask -- I would not make that |
6 | objection so that Ridge wouldn't -- he'd already said it. |
7 | Q. So you didn't make it because you didn't think of it? |
8 | A. Probably. |
9 | Q. When you were discussing Mr. Byers and Mr. Barnes with Mr |
10 | David -- Davis, I recall listening carefully as Mr. Davis asked |
11 | you something about whether Mr. Barnes had a grudge against Mr. |
12 | Byers -- they had some -- some reason they were not close |
13 | friends but were, in fact, adverse at the time at the trial. |
14 | Do you recall that line of testimony? |
15 | A. Yes, sir. |
16 | Q. Is that something that you discussed with Mr. Davis today |
17 | before testifying? |
18 | A. Today? |
19 | Q. Yes, sir. |
20 | A. I havenít talked to Mr. Davis today. Mr. -- Mr. Davis or |
21 | Mr. Davidson. |
22 | Q. Well, I said Mr. Davis. |
23 | A. I donít think -- |
24 | Q. The Prosecuting Attorney Davis. |
25 | A. No, sir. |
|
810
|
1 | Q. I was wondering how he knew that? Had you discussed that |
2 | with him in anticipation of your testimony in these |
3 | proceedings? |
4 | A. I -- I had brief conversations with him yesterday, but I |
5 | didn't know the nature of my testimony. |
6 | Q. Yesterday, Sunday the twenty-fifth? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. About your expecting to testify today? |
9 | A. Yes, sir. I -- I don't know if I -- I have no -- I don't |
10 | recall -- |
11 | Q. And -- and -- |
12 | A. -- if Iíve had conversations with him before about the -- |
13 | Q. But you knew the issue of Mr. Byers was gonna come up |
14 | today? |
15 | A. No, sir. |
16 | Q. You didn't talk about that yesterday? |
17 | A. No, sir. About Byers and Barnes, no. |
18 | Q. Doctor Moneypenny -- you testified to meeting or meetings |
19 | with Glori Shettles --Ms. Glori Shettles, Mr. Davidson, and |
20 | Mr. Lax discussing the mitigation testimony that might be |
21 | available. I presume that was might be available if the trial |
22 | got that far? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. You would have had those meetings pre-trial, correct? |
25 | A. Yes, sir. |
|
811
|
1 | Q. You -- stretch your memory and let me know if I'm right |
2 | about this -- you had one meeting with Glori Shettles on the |
3 | subject of mitigation testimony at her home during evening |
4 | hours pre-trial end only one. Does that seem -- |
5 | A. At Glori Shettles' home? |
6 | Q. Yes. |
7 | A. Iíve never been to Glori Sherries' home. |
8 | Q. Or perhaps at your -- as you think about it, did you have |
9 | more than one meeting with Glori Shettles about mitigation |
10 | testimony for which the four of you were present? |
11 | A. No, I think we had several meetings. |
12 | Q. And would those be recorded in your time sheets which you |
13 | have filed with the Court seeking compensation? |
14 | A. Maybe, maybe not. We met at Mr. Lax's office on several |
15 | occasions. |
16 | Q. All right. When did you find Mr. Moneypenny, or learn of |
17 | Mr. Moneypenny as a possible witness with reference to when the |
18 | trial started? |
19 | A. I want to say a few months prior to the trial, but I'm not |
20 | -- I mean, offhand, I don't recall. I know we were -- there |
21 | was -- I believe there was somebody at Memphis that we were |
22 | trying to use but he was -- became unavailable and then we |
23 | started looking for -- for somebody else and then we came up |
24 | with Moneypenny. |
25 | Q. Who did you use in Memphis who became unavailable? |
|
812
|
1 | A. I donít remember the name. It was somebody -- Mr. Lax |
2 | and Ms. Shettles were trying to find somebody over there. |
3 | Q. On the subject of medical records, I believe you told us |
4 | under interrogation of Mr. Davis that the medical records can |
5 | be a two-edged sword -- they could be harmful or helpful, |
6 | correct? |
7 | A. Yes, sir. |
8 | Q. And the reason that a -- that Doctor Moneypenny had -- had |
9 | the medical history and the mental health history records of |
10 | Damien Echols is to assist him in looking at the whole life or |
11 | the person as best as could be reflected in those records? |
12 | A. Yes, sir. |
13 | Q. And you know that commonly in the field of psychology and |
14 | psychiatry it's typical for experts to look at histories as |
15 | part of what they consider in making a diagnosis. |
16 | A. Yes, sir. |
17 | Q. And in preparing to testify? |
18 | A. Yes, sir. |
19 | Q. So that the records themselves may contain all sorts of |
20 | information that is incorrect, hearsay, or incompetent, but |
21 | nevertheless, we rely on the expert to decide what weight to |
22 | give the information that is in the medical records, right? |
23 | Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. At page twenty-seven eighteen Mr. Fogleman, assisting Mr. |
25 | Davis in the prosecution of the case, has Doctor Moneypenny on |
|
813
|
1 | the stand, and he simply moves the admission of the stack of |
2 | medical records two inches thick. Do you remember that? |
3 | A. Yes, sir. |
4 | Q. Knowing that there was harmful information in those |
5 | medical records, what was your strategic reason for wanting two |
6 | -- a two-inch thick pile of Damien Echols' personal history to |
7 | be back in the jury room with all the other evidence in the |
8 | case? |
9 | A. Because I thought that the existence of those records |
10 | which were something that Doctor Moneypenny had based his -- |
11 | his testimony on was supportive of the mitigating circumstances |
12 | of the mental health of Damien Echols. |
13 | Q. You wanted the jury to read all of those records? |
14 | A. Yes, sir, and we wanted -- we wanted the jury to know that |
15 | Doctor Moneypenny had read those records. |
16 | Q. And by -- by -- well, of course, you could ask Doctor |
17 | Moneypenny if he'd read the records that he was holding, but by |
18 | letting them into evidence, you wanting the jury to have an |
19 | opportunity to review all evidence admitted by the Court chose |
20 | to let the jury have this complete medical history file -- |
21 | A. Yes, sir. |
22 | Q. -- that was two inches thick, right? |
23 | A. Yes, sir. |
24 | Q. And you knew that that was not admissible if you objected |
25 | to it? |
|
814
|
1 | A. Perhaps. |
2 | Q. Did you stretch your memory again -- and I believe this |
3 | is something we can check on from jail records if necessary -- |
4 | think about where Damien was housed during the trial -- Mr. |
5 | Damien Echols was housed during the trial. Think about it |
6 | carefully. If I suggest to you that a wing or area of juvenile |
7 | detention was cleared out so that he could be kept there in a |
8 | certain kind of segregation from the older prisoners so that he |
9 | was on the juvenile side during the three or four weeks of |
10 | trial, does that kind of help ring a bell or jog your memory a |
11 | little bit? |
12 | A. I remember at least one time when we met with him -- I |
13 | think -- in the area -- the wing where he was living at which |
14 | is, you know, all the way at the end of the hallway kind of |
15 | back there, portion of the jail. |
16 | Q. And sort of administratively segregated from the general |
17 | population as a person on trial for capital murder? |
18 | A. Uh -- |
19 | Q. I mean, he wasn't in the general population brought out in |
20 | a dayroom full of ñ |
21 | A. No. No. He was -- I think he was completely separate. |
22 | Q. All right. So if I suggest to you that he was in -- on |
23 | the juvenile side, does that ring a bell as to where he was |
24 | when you went and you met with him? |
25 | A. Yes, sir. |
|
815
|
1 | Q. And on the subject of the writings of Mr. Robert Hicks, |
2 | Mr. David read to you from the Opinion of the Arkansas Supreme |
3 | Court. The Court said, the information was admitted anyway. |
4 | Do you remember what ìthe informationî was that was admitted |
5 | into evidence that was -- that was within the writings of Mr. |
6 | Hicks? Do you know what the Arkansas Supreme Court was talking |
7 | about? |
8 | A. I thought they were talking about Ken Lanning's theories |
9 | on whether or not satanic occult killings take place or not -- |
10 | exist or not. |
11 | Q. Did you read Mr. Hicks' article which could be found in |
12 | the Internet titled ìSatanic Cults -- A Skeptical View of the |
13 | Law Enforcement Approach,î revised in September of 1989? Iíll |
14 | hold up to you a -- I don't know -- fifteen, twenty page |
15 | manuscript. Is that the manuscript that you had or did you |
16 | have something else? |
17 | A. I had his book. |
18 | Q. You had an actual book? |
19 | A. I had his book. |
20 | Q. All right. The book itself didn't go into evidence, did |
21 | it? |
22 | A. No, sir. |
23 | Q. So the Arkansas Supreme Court was referring to some |
24 | materials from the book, correct? |
25 | A. I -- some materials or some testimony, yes, sir. |