IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
STATE OF ALABAMA
)
)
VS. )
CC92-1893
)
BETTY WOODS WILSON,
)
)
Defendant. )
* * * * * * * * *
VOLUME I
Preliminary Proceedings
and
Juror Selection. . . . . .
. . . . . . Pg 2 to 193
Opening Statement – Jimmy
Fry,
State’s Prosecutor. . . .
. . . . . . .Pg 194 to 218
Opening Statement – Bobbie
Lee Cook,
one of Wilson’s defense
lawyers. . . . Pg 219 to 231
Direct Examination by Mr.
Fry –
Jimmy Dunnagan, Police
Officer HPD. . . Pg 236
Cross Examination by Mr.
Hooper –
Jimmy Dunnagan, Police
Office HPD . . . Pg 251
Direct Examination by Mr.
Fry –
Glen Nunley, Investigator
HPD. . . . . .Pg 261
Cross Examination by Mr.
Hooper –
Glen Nunley Investigator
HPD. . . . . . Pg 328
Page 1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MADISON COUNTY,
STATE OF ALABAMA, )
)
VS. ) CC92-1194FY
) CC92-1893
BETTY WOODS WILSON, )
(Tuscaloosa County)
)
Defendant. )
* * * * * * * * * *
C A P T I 0 N
The above-entitled cause
came on to be
heard before the Honorable Thomas N. Younger,
Judge, on the 9th day of July, 1992, commencing at
2:05 p.m., Madison County Courthouse, Huntsville,
Alabama, when the following proceedings were had
and done:
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the State: Hon.
Mo Brooks
Hon. Susan Moquin
For the Defendant: Hon
Charles Hooper
Hon Marc Sandlin
Hon. Doug Martinson, II
* * * * * * * * * * *
A.D.
Official Court Reporter
(205) 532-3444
Page 2
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: This is a hearing on a motion
filed by the State in the matter of State vs. Betty
Woods Wilson.
Is the State ready?
MS. MOQUIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is the defendant ready?
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir, Judge. Have you
got -- we had filed a motion, an objection.
THE COURT: I only have a motion --I only
have the State's motion.
MR. HOOPER: Okay. Let me
give you my
copy.
MS. MOQUIN: Charlie, we
don't have a
copy of that.
MR. HOOPER: It was delivered to your
office.
Judge, generally we would
have 14 days to
reply and, of course, since we not it late
yesterday --
THE COURT: Well, you have
a motion to --
an objection to a subpoena duces tecum, and I'm not
aware of a subpoena duces tecum. We are on the
motion for discovery, or in the alternative, motion
Page 3
to compel, which is -- which was filed by the State,
I believe, yesterday.
MR. SANDLIN: Judge, there was a subpoena
attached to the motion.
MS. MOQUIN: I don't believe so.
MR. SANDLIN: That's what that's about.
MS. MOQUIN: Judge, if any
subpoenas have
been delivered, they have been delivered
independent of this motion.
This motion stands on
its own.
THE COURT: I'm not aware of one.
MR. HOOPER: Delivered by Bruno Procopio.
I assume you all know about it.
MS. MOQUIN: We certainly
know about it.
THE COURT: Let me have
the motion.
MR. SANDLIN: Set today.
THE COURT: This is the
only one I have.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, our objection
certainly goes to that.
THE COURT: Do what?
MR. HOOPER: Our objection goes to that,
the motion which they have filed.
THE COURT: Well, I'm
going to hear it.
I'm going to hear the motion, and I'll listen to
Page 4
both sides.
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So you may present whatever
you would like to going to your objection and going
to the motion by the State.
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MS. MOQUIN: Your Honor, to begin with, I
would like to cite to the Court and present to the
Court three cases upon which we base our opinion
that we are entitled to pieces of physical evidence
that the defense may have in its possession or
control.
And I cite to you first,
Your Honor, the
State -- Fisher vs. the United States, which is
located at 425 US 391, 46 L Ed 2d 39, 96 S Ct 1569,
which stands for the proposition that pieces of
documentary evidence are entitled to be discovered
by the State and are not privileged information,
nor are they a violation of a defendant's privilege
against self-incrimination.
Your Honor, we would cite
to you further
two Alabama cases.
Cotton vs. State. That is
Volume 6 of
Page 5
the Southern Reporter, page 396, wherein our Court
stated that "Between an attorney and a client --"
THE COURT: Give me the year.
MS. MOQUIN: It's an 1889
case, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I thought it went back
to --
MS. MOQUIN: Yes, sir,
because of the
volume.
Your Honor, to my knowledge,
it's never
been overturned.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. MOQUIN: States for the Proposition,
and I'll read to the Court with regard to the
opinion. "As
between attorney and client, only to
communications made and received for the purposes
of professional action and aid," are entitled to
have the privilege extended to them. "Any
conferences in the presence and hearing of third
persons, whether they be officers of the law."
This case allows for the State to discover that
type of information.
Your Honor, I cite to you
further, State
vs. Joy. This is a
Louisiana case, 94 Southern
Page 6
Reporter, 910., wherein, Your Honor, in this case
two pieces of physical evidence were allowed in in
this case and held as competent evidence and was
not considered to be privileged communications.
Your Honor, I have
numerous other cases
from other jurisdictions. I was holding the
information to my oral argument to cases near or in
this jurisdiction or U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Based on these cases, we have filed our motion. We
are requesting that we be entitled to, as we have
set out in our motion, the list on Page 2 of the
motion, the items that we designated there. Each
of these items, Your Honor, are pieces of physical
evidence. Based on that, Your Honor, Item 4, we
have requested any items obtained, received, taken
directly or indirectly from the home of Peggy Woods
Lowe since May 22, 1992.
In the investigation by
the police
department, they determined that Jerry McDaniel
arrived at the home of Peggy Woods Lowe prior to
their arrival, and that he possibly removed
physical items from that location.
Your Honor, in that
regard we have
subpoenaed him here today to ask him on the stand if
Page 7
he did in fact take into his custody any physical
items And, Your
Honor, we would call him to the
stand at this time to ask him that question.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, I'm going to, of
course, object to that under Rule 16.4b. He was
employed by us. To
the -- Ms. Moquin's statement
that he arrived before the police, I wouldn't mind
him testifying to that.
He was not employed until
some, what, two weeks after Jack Wilson's death.
The police held this house for two weeks, at which
time they gave the house back over to us. And
certainly we had an opportunity to go in the house,
but that's an outright misstatement of the facts.
THE COURT: And you say
that you don't
object to his testifying to what?
MR. HOOPER: Only to this:
We will
submit to you that our investigator did not have
access to that house until it was released by the
police. Ms. Moquin's
comment was to the fact that
our investigator arrived before the police. So I
assume that she is saying our investigator arrived
the night of the murder.
That's an out -- that's
stupid.
MS. MOQUIN: Your Honor,
we are talking
Page 8
about the home of Peggy Lowe, not the home of Betty
Wilson.
MR. HOOPER: Okay.
Peggy Lowe?
MS. MOQUIN: Right.
MR. HOOPER: All right.
Judge, our
investigator has been to several places. I would
object to it.
MS. MOQUIN: Your Honor, I do have a case
cite with regard to this specific request. This is
a California case, Your Honor. The name of the case
is People vs. Meredith, 631 Pacific Reporter, 2d.
THE COURT: Give me that again. 631?
MS. MOQUIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Pacific?
MS. MOQUIN: Reporter, 2d,
page No. 46.
And I direct Your Honor --
THE COURT: Page No. 46?
MS. MOQUIN: Yes, sir.
I'm sorry, Judge,
I'm going too fast.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MOQUIN: I direct your attention,
Your Honor, to headnote No. 9 there, and I'll just
- if I may have your permission, just read that.
"Even though communication from murder suspect to
Page 9
his attorney that suspect had burned victim's
wallet and placed it in a trash can was privileged,
confidential communication, once counsel chose to
send investigator to retrieve wallet from the trash
can, original location and condition of evidence
lost protection of privilege, and, therefore, trial
court did not err, in murder prosecution, in
admitting investigator's testimony concerning
location of the wallet."
Based on that, Your
Honor, we believe
that we are entitled to ask him if he retrieved any
physical items from that location.
THE COURT: Well, the
Court, in its
ruling, will address that issue.
MS. MOQUIN: All right,
sir, Your Honor.
Your Honor, further, and just for the record, we
would state that this is the home of Peggy Woods
Lowe, and neither one of these attorneys, at the
current time, represent Peggy Woods Lowe. And,
therefore, we would assert that their attorney-
client privilege does not extend to her home or her
possessions.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, that's great. Let
her call Peggy Lowe, then, not my investigator.
Page 10
THE COURT: Okay.
Anything further?
MS. MOQUIN: Your Honor, we, of course,
based on the arguments that we have previously
presented, we believe that we are entitled to the
list of items on the second page of our motion, I
through 5.
Your Honor, if I might
speak to paragraph
5 there. Your Honor, we are asserting that we would
-- we need copies of any and all records that
concern the estate of Dr. Jack Wilson and/or Betty
Wilson, including wills, codicils, and records that
might be in the possession of Mr. Hooper or his law
partners. Your Honor,
we would assert that there
is no attorney-client privilege with regard to
records prepared for and at the request of Dr. Jack
Wilson, such as his will, any wills prepared by him
or an attorney for him, and that they cannot assert
unless they were acting as attorneys for Dr. Jack
Wilson in that regard; there is no attorney-client
privilege with regard to that information.
Your Honor, again, with
regard to our
motion, we have asked for any other documentation,
physical items that the defense intends to produce
at the time of trial.
And, Your Honor, that is in
Page 11
accordance with Rule 16.2, that we are entitled to
have an opportunity to review all of those things
before trial.
THE COURT: Is that it?
MS. MOQUIN, Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Hooper?
MR. HOOPER: Judge,
obviously we would
like to have an opportunity to respond. I don't
believe that the notice that was provided for us,
and the Court could expect us to really reply to the
cases --
THE COURT: You don't
believe what?
MR. HOOPER: That the
Court could expect
us to be able to reply to these cases she cited. I
know offhand Fisher vs. State involved tax
prosecutions and some tax records. We would like
to have an opportunity to review those cases and
respond.
We do believe that what
she has asked for
are provided under the rules of discovery,
specifically Rule 16.2, with respect to physical
items that can be recovered from the defendant. We
would ascertain that -- we would submit that Mrs.
Woods does still have some constitutional rights,
Page 12
one of which is to have counsel and also have some
preparation for trial.
We were glad to be
enlightened by the
State that apparently, by their argument, that we
are going to have access to all the persons they
have talked to and a summary of all the statements
they have taken. I
assume it would go both ways.
But we would like to have an opportunity to respond
to what they have asserted.
They are basically asking
us if we have
got an investigator, to turn it all over to them.
THE COURT: How do you
want to respond,
with a memorandum?
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir, just a memorandum,
but we certainly believe that their motions, we
submit to you, would be due to be denied.
THE COURT: Anything else
at this time?
MR. SANDLIN: Judge, the
only other thing
I could add, I know you are aware of this rule 16.2
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to
discovery by the State.
It's clear in there that
you have got 14 days, even if you grant their
motion, to respond to that stuff. Some of the items
that they have requested in their motion here,
Page 13
specifically the clothes and shoes -- some of the
items that they have requested in their motion has
been submitted to an agency of the State of
Alabama, the Department of Forensic Sciences, that
is under the auspices of the State of Alabama, and
they have that.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, in
response to that,
those items have been submitted to the State, as
conferences with that agency some weeks ago, to
perform certain tests. And it's my understanding
that if they want some tests performed on items
that we have submitted, then they are free to do
that. You know, we
believe this to be physical
evidence. We certainly don't want the State to
have it, something may happen to it. It might be
contaminated by their deeds.
So we think it's
important to us and we want to safeguard it.
THE COURT: Okay.
Anything further?
MR. SANDLIN: No, sir.
THE COURT: Anything
further?
MS. MOQUIN: Your Honor, if I might
respond with regard to the items that have already
been delivered to the Department of Forensic
Sciences. As far as
those actual items are
Page 14
concerned, we are not aware as to whether or not
they are the full number of items that were
delivered to Mr. Hooper's office by Mr. Cagle on or
about the 27th or 28th.
There could have been other
items.
Also, Your Honor, we
would like to have
the opportunity to have physical control of those
items for a period of time, to allow witnesses that
we have talked to to see those items and perhaps
give us an acknowledgement that she was or was not
wearing those items on that occasion.
Further, Your Honor, I
think that this
Court has an inherent ability, outside of the rules
of discovery, to make these orders. But if, per
chance, items have come into the control and
possession of the defense and are no longer in
their possession or control and have been given to
other persons or located in another area, Your
Honor, we would like to know what those items were,
because they are not available for us in their
original location.
MR. SANDLIN: [or Hooper] What's that all about?
MS. MOQUIN: Mr. Hooper, I
will be happy
to explain that.
Page 15
MR. HOOPER: I sure wish you would.
MS. MOQUIN: If someone has produced
something at your request and delivered it to your
office, and you had an opportunity to look at it,
then it's not in the same location as where one of
the defendants might have last placed it. And you
may have looked at it and done something with it and
given it to -- back to the person who delivered it
and now it's not in its original location where
it's available to us to find.
MR. HOOPER: And you want me to fill in
all the blanks for you; right? That's a fishing
expedition.
Ms. MOQUIN. Charlie, if
you want to put
words in my mouth, that's up to you.
MR. HOOPER: That's a good
one.
THE COURT: Anything
further?
MS. MOQUIN: No, sir.
THE COURT: Anything
further?
MR. HOOPER: No, sir.
THE COURT: Then, the
Court will take
under advisement your motion and will render a
decision.
Before we conclude this
hearing, however,
Page 16
I would like to admonish all that are involved in
this case, the parties, the attorneys for both
sides, and the various news media, that this case
should be tried in the courts and not in the media.
With this view in mind,
all of our
efforts should be directed to secure and maintain
and safeguard the rights of the individual accused,
to a fair and impartial trial , and on the other hand
to secure efforts by the media to safeguard the
rights of the public to know what's happening in
the court system.
In balancing First
Amendment rights of
freedom of the press and the Sixth Amendment rights
to a fair and impartial trial, we, indeed,
sometimes walk a fine line.
This Court recognizes
that the news media
has a right and responsibility to disseminate the
truth; that parties to litigation have the right to
a fair and impartial trial; that the public is
entitled to be informed; that editors and news
directors have the right to make news judgments,
but should do so with accuracy and with
objectivity, keeping in mind that the accused is
presumed innocent until proven guilty; that
Page 17
readers, listeners, and viewers are potential
jurors, and as such may be influenced by what they
see, hear, and read.
The Court also recognizes
that it bears
the final responsibility for maintaining order and
ensuring justice for all litigants in the judicial
process. This applies both legally and ethically,
and in fact Cannon 3 of the Cannons of Judicial
Ethics provides, and I quote, "A Judge should
abstain from public comment about a pending o@
impending proceeding in any court, and should
require similar abstention on the part of court
personnel subject to his direction and control."
This Court is concerned,
at this point,
that if the current dialogue continues, it will be
impossible to afford the accused in this community
a fair and impartial trial.
With this in mind, I want
to admonish all
concerned, the attorneys on both sides and the
various news media, to exercise restraint in all
matters relating to the trial of these cases, in
order that justice may be served.
Now, copies of my remarks
are available
to any of you that would like to have them. If you
Page 18
will see my secretary, they are available to anyone
who would like to have a copy.
And with that, ladies and gentlemen,
court is in recess. Thank you.
Page 19
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
STATE OF ALABAMA
)
)
VS. )
CC92-1893
)
BETTY WOODS WILSON,
)
)
Defendant. )
* * * * * * * * *
C A P T I 0 N
The above-entitled cause came on to be
heard before the Honorable Thomas N. Younger,
Judge, on the 18th day of February, 1993,
commencing at 9 :0 3 a.m. , Madison County Courthouse,
Huntsville, Alabama, when the following proceedings
were had and done:
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the State: Hon.
Jimmy Fry
Hon. Kristi Adcock
For the Defendant: Hon.
Bobby Lee Cook
Hon. Charles Hooper
Hon. Marc Sandlin
Hon. Jack Drake
Page 20
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: Mr. Hooper, Mr. Sandlin, are
you gentlemen ready?
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Fry?
MR. FRY:
State is ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Would you gentlemen like to
introduce your
co-counsel?
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: To the Court?
MR. HOOPER: Judge, this is Bobby Cook
from Georgia.
MR. COOK: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm glad to be here.
THE COURT: Nice to see
you, nice to have
you with us.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, you
may know Jack Drake.
MR. DRAKE: Judge, how are you? I don't
think we have actually met.
THE COURT: Not personally, but I believe
I have seen you and know of you.
MR. DRAKE: [THE COURT?]
I know two of your brothers , anyway.
Page 21
THE COURT: They are no doubt younger
brothers. All
right. Now, I believe that the
defendant has been arraigned.
MR. HOOPER: That's correct.
THE COURT: And you gentlemen have not
filed a written plea on her behalf?
MR. SANDLIN: That's correct.
MR. HOOPER: That is correct.
THE COURT: We discussed this at the last
meeting. I don't
believe that it's a
jurisdictional matter, but for the record, do you
both agree that the arraignment can take place
here?
MR. HOOPER: Judge, we had preferred that
the arraignment took place in Tuscaloosa before the
jury, that was our preference.
THE COURT: Well, before
the jury would
be -- she could be re-arraigned, if necessary.
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir, we
would like to
do that, and other than that it will be fine.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Wilson, if
you will, come around, please, ma'am. Mr. Fry, do
you have the indictment?
MR. FRY: Your Honor, I guess that would
Page 22
[PAGE 23 MISSING]
Page 23
Alabama 1975, 13A-5-40(a) (7), against the peace and
dignity of the State of Alabama.
That's Count No.I, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Mrs. Wilson, you heard the
reading of Count 1 of the indictment charging you
with the offense of capital murder. To Count I of
the indictment charging capital murder, how do you
plead?
THE DEFENDANT: I plead not guilty, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Read Count 2.
MR. FRY: "Count 2: The grand jury of
said county charge, that before the finding of this
indictment, Betty Woods Wilson, whose name is
unknown to the grand jury other than as stated, did
intentionally cause the death of Dr. Jack W.
Wilson, for hire, to-wit:
Betty Woods Wilson hired
James Dennison White to kill Dr. Jack W. Wilson, by
paying James Dennison White, to-wit: $2,500 in
United States currency, and promising to pay James
Dennison White more money, to-wit: an additional
$2,500 in United States currency, and James
Dennison White did kill Dr. Jack W. Wilson, by
beating him with a baseball bat or other blunt
Page 24
instrument, or stabbing him with a knife or other
sharp instrument, in violation of Code of Alabama
1975, 13A-5-40(a)(7), against the peace and dignity
of the State of Alabama."
THE COURT: Mrs. Wilson,
you heard the
reading of Count 2 of the indictment charging
capital murder. To
Count 2 of the indictment, how
do you plead?
THE DEFENDANT: I'm not
guilty.
THE COURT: All
right. You plead not
guilty, and the case is set for trial, set to begin
for trial on February 22nd.
The case having been
transferred previously by this Court to
County, will proceed and begin in the Circuit Court
of Tuscaloosa County on the morning of February the
22nd.
You may be seated.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Now,gentlemen,
it was
agreed, and by order of this Court previously
entered, motions pending -- outstanding motions
that are pending at this time were agreed to be
heard. What motions do you have, gentlemen, that
you would like to be heard on at this time?
Page 25
MR. DRAKE: Judge, it may
be best to
start with what I think is the easiest. If the
press reports are correct, Mr. Fry has agreed that
we can use a juror questionnaire. And if he does
agree to that, then that's one of our notions, to
ask the Court to allow us to do that and suggest a
procedure for doing it.
THE COURT: Mr. Fry,
what's the position
of the State?
MR. FRY: Your Honor, I
have no -- don't
want to invade the province of the Court. As far as
I'm concerned, the questions, with exception of the
last, which asks about whether or not the jurors
think the defendant is probably guilty, with
exception of that last question, I feel like they
are probably questions that the defense could ask
on an oral voir dire before the jury. So I'm not
suggesting to the Court that that's the way to go,
but I don't have any problems with the form being
used. And, in fact, I
think it probably would be
time saving and probably a very efficient way of
helping with voir dire in this case. I do object to
the last question. I
don't think there is enough
predicate laid for that to be a good question for
Page 26
the jury to have.
MR. DRAKE: Well, Judge,
may I speak to
that, just to the issue of the last question?
THE COURT: Well, let's
clear up the
other, first. First of
all would be the use of the
questionnaire. I don't
have any problem with that.
The problem is -- you know the courthouse in
Tuscaloosa because that's your circuit. The venire
room or assembly room probably does not have any
tables or anything.
And I note from the motion
there is about an eight-page questionnaire. How in
the world will the jury be able to fill them out?
Secondly, once filled out, both sides will need a
copy of them. How are
you going to get copies?
MR. DRAKE: I have talked
with the
Circuit Clerk about this a couple of weeks ago, and
a questionnaire has been used at least once in our
circuit. And, of
course, they have been used
frequently in Jefferson County.
Our jury comes in, they
look at a 15-
minute instructional film, and they are given
instructions, and so forth, pretty much the way it
is in most places. I
propose that we distribute the
questionnaire to people at that time, provide them
Page 27
with a pen to fill out the questionnaire, and give
them 30 minutes or so, however long it would take to
do it. I would then
undertake --
THE COURT: Where would
they do it?
MR. DRAKE: In the jury assembly room.
THE COURT: Are there tables?
MR. DRAKE: There are some tables. There
may not be enough tables --
THE COURT: I don't know how a juror will
hold a piece of paper on his lap and fill it out.
That's the problem that I see with it.
MR. DRAKE: Well, a great
many of the
questions just call for a checking of a box, you
know. If you don't
answer "Yes" in some instances
or "No" in some instances, there is no need to
provide
THE COURT: You think that presents no
problem?
MR. DRAKE: I don't think
so. And the
Circuit Clerk, I asked her and she didn't seem to be
troubled about it. We
will undertake to provide
copies to Mr. Fry and we will provide all the
material. So, you
know, nobody gets cost anything,
like in the post office, and I'll immediately start
Page 28
working with them to handle the mechanics of it.
THE COURT: Well, I have no problem with
the use of the questionnaire itself. Now, the last
question, if you want to address yourself to that.
MR. DRAKE: Yes. On voir dire to the
entire venire, we can ask that question. I mean,
obviously --
THE COURT: Certainly a relevant question
that you might ask. There might be some predicate
laid, some more information given to the 3'ury
before that question.
MR. DRAKE: Well, we do in
the
questionnaire. We tell
them basically the
essential facts of what has happened. And, of
course, there has been an enormous amount of
publicity about this case, as you know. And one of
the things that I have undertaken to do, and it's
strictly informal and anecdotal, is ask people what
they have heard about the case, and everybody in
Tuscaloosa has heard about it, as far as I know.
So, based on what they have heard, I want to know if
they have formed an opinion, and it seems to me we
would be entitled to ask that.
THE COURT: Mr. Fry, have
you seen the
Page 29
questionnaire?
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I haven't seen it, because it
was filed in Tuscaloosa and -- I have a copy of it,
it came in about two minutes before I came in the --
about five minutes before I came in the courtroom.
I have not had time to read it.
MR. DRAKE: May I read you the question
he is talking about?
It's No. 54. Says, "Do you
think, based on what you have read or heard, that
Betty Woods Wilson is probably guilty as charged?"
Yes or no.
THE COURT: Mr. Fry, I don't
see anything
wrong with the question.
MR. FRY: okay, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: So the questionnaire will be
permitted. And you
will undertake, as I understand
it, to --
MR. DRAKE: Yes
sir. And if you think of
any special instructions or questions or whatever,
please let me know, but I'm going to undertake to
working on this probably Friday morning, tomorrow
morning.
THE COURT: And you don't
see that it
Page 30
will cause a delay in the
start of the impaneling of the jury?
MR. DRAKE: Not any
significant delay.
THE
COURT: Well, the word "significant"
is what bothers me.
MR. DRAKE: Well, I think it
can be
filled
out easily in 30 minutes.
MR.
FRY: Of course, Your Honor, that
would bring up the question,
just for our information, that it will take some time, though,
to collate that information.
MR. DRAKE: Right.
MR. FRY: So that the -- if
you are
talking about -- just
guessing, 150 or 120 jurors, even 100, that's quite a deal of information to go
through one by one and make some kind of note of
what the appropriate
responses are. So, Jack, if I may ask,
how were you going to propose to the Judge that we take time to use that
information?
MR. DRAKE: I propose that we adjourn
when the questionnaires are
filled out, give us the remainder of Monday to evaluate the information.
THE
COURT: That's not going to happen. That's not
going to take place. We are going to get
Page 31
started with the
qualification of the jury, and you will have time to peruse it at breaks, at
lunchtime, and through the
day, and before we are through with it. As a matter of fact, you have four
attorneys sitting in the courtroom here.
You can assign a couple of lawyers to handle that.
MR. DRAKE: Judge, I always like
to find the middle ground. Could maybe we start the voir dire, say, at 2
o'clock in the afternoon on Monday?
THE COURT: Well, we will
decide that --
we will make a decision on it, we will make a decision on it
in Tuscaloosa.
MR. DRAKE: All right.
THE COURT: Any other motions that could be considered at this
time?
MR. DRAKE: Yes. We had filed two
motions in limine. And those
motions concern, in part, statements of other people. And I suppose trying to
think of this as a trial, Judge, you might say, well, I'll wait until the
witness is called to see if it's a problem, but what I'm suggesting is that the
statements of Brenda Cerha and Janine Russelli and other people to whom Mr.
White made statements prior to the murder, that the District
Page 32
Attorney be instructed not
to refer to those statements in voir dire or in his opening
statement, until we get to a
point in trial where
you can hear this testimony
out of the presence of the jury and determine whether it's admissible or not.
THE COURT: Well, I don't see
any problem with that. Do you, Mr. Fry?
MR. FRY: Well, Your Honor, I
can live
with that, but certainly a
pre-trial motion ih a hearing
THE COURT: Well, let me put
it this way:
I think you are going to have
to live with it unless the Court has first had the opportunity to hear it.
MR.
FRY: Yes , sir.
THE COURT: And I have not had that opportunity. So unless you present it at this time and the
Court has the opportunity to hear it, I
would not have enough, I
would not know which way to rule on it.
MR. FRY: My only point was , Your Honor, there has been time
to file motions to discuss
that.
THE COURT: I agree with
that, but unless
Page 33
the evidence is presented
here, then it would be appropriate to wait until the matter is taken up by the
Court before it is mentioned to the jury.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
MR.
DRAKE: Judge, the second motion in limine
THE
COURT: my question is -- the next question, then, are you prepared to present that
evidence at this time for a ruling by the Court?
MR. FRY: No, sir.
THE
COURT: Then the motion in limine would be granted insofar as any mention to the
jury in opening statement.
MR.
FRY: In opening statement or voir dire?
THE
COURT: Sure.
MR.
DRAKE: Judge, the other ground and the second motion in limine refers to
alleged extramarital affairs engaged in by Betty Wilson. And, again, the
request is the same, that the District Attorney not mention it in voir dire or
in opening statements.
THE COURT: It would be the same ruling. Until such time as
the Court has had an opportunity
Page 34
to listen to the evidence
itself Any other
motions?
MR.
COOK: If Your Honor please, there is
one other matter in
reference to a subpoena that
Your Honor authorized and
which was directed to the custodian of the records at Brookwood Medical
Center back in November of
this year, directing
them to produce to Mr.
Hooper and to Mr. Sandlin, under certain conditions and restrictions as
imposed by the Court, the
medical and hospital records of Mr. James White, also known as Mr. James
Howell. Those records were never in fact produced and have not been received as
of this moment.
However,
only within the last three or four days, a motion for a protective order has
been filed by Mr. Christopher Eagan of the law firm of
Starnes & Atchison, on
behalf of the Brookwood Medical Center.
I have only seen that this
morning, and I notice in
paragraph 4, which to me is probably the definitive portion of it, says, and I
quote, "Counsel for the non-party has discussed production of these
records with the Honorable Roy Miller, attorney for James Dennison White, also
known as James Dennison Howell. Mr. Miller demands
Page 35
the records not be
produced."
It
is obvious to me that the reason the hospital is filing the motion for the
protective order is really to protect themselves against any potential
liability.
THE COURT: Mr. Cook, the
motion to which you refer was faxed and received by the Court about five minutes
before this hearing.
MR. COOK: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Mr. Miller had a case before this Court earlier in the week and went
home sick. And this morning called and said he is still sick.
So we need to get in touch
with him. But this
motion will be ruled on
before we leave this
hearing or before the day
MR.
COOK: Let me give the Court and I appreciate that, Your Honor, and I'm
sorry that Mr. Miller is not well.
THE COURT: Let me ask Mr. Fry about that -motion. As I
understood it, the order was entered previously without objection and by
agreement. You don't have any
objection to that?
MR. FRY: No, Your Honor. Apparently the hospital, maybe under
some federal law, has some
Page 36
kind of objection or maybe some
kind of privacy violation. The State has no objection to it. The State is not a party or had any kind of
conversation with either the hospital or Mr. Miller. And we are not doing
anything to obstruct that subpoena.
THE COURT: When we complete the motions, we will take a
recess and I'll call Mr. Miller at
his home, and we will --
MR. COOK: I just wanted to give the
Court the -- the law is very
clear on it.
THE
COURT: I don't have any question about
its production.
MR. COOK: All right.
THE COURT: But I think Mr. Miller is due
to
be consulted.
MR.
COOK: Absolutely.
THE COURT: The fact that he is sick -- otherwise we would ask
him to come in and be heard, but since he is sick, I guess it would be
appropriate
to just give him a call.
Okay. Are there any other
motions, now,
at
this time?
MR. FRY: Judge, we filed two
motions in
Tuscaloosa
and mailed you copies of them the same
Page 37
day. One was a motion in
limine, the other was a motion to quash a subpoena. They are, I guess you might say, housekeeping
details, probably just the kind of thing I think is preliminary to trying a
case like this.
If I may, let me start with
the motion to quash.
THE COURT: Mr. Fry, I haven't seen the motions, I don't
believe they have been received.
MR.
HOOPER: Judge, we haven't got them, either.
THE COURT: I don't
believe the Court has received them.
MR. FRY: Well, Judge, they were mailed certified mail, I
certified service. I don't know why you
haven't gotten them.
THE COURT: Janna, would you check with Carolyn and see if we
have received any motions? Dc you have
copies of them?
MR.
FRY: They are matters that could be reserved, Judge, until Monday, but I
apologize, I don't know why you didn't have a copy. I guess we could have hand-delivered it, but
I thought the
mail
from Huntsville to Athens would get it
Page 38
through. Charlie, your copy was sent to Marc's
address.
MR. SANDLIN: I haven't got it yet. it may come today, my mail doesn't come
until around noon, and I didn't get it yesterday.
THE
COURT: Do you gentlemen have any other motions?
MR.
HOOPER: Judge, we have still got some outstanding, and probably one of those
would concern Mr. Miller, also, and that's our petii:ion for a psychiatric
examination of Mr. White.
THE
COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Hooper, you gentlemen were told about three weeks
ago, and
I don't know the exact date,
but you were told that the Court was not favorably inclined to grant that
motion. The Court has not entered a formal
ruling on that matter, but it is denied.
MR. HOOPER: Okay.
THE COURT: That motion is not granted.
MR.
HOOPER: Sure.
THE COURT: The motion, then, at this time, as a matter of
record, is denied.
MR. HOOPER: Yes, sir. The State had opposed that; is that
correct, if I recall?
Page 39
THE COURT: I don't recall whether the State had opposed
it or not, but the Court had indicated to you that it would not be granted.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, in
addition we had a number of motions that were filed and outstanding since July
of 192.
THE COURT: Mr. Hooper, I had
discussed with you gentlemen on two or three different occasions, had entered a
general order of
discovery, and have been told by you gentlemen in conference
that there were no problems with any matters of discovery. I don't know specifically
any specific matter that
needs to be ruled on.
MR. HOOPER: Judge --
THE COURT: And the Court
will be glad to
do
that.
MR.
HOOPER: Sure.
THE
COURT: But I have been told that you
had
no problems.
MR. HOOPER: Well, Judge, I attended some of those in-camera
sessions, also, where there were problems.
THE
COURT: Well, with the exception of the specific motions you filed, for example,
the
Page 40
psychiatric examination,
which will be ruled on.
MR.
HOOPER: Judge, we have talked about original notes from the police department
all the time, we have never gotten those.
All we have is compilations of what they decided later on after taking
notes as to be their, I guess, document that they were going to present to
us. We have got a number of those
things.
THE
COURT: Well, the Court has entered
an order requiring liberal
discovery.
MR.
HOOPER: Sure.
THE
COURT: If you have any problem with
that, you were told to inform the Court
specifically.
MR.
HOOPER: Judge, I have. You know, we had
a motion --
THE COURT: What is it that
you want?
MR.
HOOPER: We want his original notes, we want all of the police officer's
original notes that they took in the course of this investigation.
THE
COURT: Mr. Fry, can you respond?
MR.
FRY: Judge, we have given everything that was requested. I met -- offered to meet with these gentlemen
on a state holiday to go through my
Page 41
file, but in fairness to
them, my file doesn't
contain officer's original
field notes. And, to my knowledge,
there was never an order of the Court directing that they produce those to the
District Attorney's Office before I got into this case,
which would have been Mr.
Brooks back then. I have never had
them in my possession, as far as I know, and I'm relatively certain that the
DA's Office never had them in their possession.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, Ray is not limited to what's in his
possession. He can't hide it out in
the police department.
THE
COURT: Well, did you give him copies of them?
MR. FRY: No, sir, I
haven't seen
original -- unless there
just happened to be some
in the file. I think there may be some notes that were
handwritten in hand and probably were field notes, but I haven't seen the
little notes and the little stenographer's pads or whatever. But I can say this: Having worked with the officers for the last
six weeks, I know of no exculpatory matter which could be contained, based upon
having talked to the officers in preparation for this case.
Page 42
THE COURT: Have you yourself used those? MR. FRY: No, sir, I have not.
THE COURT: Well, when we adjourn here
this morning, get with the
officers and give the Court a report back this afternoon, so that if
there is any further order
needed, there will be
time to do so.
Any other motions that need
to be discussed at this time? Bear in mind, gentlemen, that matters that can be
resolved here will save
time in Tuscaloosa. The logistics of trying the
case in Tuscaloosa, with the
witnesses, the
majority of them from this jurisdiction and others, is
tremendous.
MR. DRAKE: Judge, I
had made a couple of notes of sort of housekeeping things. If you have any instructions for us, we
would like to know
about the way the courtroom
will be run. I hear
from people in town that we
will have an overflow crowd, not only of local spectators, but media people
from all over the country, and courtroom management may be a problem. If you want us to assist you or be aware of
any rules, I would like to know about them.
Page 43
THE COURT: Mr. Drake, I
haven't been in the courthouse in Tuscaloosa in several years, and
I don't remember what the
courtroom even looks
like. I do not know what its
capacity is. I have a general
idea. So any information that you can give
would be helpful.
MR. DRAKE: Now?
THE COURT: At any time. And
anything
that you would like, both of
you.
MR. FRY: Judge, we talk
about capa'city.
I
learned yesterday by someone --
THE
COURT: As f ar as I am concerned, I know of no other way except first come,
first
serve. Now, if we have lineups outside bef ore
daylight, I guess they will just -- maybe some of
it -- maybe the weather will discourage some of it. MR.
DRAKE: The courtroom will seat 230
people, if I remember
correctly, and I think that's pretty well packed in.
MR. FRY: Jack, I was told yesterday that seating seven to a
pew, that it would be about 136.
MR. DRAKE: I'm sorry, I
meant 130.
MR. FRY: We have been told up to 200, but that was certainly
out of line.
Page 44
MR. DRAKE: I checked, just
like you did, and they expect between 80 and 100 jurors, so that part of the
thing won't be as difficult as if we had a full turnup of the venire. But there
will be --
THE COURT: Well, certainly
during the qualification and selection of the jury, the jury itself will take
up a big portion of the courtroom.
MR.
DRAKE: That's right. That's one reason I brought this up, is just to alert you
to
it.
THE COURT: All right. If you have any request to make, do so,
and they will be
considered, because you
practice in that court.
MR. DRAKE: Well, I was just thinking about things, about like
a rule that people can't come and go during a witness' testimony, for example.
THE COURT: Well, we will do
that, sure. MR. DRAKE: Sure. Have you talked with
the sheriff about the -- his
role to play, the Tuscaloosa sheriff?
THE COURT: I have not. I
have not.
MR.
HOOPER: Judge, one other thing, housekeeping thing, also, is this: We had
talked
Page 45
to the Sheriff's Office in Tuscaloosa
as late as yesterday, and it was their understanding that our client would be
transported to their facility on Friday. And, of course, we are going to be
there
and we need to have access
to her. We were informed this morning that she in fact may not be
transferred until the selection of the jury begins. THE
COURT: That is not the case. An
order has been entered by
this Court directing that she be transferred on Friday. That's tomorrow.
MR.
HOOPER: All right. That takes care of that. Thank you, Judge.
THE
COURT: Mr. Fry, anything else?
MR.
FRY: Judge,. were you given a copy of this motion
THE COURT: No -- yeah, maybe, if Susan put it up here.
MR.
FRY: I didn't notice it, either.
THE COURT: All right. Which one
is it? MR. FRY: Motion to quash. If you like,
it's the shortest
thing. It, again, is kind of a
housekeeping thing.
The motion basically is,
Your Honor, that the sons and -- stepson, Perry Wilson, and the
Page 46
sons, Steve and Scott
Wilson, have been subpoenaed in this case by the defense. They very well may be
legitimate witnesses called by the defense, but if they are it's beyond the
State's knowledge of what they could testify that would be relevant and also
benefit the defendant. The State does not plan on calling them as witnesses.
Quite
often, unfortunately, in my experience, the witnesses close to a victim have
been subpoenaed to prevent them from being in the courtroom, for whatever
reason that might be. All I'm asking in this motion to quash is some kind of
guarantee, at least to satisfy the Judge, not necessarily in my hearing, that
there is some legitimate reason why these young men have been subpoenaed so
they would be excluded from the courtroom, and that otherwise it seems fair and
equitable that they should be allowed to hear the case involving the murder of
their father.
THE
COURT: Well, first of all, the Court would not grant the motion to quash.
Whether or not they would be excluded would be a matter of -- I assume we can
take up at that time. However, if there is some problem with the attendance, it
may
Page 47
be necessary to require them
to be placed on call.
I have no problem with that.
MR.
FRY: No, sir, there is no problem
with attendance.
THE
COURT: You expect them to be there?
MR.
FRY: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Okay. All right. Well,
then, the only other question would be whether or not they
are under the rule.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: We will
take that up at the appropriate time. Now, your other motion?
MR. FRY: The other motion is a motion in limine, Your Honor.
And, again, just looking at
the subpoenas -- I think
there are something over 100 of them now that the defense side has issued --
seem to indicate some involvement or some taking of testimony from witnesses in
regard to matters not involving the murder, but rather the estate of Dr. Jack
Wilson. Civil attorneys who are in
matters collateral to his death have been subpoenaed and possibly, I think, one
of Mr. Hooper's law partners has been subpoenaed. I'm not certain what the law
is on that, but I thought in law school you weren't
Page 48
supposed to call law
partners to be a witness in your case. But, at any rate, that law partner, I
believe, has been involved in the estate over here involving Dr. Wilson. My
motion simply says that the State will object and will ask the Judge to exclude
matters relating to the estate matters, relating to things like movie rights,
publication rights, things that are collateral to Dr. Wilson's death, but
things that are not relevant to whether or not Betty Wilson killed or had
killed her husband, Dr. Jack Wilson.
THE COURT: Your motion is to
preclude mention by the defense counsel in opening argument.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir, voir dire, opening argument and also until
a predicate or a ruling is had by the Court, would be in the case in chief,
also, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Well, it would be -- the
Court would treat it the
same as it did the motion in limine filed by the defendant.
MR.
DRAKE: Yes. May I just -- so I understand what you are
saying. Whether these matters are relevant with respect to a particular
witness, we are not dealing here with today.
I
Page 49
mean, obviously, if a
witness has a pecuniary interest in the proceeding, that's a matter of
cross-examination, but the witness has to be put up first. I mean, we can't get up and just start
talking about this out of
thin air.
MR. FRY: And that is all I am asking for, Jack.
MR. DRAKE: You are only asking at this point that we not
mention it in opening statement or voir dire?
MR. FRY: I'm asking that it not be mentioned until it's
relevant or a ruling by the Court.
MR. DRAKE: Well, it would
have to be,
anyway.
THE COURT: Well, the ruling is the same
as
the ruling made on your motions
MR.
DRAKE: Right.
THE
COURT: -- in limine.
MR. FRY: Your Honor --
THE COURT: So that the Court will, of necessity, need to hear
the evidence before making
a ruling on it, and
obviously if the evidence is not presented prior to opening statement, then
there
Page 50
should be no mention of it.
So your motion in limine is granted to that extent, likewise.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
That is all I have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further
from the
defendants?
MR. COOK: That is all, Your
Honor.
MR.
SANDLIN: There may be some things that would be proper to take up now, and it
may be proper to take it up later. I
have been talking with Jim concerning some stipulations, we can put those on
the record before we start the trial or we can do them now. It won't take two minutes, whenever you
decide to do it.
THE COURT: If it won't take any longer
than
that, we will do it.
MR. SANDLIN: It's my
understanding that the State has agreed that the medical records relating to
James White are properly certified medical records.
MR. FRY: Your Honor,
we will stipulate to the records received under subpoena by Mr. Sandlin or the
defense from the Veterans Administration are authentic records and we won't
Page 51
require a witness to come
and authenticate those. Being a veteran and also a member of the Armed Forces,
I can imagine the problems they could have having to get somebody from St.
Louis or somewhere else, to come and authenticate a record that's 20 years old.
So we will stipulate all of those
records received under subpoena under this Court, could be received as
authentic documents.
MR. SANDLIN: Judge, we have
also talked about phone records that were subpoenaed by us, as well as
the-State. And we can, I believe, enter
into a stipulation that those
are in fact authenticate records kept in the normal course of business at South
Central Bell, or whatever the facility is. of course, we would reserve the
right to object to the use of those records, for whatever purpose, during the
trial. We would simply agree
to
their authenticity at this point.
MR. HOOPER: Judge, that's limited to those records coming
from South Central Bell.
MR. SANDLIN: From the telephone company. MR. DRAKE: Can I
clarify something about
the medical records? Mr. Fry
only mentioned the Veterans Administration Hospital, and we know we
Page 52
have Brookwood records
potentially. Are you agreeing to Brookwood, also?
MR. FRY: Jack, all I was asked about was the Veterans
records.
MR. SANDLIN: We didn't know
about Brookwood when I talked to you.
MR. FRY: If there are other records that are received
under subpoena of this Court, and
after a reasonable
inspection they appear to be a complete set of records or you gentlemen will
assure me that they are, we
will stipulate to their admittance, also. Not admittance, but that they
are
authentic.
MR. SANDLIN: okay. Judge, we
have
talked about matters
involving the chain of custody of the body of Dr. Jack Wilson, and we can
eliminate the calling of several witness that handled his
body
from the removal from the house to Dr. Embry,
to prevent the state from
calling those witnesses. We do stipulate to the chain of custody on his body.
THE COURT: You want to do that at this time?
MR. SANDLIN: we can do that
at this
time.
Page 53
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SANDLIN: I have been talking with
Jim this morning concerning
trying to enter into a stipulation concerning items of evidence that came out
of the house, car, and other places. And we hopefully will have something to
talk to you about
on that shortly. We haven't
worked out a procedure on that, but we are working on it. I think that's
it.
THE COURT: All right.
Anything fu'rther from the defendant?
MR.* COOK: No.
THE
COURT: Anything further from the State?
MR. FRY: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We are
going to
take a recess and the Court
will be in touch and communication with Mr. Miller concerning those records
from Brookwood Hospital.
Now, you gentlemen stand by so that, if need be, we might
have to have a conf erence by
phone. I have a speaker
phone and we can all listen to Mr. Miller, but I'll get him on the phone first
and we will make a decision, but stand by on that.
Page 54
And, then, Mr. Fry, what
time would you be -- do you think you would be ready to discuss with defense
counsel concerning the notes?
MR. FRY: If I can work on that while you work on this
other, I can give you a better idea.
It may be a matter of
talking with one or two of the officers to see what's the better procedure to
follow.
THE COURT: All right. Let's
check on
those
records first.
MR.
FRY: Yes, sir, I'll do that right
now.
THE COURT: Court's in
recess.
(End
of proceedings.)
Page 55
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
STATE OF ALABAMA )
)
Vs ) CC92-1893
)
BETTY WOODS WILSON, )
)
Defendant. )
* * * * * * * * *
C A P T I 0 N
The above-entitled cause
came on to be
heard before the Honorable Thomas N. Younger,
Judge, and jury, on the 22nd day of February, 1993,
commencing at 9: 10 a.m. ,
Courthouse, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, when the following
proceedings were had and done:
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the State: Hon.
Jimmy Pry
Hon. Kristi
Adcock
For the Defendant: Hon. Bobby Lee Cook
Hon. Charles
Hooper
Hon. Marc
Sandlin
Hon. Jack Drake
Also Present: Ms.
Doris Turner,
Circuit Court Clerk
Page 56
P R 0 C E E D I N G S
(Whereupon , at 10 : 00 a
m. , February 22,
1993, the following occurred in the Court's
chambers, out of the presence and hearing of the
jury venire:)
THE COURT: Okay.
Now, Mr. Drake, I
believe you have --
MR. DRAKE: We had filed a
motion, which
you ruled on Thursday in Huntsville, to prohibit
the prosecutor from referring to Betty Wilson's
extramarital affairs during voir dire or opening
statements. Since that time we have had time to
reflect and talk among ourselves, and we have
decided that we think we need to get into that on
voir dire, and rather than kind of spring it on Mr.
Fry, we are just going to withdraw the motion.
THE COURT: All right. Mr.
Fry, of
course, you have no objection to that?
MR. FRY: Sure.
I take it, also, you want
to withdraw your motion in limine as to Brenda
Cerha, while we are on a roll?
MR. DRAKE: No.
THE COURT: Okay,
gentlemen.
MR. DRAKE: We would like
to know, before
Page 57
he testifies, what kind of
medication James White
is currently taking and what
kind of medication he will be taking when he testifies, if any.
MR.
FRY: None , that I am aware of , Jack. You can ask the deputies that have him
down here.
If he has any, they would
have it. But my understanding was he was under no medication.
MR. DRAKE: Well, I notice
that Meyers
said
he didn't need any as long as y1all kept him
locked
up.
MR.
FRY: Well, he has been locked up.
MR.
HOOPER: i don't think you can shift
it on us to find it out. I
mean, if he is taking medication, I believe --
MR. FRY: Charlie, I don't know, I didn't write the
prescription.
MR. HOOPER: But you can
inquire.
THE COURT: You can inquire and you will do that, won't you,
Jimmy?
MR.
FRY: Yes, sir, but all I know is to ask the people that brought him down here,
and if he has got a prescription, he will have it with him. Lord knows if he
needs it, he will need it today or
tomorrow.
Page 58
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Now,
gentlemen, Mr. Edger, to the left, and Mr. Johnson, both
deputy sheriffs from Madison
County, and Janna Ifshun. Now, all of
these people have filed oaths
of office, but to be
abundantly clear and for the record, I'm going to give them an oath at this
time.
So,
if each of you will raise your right hand.
Do each of you solemnly swear that you will honestly and faithfully
perform the duties as'
bailiff in this case, State of
Alabama and Betty Woods Wilson, the defendant in this case., to the best of
your abilities, so hep you God?
MR.
EDGER: I do.
MR.
JOHNSON: I do.
MS.
IFSHUN: I do.
THE
COURT: All right. Okay. Gentlemen, that will be it for the time being. Thank
you.
Okay. What else?
MR.
DRAKE: Judge, I feel like I should say this and I'm not trying to argue my case
or anything
THE
COURT: Well, one thing I wanted to say
before you get to that, what arrangements have
Page 59
you made to take these
questionnaires and get
copies made?
MR.
DRAKE: We have two people right out here, as soon as they are completed. We
have already made arrangements with a commercial copier to do it on an
expedited basis, and I hope we will have them back here in an hour.
THE COURT: And you are going
to make a copy available to Jimmy?
MR. DRAKE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Go
ahead, Mr. Drake.
MR. DRAKE: I like for Judges to know
where I'm headed. And at the close of the State's case, we are
going to make a motion for a finding and adjudication of not guilty.
THE
COURT: Mr. Drake --
MR.
DRAKE: That's not a pro forma
motion
THE
COURT: I have never been involved in
many cases where that wasn't done.
MR.
DRAKE: I know, but I'm saying it's not
pro forma, we are not trying to make a record.
If you read our brief , that
the State has enormous
Page 60
corroboration problems --
THE COURT: I
understand. Mr. Fry?
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. FRY: Judge, it's a
housekeeping detail, but more than that, also. I think the Court has waited
until today to rule on the seating, on whether or not the sons of Dr. Wilson
would be excluded from the courtroom. What I had asked, basically, was a
showing, at least, to the Juage, that if they were going to be bona f ide
witnesses
for the defense. If not, it seems in all fairness they should
be allowed to witness --
MR.
COOK: I can address that, and I can
state in my place as an officer of the Court,'that our view is that they very
well may be bona f ide witnesses, or subpoenaing them is in the utmost
good faith. We have a basis in fact and a basis in law
for doing so. And although I would be quite reluctant to tell you the reasons,
if you insist, I would be more than happy to disclose it to the Judge in
camera.
MR.
FRY: No, I don't think so. I think
that is all I wanted to hear.
Page 61
THE COURT: Then, you are
asking that who be excluded? They are asking that --
MR. FRY: I filed a motion in limine,
Your Honor, to excuse the
three sons who were subpoenaed.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. FRY: That motion was not
granted, so
I suppose --
THE COURT: Well, ordinarily,
of course, members of the family would be excluded from the rule. However, in
view of Mr. Cook's statement, I think it would be wiser to exclude them.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
THE
COURT: Right.
MR.
FRY: I understand.
THE COURT: Any other
problems?
MR.
FRY: I have had cases, Your Honor, where
I couldn't get the representation that Mr. Cook just made.
THE
COURT: Right.
MR. FRY: I wanted to clear that up.
THE
COURT: All right. Mr. Sandlin?
MR.
SANDLIN: No, sir.
THE
COURT: Mr. Cook?
Page 62
MR. COOK: No, Your
Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Hooper?
MR.
HOOPER: No, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Drake?
MR. DRAKE: No, sir.
(Whereupon,
proceedings were in recess at 9:25 a.m., until 1:15 p.m., at which time, with a
jury venire and all parties present, the following occurred:)
THE
COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I"m Tom Younger from Huntsville. I'm pleased to be with
you today for the trial of a
case. I hope it won't take too long.
Mrs.
Turner has given you your oath, I believe, that you took this morning, touching
your qualifications as jurors. I have a
few more questions that I need to ask before we get
completed.
But,
first, the case that we are trying
is a case wherein the
defendant, Betty Woods
Wilson, is charged by
indictment with capital
murder. This case was transferred to Tuscaloosa
County from Madison County.
The defendant is represented
by Jack
Page 63
Drake, seated here at the table
to your right. Mr. Drake practices here in Tuscaloosa. Also, Marc Sandlin and
Charles Hooper. Both of these
gentlemen are from
Huntsville. And, also, Bobby
Lee Cook from Summerville,
Georgia.
The case is being prosecuted
by Jimmy
Fry, District Attorney from
Athens. And he is assisted by Kristi Adcock. She is an Assistant District
Attorney in Mr. Fry's office.
The
indictment in this case, ladies and gentlemen, was returned by the grand jury
of
Madison County in July of
last year, July 192. I'm sure none of you were members of that grand jury, else
you would not be here in this courtroom, but
for the record, if any of
you were, would you please raise your hand.
(No audible response.)
THE
COURT: Also for the record, ladies and gentlemen -- I'm sure some of these
questions
may have been asked by Judge
Karrh in his earlier examination. And, for the record, have any of you ever
been convicted of a felony? And, if so, please raise your hand.
(No audible response.)
Page 64
THE COURT: Have any of you ladies
and gentlemen been indicted within the past 12 months for a felony or some
offense similar to the one with which this defendant is charged? And, if so,
please raise your hand.
(No audible response.)
THE COURT: Are any of you ladies and gentlemen related
by blood or marriage to the defendant, Betty Wilson Woods, or to the
MR. DRAKE: Excuse, me,
Judge. it's
Betty Woods Wilson.
THE COURT: Betty Woods Wilson. Thank you, Jack.
If any of you are related by blood or marriage to the
defendant, Betty Woods Wilson, please raise your hand, or the alleged victim in
this case, Jack W. Wilson. And if any of
you are so related, please let that be known.
(No audible response.)
THE
COURT: Do any of you ladies and gentlemen
have an interest in the conviction or the acquittal of this defendant, or have
any of you
made any promise or given
any assurance that you would convict or acquit the defendant in this case?
Page 65
And, if so, please raise
your hand.
(No
audible response.)
THE
COURT: Do any of you ladies and
gentlemen have a fixed opinion concerning the guilt or the innocence of this
defendant which would bias your verdict? If so, please raise your hand.
(No audible response.)
THE
COURT: Are any of you ladies and gentlemen opposed to penitentiary punishment,
that is, punishment by imprisonment in the penitentiary? And if any of you are
so opposed, please raise your hand.
(No audible response.)
THE
COURT: Are any of you ladies and gentlemen opposed to capital punishment? And
if
any of you are opposed to
capital punishment, let
it be known at this time by
a show of hands. If you are opposed to capital punishment, please raise
your hand.
Would
you please stand, please, ma'am,
and identify yourself?
JUROR:
My name is Debbie Little.
THE COURT: All right. Thank
you very much.
Page 66
Now, ladies and gentlemen,
the attorneys in this case -- the jury will be selected by' the struck jury
system, meaning that a jury will be selected from your number, with the remainder
being eliminated by a process of striking, with the parties striking
alternately until that number remains.
In order to do this, the attorneys need to identify you with the name
that they have on their list. So for that purpose, as Mrs. Turner calls
your name, would you please
stand and tell us where you work. If
your wife is employed outside of the home, please state her employment.
Otherwise, you may -- might only state that she is a housewife. it is for the purpose of identification only
that we
ask you to do this. So that the attorneys and the parties in this
case will be able to select a jury. So as Mrs. Turner calls your name, please
stand and give us that information.
(Whereupon,
the clerk called the roll of the jury venire, and the prospective jurors gave
the
requested information.)
MRS. TURNER: Any jurors' names I did not call?
(No audible response.)
Page 67
THE COURT: Mr. Fry, are you
ready?
MR. FRY: Yes, sir, I am, Your Honor. (Whereupon, Mr. Fry
conducted a voir dire
examination of the jury
venire as follows:)
MR.
FRY: Good afternoon. I have been waiting all day to see you
all. You all have been waiting all day
on us, too, haven't you.
My
name is Jimmy Fry, as Judge Younger told you, and I'm here today visiting. I'm
going to be here probably all week and probably some of next week, visiting,
also. I'm the district attorney in
Limestone County, Alabama, and I have been assigned to come to Tuscaloosa and
try this case,
representing the State of
Alabama, that is, the people of the State of Alabama.
The Judge has explained to
you a little bit, I guess, about that this is a case that
happened in Huntsville. well, my office is in Athens, so I'm not
even from Huntsville. The District Attorney
over in Huntsville was unable to try this case for a legal reason. And so I got assigned to try it by the
Attorney General, that
is, Jimmy Evans, the
Attorney General of the State
of Alabama. I brought some people with me this week
Page 68
from home to help me on this
case. And some of you, 12 -- or 14 of you, anyway, are going to be seeing some
of them come and go as this trial gets underway and progresses. It may be that
the defense lawyers are going to want to know if you all know any of the people
helping me. So I would like to introduce
them to you from the very beginning. Some of my friends from
my office that work with me in the DA's office in Limestone County are here.
Beginning
with Mr. Bobby Smith, who is
an investigator.' He is
an investigator from my
office. Been with our office for about 15 years. Helping me on the legal end
some, probably as much out of the courtroom as
in the courtroom, is Miss
Kristi Adcock. You have already met Kristi. She is the only other lawyer
working in my office in Athens. And also from my office this week, we have our
victims service officer, Mrs. Sally Marks. While we are in here working, Sally
will be outside of the courtroom
most
of the time, hopefully keeping our witnesses
in line and ready to come
in, where we can have an orderly trial and, also, providing, of course, for the
overnight stays and that kind of thing for witnesses who are from out of town.
Of course, all
Page 69
of the witnesses, as far as I
know, at least most of them, are going to be from out of town. Madison County, Morgan County, Marshall
County. And so
they have to be put up when
they come down here, and that's what Mrs. Marks is going to be doing for us.
In addition, we have some folks who have been loaned to me
for this trial from the
Huntsville District
Attorney's Office. And in the
courtroom with us this
afternoon, we have Wanda
F a r r i s .Wanda, if you
will, stand. Wanda is also a VSO, and although not directly involved in the
trial
of this case, she will be assisting Mrs.
marks on providing
transportation and lodging and whatever comfort we can to the people who will
be coming down to testify. Also, Mr. Larry Smith, he is an investigator from
the District Attorney's office in Huntsville, and Larry is not here. Larry is working right now, as I speak, on
something for me. He is a big, big guy, my size and half over again, with gray
hair. You will recognize him when he
comes in. He will take half the door when he comes through it.
Also, we have one other person that is with me. We have an investigator from the
Page 70
Huntsville Police Department
who was the chief detective assigned to this case. Six weeks ago he was unknown to me; today
I'm proud to call him my friend. Investigator Micky Brantley is here, also from
Huntsville.
In addition, let me just say
one very brief note of thanks for District Attorney Charlie Freeman, your
District Attorney, who has been a gracious host to me and the people working
with me today, and even before we got down here.
As you can imagine, working without an office, working
without a library or a copying machine or anything else, can be something of a
problem. Mr. Freeman has very graciously given us
a working space and helped us
in doing our job down here while we are visiting with you all.
First
of all, let me begin this afternoon by thanking you all for the sacrifice which
you
have
made to be here. Now, I know everybody on this jury panel had somewhere else
they could have been this afternoon, whether it's family or your job or some of
you lucky retired people, maybe your hobby. Lord knows, you all could be
gardening down here as warm as it is, planting cabbage and turnips. I
Page 71
don't know what all --
onions. And all of you had something
else you could have been doing. I have
got a family and obligations
back in Athens, and
I'm sensitive to the
sacrifice you all are making
to be here with us for this
trial.
And
I want to begin by congratulating you and thanking you for making the sacrifice
and for giving of your precious time in the fulfilling of this very special
duty and obligation of
citizenship, that is, jury
duty.
Now,
what are we going to do here this afternoon? What we are doing is called voir dire.
Voir dire, as I understand it, comes from a French word or Latin word or phrase
meaning to speak the truth. And I read that in a book somewhere. I
don't know if that's really
true or not, but I know what it means to me.
To me it means that I get to speak with you all. We get to talk together, like
we would say in Limestone
County, we get to visit a little. And I like this part of the trial. Later
on 12 or 14 of you will get
to hear the lawyers
talk, but you won't get to
talk with us. Basically, you will be
listening. So this gives us a chance to
talk just a little bit.
Page 72
I don't know any of you. I
don't know anybody on this jury panel. This is a funny fee1ing.I have been
sriking juries for 12 years at home, and I always know somebody. I always know several of you. I don't know any of you all and, as far as I
know, none of you all know me. So we are
going to have to get to know each other just a ittle bit so I can strike this
jury. Because what we are preparing to
do, what we are getting ready to do, is strike a jury, a jury in a criminal
case, a jury in a murder case, a jury in a capital murder case, to be exact.
And we need to know something about you all. We need to know probably a little
bit more than what we just got by you all standing and introducing yourselves.
This is a capital murder
case and it is
as serious as it gets. So I want you all to share with me a little
bit and answer some questions
which
I'm about to ask. And, by the way, I'll try not to ask you any of the questions
that were on the survey. My questions may shade just a little bit, but I'll do
my very best not to ask you anything
that I'm going to have to go
through tonight on that stack of papers that fit.
Page 73
OOkay. we are going to pick
this jury and we are picking this jury for one particular case.
The jury we pick, as far as
I know, is going to hear one case before that jury is released. And the jury we pick is to hear this one
unique case where there is one unique fact.
We are not necessarily looking in this case for the most intelligent
people or the most educated people or the best looking people.
It may turn out that way,
maybe that's what we will get. But what we are looking for, ladies and
gentlemen, are some people who we think can be objective.
Now, what do I mean by objective? I mean that you have no
firsthand knowledge of the facts
of this case, that is, you
were not a witness or you were not present up in Huntsville, Alabama, May the
22nd, 1992, when Dr. Jack Wilson was murdered. You have no relationship to either the
defendant in
this case or the victim or
me or anybody directly involved with the trial of the case. Finally, you have no special reason why you
should not serve on this case. For
instance, perhaps you, yourself,
have been a victim of a
crime or had a special circumstance in your life that would make this a
Page 74
very difficult, if not
impossible, case for you to hear.
Now, I'm not going to ask
you any questions this afternoon intended to embarrass you or to humiliate you
or to offend anyone in the courtroom.
Please understand that my questions are not suggesting that anybody in
this courtroom on
the jury panel would either
be unfair or dishonest. We have just got to get to know each other a little
bit. The questions which I'm just about
to a6k you are very important to me, I promise you they are.
I'm not doing this just for
the fun of it. The questions are
important to me. I won't ask you any
questions that are not important to me. Your
answers are important to me
and I have to not only know your answers, your answers have to be recorded by
A.D., our court reporter here. So I'm going to ask you to do something for
me. If I ask you a question and that question
applies to you, I want you to raise your hand right where you are, and, if you
will., please raise it high enough so I can see it. It's just a whole sea of you all out there,
and I may miss one if you just give me one of those little weak numbers there. So if it applies to you,
Page 75
raise your hand, and then if
you will pardon my pointing, I'll point to you and get your name so
A.D. can get it down on
tape, and then we will let you answer the question.
All right. The Judge has asked you if
you are related to the
defendant in this case. None of you were. Now, I want to ask any of you do you
know or are you acquainted with the defendant in
this case? The defendant is,
as the Judge said, Betty Woods Wilson. Now, my understanding is Mrs. Wilson
grew up in Gadsden, that her maiden name was Betty Woods. After high school she
was married to a gentleman by the name of Sonny Taylor, she has
three children, three boys,
who are Bo, Dink, and Trey Taylor. She was married in the late 170s, I believe,
to Dr. Jack Wilson in Huntsville. You
will hear that Dr. Wilson
was a prominent ophthalmologist there, and she lived there with Dr. Wilson
until May 22nd of last year.
With that background, do any of you know or do any of you
have any reason to know the defendant in this case, Betty Wilson?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY: All right. She has four
Page 76
attorneys with her this
afternoon, and I want to
ask if any of you know any
of them. And let me take them in order. First, Mr. Cook, Mr. Bobby Lee Cook, is
an attorney from Summerville, Georgia. He practices in Summerville, but his
practice is not limited to Summerville, Georgia, nor the state of Georgia. I
don't expect that you would know him or would have had dealings with Mr. Cook,
but you may have, it's a small world. Do any of you know Mr. Cook? Have any of
you ever had any dealings or any acquaintance with Mr. Bobby Lee Cook?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY: Another attorney
representing
the defendant in this case
is Marc Sandlin. Now, Marc, as the Judge said, practices law in
Huntsville, Alabama, and has
for probably the last 10 or 11 years, but Marc, if I'm not mistaken, was
an undergraduate here at the
University and also attended the law school here. So he must have spent at
least seven years here, maybe more than that.
MR.
SANDLIN: Just seven.
MR. FRY: Just seven. Okay.
Do any of
you know Marc Sandlin? Did
all of you see him when he stood a moment ago?
Page 77
(No response.)
MR.
FRY: Nobody knows Marc. Well, let's see if I do any better with this one. Mr. Drake.
Mr. Drake, now, he is a
Tuscaloosa lawyer. Mr. Drake, I understand, has been practicing here for
several years or many years.
MR.
DRAKE: 23.
MR.
FRY: 23 years. That would qualify for
many, I guess. And he, I think, also went to school at Alabama and also went to
law school at Alabama, and has a law practice here. Do any of you know Mr.
Drake? Okay, I see a few hands. Put your
hand down just a moment and let me add onto that
just a little bit. What I
mean by knowing him is this: If you were at the Red Lobster and you saw Jack
across the salad bar, or whatever -- I don't think they have one at Red Lobster
-- but if you saw him in the line at Red Lobster, maybe at The
Landing, you saw him at The
Landing and you were at the salad bar, do you know him well enough to say,
"Hey, Jack," or do you know him because either you or someone close
to you has had some kind of either business or social relationship with him? By
that
I
mean, have you got a relative maybe that was
Page 78
involved in a lawsuit in
which Mr. Drake was on either side of the case, or maybe through the local
Democratic party or some political organization?
Do
any of you have any association with Mr. Drake? Now, let's start, again, with
the hands.
And, I tell you, there are so
many of them, let's take the right hand first.
My right side first. Okay. Now,
you are Mr. Drake?
A JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR.
FRY: Are you related to him?
A JUROR: No, I'm not. I
served on a jury about two and a half , three years ago, that Mr.
Drake represented one of the
sides.
MR. FRY: Okay.
A JUROR: That's my only real
dealing
with
him.
MR. FRY: Criminal case or civil case?
A
JUROR: It was concerning a will.
MR.
FRY: Concerning a will?
A
JUROR: Civil case.
MR. FRY: All right. Thank you, sir.
Working
our way back. Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: He represented me in a case
once
and I have been knowing him since he was in
Page 79
college at the university. I was a policeman out there for 12 years.
MR. FRY: And your name, please, sir?
A
JUROR: Davis Nichols.
MR. FRY: Mr. Nichols. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. I saw another one, I thought, back there.
Did I not? Was that somebody scratching? on this side, I saw several hands. Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Mr. Drake is an acquaintance of mine. I also know his wife and his partner.
MR. FRY: Your name is
Burton?
A JUROR: Burton King Curry.
MR. FRY: All right. Thank
you. Yes, ma’am.
A JUROR: Hendrix.
He represented me in the past.
MR. FRY: He has been your lawyer before? A JUROR: Yes.
MR. FRY: All right, Mrs. Hendrix. I thought I
saw some more hands. Mr.
Robinson.
A JUROR: Jack and I were business neighbors about 20, 25 years, out on University
Boulevard there.
MR. FRY: Okay.
Anybody else? Yes, sir.
Page 80
A JUROR: Morgan
Tunstall. I have
treated his daughter
orthodontically about 20 years ago, and I say hi to him every time I see him.
MR. FRY: All right. That's
exactly what
I was talking about. Those
of you that know Mr. Drake in any form or fashion. Is there anyone whose relationship
with him is such that it would make it difficult for you to sit on a jury in
which he was representing one of the sides, without being prone to lean towards
his side of the house just be6ause
of your relationship with
him? Anybody?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY: Mrs. Hendrix, he
was your
lawyer.
Would you be able to sit on a jury --
A
JUROR: Yes.
MR. FRY: -- and be fair and
impartial?
A
JUROR: Yes.
MR. FRY: All right, I
believe you would. I'm coming to you, Charlie, I didn't mean
to
leave you out.
MR. HOOPER: That's all
right, Jimmy.
MR. FRY: Mr. Charlie Hooper is another Huntsville lawyer, he
practices in Huntsville. And I believe mostly Huntsville or maybe North
Alabama.
Page 81
He has got some partners up there
with him, George Beason and Doug Martinson. And I don't know that
any of you should know any of them,
but I don't
know, Huntsville is just right up
the road, you all may know some of them. Do any of you know either Charlie
Hooper, George Beason, or Doug Martinson?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY:
Jack, I'm sorry, you have a partner, do you not?
MR. DRAKE: Joe Pierce.
MR. FRY: Do any of you know Mr. Joe Pierce? Is he here?
MR. DRAKE: He is right
there.
MR. FRY: That's Joe. Okay. Mr. -- you know Mr. Pierce, also?
A JUROR: Yes, sir, I do. We
have had some business dealings, real estate dealings and office dealings.
MR. FRY: And your last name?
A
JUROR: King Curry.
MR.
FRY: I'm sorry. Did I see some other
hands? All right. All right, moving along here. I want to ask you something about the facts
of this case. I'm not going to tell you the case, we will
Page 82
do that when we start the
trial tomorrow, but the judge just asked you do you know anything about it. I'm
going to tell you just a little bit more about the facts, just to see if you
heard anything about this case. I'm not going to argue the case to you. But
this case is going to involve Dr. Jack Wilson. Dr. Jack Wilson being found dead
at his home at 2700 Boulder Street in Huntsville, Alabama, found by his wife,
the defendant, Betty Wilson, back on the 22nd of May last year. That is,
1992. And Dr. Wilson
was found dead, apparently from being beaten with a baseball
bat or softball bat and stabbed with a knife. Now, having given you just a
little bit more of the facts, do any of you know anything about this case? Do
any of you have any firsthand knowledge or have you talked with someone
involved in either the prosecution or the defense of the case? Have any of you
discussed this case with anyone in an official capacity? In other words, when
you found out you were on the jury service, did you call your friend the Chief
of Police, or your friend the Sheriff or somebody, and say, "What is this
about, you know, what have I gotten into, get me out of this”? Yes, sir, who?
Page 83
A JUROR: I saw Mr. Drake
yesterday at
the gasoline station.
Immediately when he recognized me, he said, "We can't talk." I said,
"I don't think I'll be on the jury, anyway." That was it.
MR. FRY: Well, you never
know, Mr.
Curry. You are on there so
far, aren't you?
A
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR.
FRY: Thank you. Anybody else?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY: How many of you
have read about this case in the newspaper? I believe that was on your survey
and I'm not going to get into any
detail,
but could I just see your hands?
All right. Let me do it the
other way.
How many of you have not
read anything about this case? Looks like about half and half - Thank you.
How many of you have seen anything about this case on either
the television or heard
anything about this case on
the radio? A few more hands. I don't believe that's on the survey, is it,
TV
and radio?
MR.
COOK: I don't watch TV. I don't
know.
Page 84
MR. FRY: I don't either. I don't think that was on the survey about
TV and radio. I just think it said
newspapers. Could I see the hands on
this side, again? Would you give me your name, please, sir?
A
JUROR: James Collins.
MR. FRY: TV or radio.
A JUROR: No, newspaper.
MR. FRY: Newspaper. Okay. Just TV or radio now. Yes, ma'am.
A JUROR: TV and radio.
MR.
FRY: And your name?
A
JUROR: Donna Johnston.
MR.
FRY: Johnson or Johnston?
A JUROR: --s-t-o-n.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: Tom Floyd. Television.
MR. FRY: Television?
A
JUROR: Yes.
MR. FRY: All right. Yes, ma'am.
A
JUROR: Aleen Costes -- Laura. I'm
sorry. Laura Costes. Television.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Television.
Page 85
MR. FRY: Television.
Yes, sir, Mr. Nichols.
A JUROR: Nichols. Radio.
MR. FRY: Radio.
Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: Radio and TV.
MR.
FRY: Radio and TV. Mr. Latham.
A
JUROR: No, James Wilkinson.
MR. FRY: I'm sorry, Mr. Wilkinson.
A
JUROR: Television and newspaper.
MR.
FRY: TV and newspaper. Yes, ma’am.
A
JUROR: TV and newspaper.
MR. FRY: The lady behind you.
A JUROR: Gala Walker. TV and newspaper. MR. FRY: TV and newspaper. Ms. Little,
Debbie Little.
A
JUROR: Yeah, television.
MR.
FRY: Television. Yes, ma'am.
A JUROR: Phyllis Cook, television and radio.
MR.
FRY: And your last name?
A
JUROR: Cook.
MR.
FRY: Mrs. Cook, TV and radio. Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: Television.
Page 86
MR. FRY: TV. Anybody else?
Lady in the back.
A JUROR: Today's TV news.
MR.
FRY: Today's TV news. All right. Forgive
me, but your name, please, ma'am?
A
JUROR: Spencer.
MR.
FRY: I should have remembered your
name. I'm sorry. over here, now, radio
or TV, not newspaper?
A JUROR: TV. Herbert
Bruce.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: Fred Darnell, TV.
MR. FRY: Mr. Darnell. Yes, ma'am.
A JUROR: Judy Lamon,
TV.
MR.
FRY: Mrs. Lamon. I'm sorry I
skipped you all. Mr. Hine?
A JUROR: TV.
MR.
FRY: Yes, ma'am.
A
JUROR: Margene Hinton, TV.
MR. FRY: Mrs. Hinton.
TV. Ms. Kizziah. A JUROR: TV and radio.
MR.
FRY: TV and radio. Let's see.
Yes, sir, Mr. Robinson.
A JUROR: TV and newspapers.
Page 87
MR.- FRY: TV and newspapers
. Yes, ma'am. A JUROR: Lueguster Robinson, the radio. MR. FRY: Radio.
Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: William Porter, the radio and TV.
MR.
FRY: Radio and TV?
A JUROR: Yeah.
MR. FRY: Going in the back, this back here. Yes,
ma'am.
A JUROR: Stephanie Turner, radio.
MR. FRY: Ms. Turner, radio. Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: Morgan Tunstall, TV.
MR.
FRY: Dr. Tunstall, TV. Yes, ma'am.
A
JUROR: Doris Townsend, TV.
MR. FRY: Yes, ma'am.
A
JUROR: Bernice Stewart, TV.
MR.
FRY: Mrs. Stewart, television. All the
way to the back. Mrs. Yourick.
A
JUROR: TV and radio.
MR.
FRY: TV and radio. Have any of you
on the jury panel heard
anything on either the TV or the radio that cannot be set aside? Have any of
you heard anything on either TV, radio, or the
newspaper that has already
-- that has made you
Page 88
make up your mind about what
you would do in the
case?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY: Is there
anybody sitting here
right now that thinks that
the defendant in this
case is either guilty or
probably guilty? Mrs. Yourick, you have got your hand up back there.
A JUROR: I have formed an opinion. I'm not sure it will stick, but I have.
MR.
FRY: Could you sit on a jury, Ars. Yourick, and listen to the evidence and
decide the case based on the evidence that you hear as a part
of the jury and based on the
evidence that the Judge would explain to you, do you think, or is there
something already in your mind that is so overwhelming that you feel like you
would not be
able
to set that aside?
A JUROR: I'm not real
sure I could set it aside.
MR. FRY: All right. Well, I appreciate your honesty. Voir dire means to speak the truth,
that's
what we are here for. Nobody is going to
be criticized for speaking the truth today, I promise
you.
Yes, ma'am.
Page 89
A JUROR: What I have read in
the newspapers, there is a possibility I think she is guilty, but I'm not absolutely
sure, but there is a doubt in my mind.
MR. FRY: Okay.
A JUROR:
Burns.
MR. FRY: Mrs. Burns. My
question is, would you be able to put that doubt aside and base a verdict, if
you were on the jury, based on what you saw and heard in court and not something
you have heard or seen in the media?
A
JUROR: I think I could be objective. MR.
FRY: Okay, Mrs. Burns, thank you.
Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: I'm basically the same way. I read quite a bit about it and from up in
the Huntsville Times, the Huntsville papers and all,
and I heard it when I was up
there visiting.
MR.
FRY: So you have read some
Huntsville
coverage of it?
A JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR.
FRY: I'm sorry. Your name?
A
JUROR: Porter.
MR.
FRY: Mr. Porter.
Page 90
A JUROR: Yes. I seen it on TV up there and heard it on
radio.
(Brief pause.)
MR.
FRY: Continuing on. I want to ask you some questions now to really get to your
feelings about serving on
the jury and your
feelings about the law and
your ability to -- and your willingness to follow the law in this case. By the
way, you all loosen up a little bit. Some of
you all got your backs and
necks so tight Ilmafraid you are going to pop. Nobody is going to be
throwing anything at you or
doing anything to scare you. I'm not going to be shooting a pistol or cracking
a whip or anything.
This case, ladies and
gentlemen, is going to involve the sudden violent and hideous death of another
human being, Dr. Jack Wilson. Now, there
is always unpleasantness in
a murder case, and this case is no exception to that. There will be, by
necessity in a murder case, also grotesque and gruesome evidence. It's just not a pleasant thing, it's an
unpleasant thing. No doubt everybody on this jury panel or at least every
normal person on this jury panel has strong feelings about death.
Page 91
And everyone has, I'm sure,
strong feelings about someone dying suddenly and unexpectedly without
reason. But is there anyone on the
panel, because
of some experience that
perhaps you or someone
close to you has had, feels
like this is just a case that you do not want to hear? Now, I'm not going to
ask you why, I'm not going to pry as to why you
might not want to hear this
particular case. Yes,
ma’am.
A JUROR: I just prefer not
to.
MR.
FRY: And your name?
A
JUROR: Lois Lindsey.
MR.
FRY: Mrs. Lindsey?
A
JUROR: Yes.
MR.
FRY: Anyone else?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY: Judge Younger is
going to
explain to the 12 or 14 of
you all who get chosen to be on this jury, what the law is in this case. Now, no one here today is expected or required to know
the law. Quite the opposite.
The law will be given to you all by the Judge at the end of the trial, not by
me, not by Mr. Drake or Mr. Cook, only the Judge . But he will instruct you
that you are required by
Page 92
your oath and the law of
this State to apply the law, which he explains to you, to the facts, which you
and only you will find and decide to be true, and then and only then arrive at
a verdict.
Will each of you give me
your promise that if you are selected to be on this jury, that you will take
the law that he gives you and, to the best of your ability, apply it in this
case?
(No response.)
MR.
FRY: You may say, well, why do you ask
that? Well, because sometimes, even though you take an oath and even though you
have an obligation to follow the law of this state, there are people who get on
juries who decide they will change the law, they have got a better idea about
what the law should be. That maybe there is some kind of unwritten law that
they can come up with on their own. Kind
of like I used to do in geometry, the teacher was always trying to get me to
memorize the formula, you know, to make the lines all meet up in the end, and I
always tried to come up with my formulas, because I couldn't remember the
formulas. Well, in this case you will be explained the law.
Is there anyone on the jury
panel who can't live
Page 93
with that? Is there anyone,
because of your
personal philosophy or because
of your personal religion, beliefs, just believes that the
individual ought to be able
to decide for
themselves what the law is?
(No
response.)
MR.
FRY: The Judge will charge the
people selected as jurors,
that they are to weigh
the testimony of the case
using their common sense and without sympathy or prejudice. Can each of you
give me your promise that if you are chosen for this jury you will do that? You
would weigh the evidence using your God-given common sense and without sympathy
or prejudice?
(No response.)
MR.
FRY: I take your silence to mean
that you would.
Let me say something to you
about circumstantial evidence. Now,
normally the
think in other charges to
the venire that I have heard, circumstantial evidence is mentioned. I don't believe it was mentioned this
morning by the Judge, but I believe it will be an important
element of the jury charge
as given at the
Page 94
conclusion of this case. So
I would like to talk a little bit about it, and then ask you a question or two about
circumstantial evidence.
What is circumstantial
evidence, what is it, what is it not? You hear a lot about circumstantial
evidence. Well, circumstantial evidence is evidence based upon something not
direct evidence, that tends
to prove a fact. I
could illustrate better than I can explain. First, let me give you an illustration of
direct eviaence. Let's say I'm at the Kmart at home and I know a guy,
I
have known him all my life, and I see him rob Kmart, and I see him do that, I
see him run away and he gets away. Later
on I tell the police, "Yes, I saw him, I know it was him, I have known him
all my life." That's direct evidence.
I identified the person positively as the person that committed the
crime. I would be called as a witness to
testify, "Yes, I saw him. I knew it
was him-"
Take this same example and let's say that it's snowing in
Athens, which is possible. That happens about once a year. And let's say instead of being able to
positively identify this person, this person has on a ski mask, a big heavy
Army coat, so
Page 95
I can't see their features
or face and I can't positively identify this person as my friend that I have
known all my life. But I notice, as
they
leave, they have got a limp,
and I can say I don't know it was my friend, but it certainly looked like the
limp, I can identify that, I think that's my friend because of the limp. That's just a circumstance that tends to
prove that it was my friend. I can't
say positive that it was.
Let
me get back to the snow example again for you.
Let*11s say you are walking across a snow- covered bridge. All right.
And as you get to the end of the bridge you notice parallel to you and across
the bridge some little tracks, and you get
to the edge of the bridge where
these tracks end, there is a child sitting up on a rail with some little red
boots on. Now, you didn't see the child cross the bridge, he is just sitting
there. You didn't see the child make
the tracks. The child is there, the tracks are there. That would be
circumstantial evidence that the child did in fact cross the bridge.
At
the conclusion of this trial, ladies and gentlemen, the Judge, I believe, will
explain
Page 96
to you that circumstantial
evidence is good evidence, not inferred evidence. And that a conviction can be
had on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, if
the State meets its burden.
Now, I want to ask you a
question based
on that, and it's very
important to me. Is there anyone on
the jury panel who would not consider circumstantial evidence?
(No response.)
MR. FRY: We hear people say sometimes, "Well, you know,
if I was on a jury I wouldn't ever convict on circumstantial evidence; it would
take more than that. I would have to
have positive direct proof . 11 Anyone on this jury panel, if they were
convinced of the defendant's guilt after the Judge had explained to you what
the burden of proof is, is there anyone who would, nonetheless, be hesitant to
convict on the basis that most
excuse me -- much of the
evidence, not most much of the
evidence was circumstantial?
A JUROR: Debbie Little.
MR. FRY: Ms. Little?
A JUROR: I think I would have a problem
Page 97
with it. It would be hard to
make a decision.
MR.
FRY: Okay. Another important
element of this case, something
that the jury that hears this case is going to have to wrestle with,
and I'm going to have to
wrestle with, is the burden of proof, that is, the burden on the State of
Alabama which today and this week is going to be on Jimmy
Fry, me, to prove this defendant guilty.
And to prove it with the standard that the Judge is
going to explain to
you. t
It's going to be something
like this:
That
there is a presumption of innocence that
follows this defendant
throughout the trial and until her guilt is established by the evidence
beyond
a reasonable doubt, she is presumed not guilty. We must prove -- the State must
prove every essential element of the crime charged. And to
find
the defendant guilty, the jury must be
convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty of the defendant's guilt, of each and
every element of the crime charged.
However,
notice this, please, this is
important. The Court, the Judge, will tell the jury, I believe in the closing
instructions, that the State is not
Page 98
required to prove this
defendant or any defendant guilty beyond all doubt. That in fact very few
things in life can be proven --
MR.
DRAKE: Now, Judge, I object to this. This is argument. I think it goes beyond the bounds of voir dire.
He is arguing legal principles to the jury.
THE COURT: Mr. Fry, you
about through? MR. FRY: Yes, sir, I have
just got one
question to follow up on.
THE
COURT: All right.
MR.
FRY: Thank you. My question is
simply this, ladies and
gentlemen: This is a
serious case, the burden of
proof is the same regardless of what kind of case it is. That is, whether it's
a speeding case or a murder case,
theft, whatever, the burden
is the same. Is there anyone, however, on the jury panel, because this is
a serious case, is there
anyone who would require
me or the State of Alabama,
that is, to prove to you beyond the standard which the Judge will explain to
you, the defendant's guilt? Let me put it this
way -- and I accept your
silence to mean that you wouldn't make me do more than I'm required to do by
Page 99
law.
Let's put it this way: Let's say we
could convert guilt into
pounds or the burden of proof on the State, rather, into pounds. Let's say what I had to do to prove to you
all that this defendant is guilty is bring in here a wheelbarrow full of guilt
-- that's my burden. And in that wheelbarrow the Judge says, "If he brings
in ten pounds, then he has met his burden. And if he
brings in ten pounds and you
are convinced there is ten pounds there, then that would be for the jury to
decide, then your duty, your obligation, would be
to return a conviction.
Now,
is there anybody on the panel that
to be more than certain in
your own mind would require me to bring in 11 pounds or 20 pounds or ten pounds
and one ounce?
(No
response.)
MR. FRY: Judge Younger, do
you want us
to do our death
qualification at this point in the panel also?
THE
COURT: Sure.
MR.
FRY: Yes, sir. Bear with me, folks. This is probably some of
the most important
Page 100
questions that I'm going to
ask you coming up right here. And I'm going to ask, as so many of you have
already been, for you to be very honest and very candid with me, because what
we are going to be talking about now -- and I hope you will talk with
me -- is life and death
itself .
This
is a capital case, and because it's
a capital case it's
different from any other case, criminal case, in the state of Alabama. This is a case where if the defendant is
found guilty there are only two possible sentences. one is life in the penitentiary without the
possibility of parole.
The other is death by
electrocution in the electric chair.
Only two possibilities. It's
different, also, in that the process of the trial works a
little different from other
trials, in that in a capital case the jury has to go a stage beyond what you
all would do in any other kind of a criminal case, anything other than capital
murder. Any
other case, other than
capital murder, the jury decides either the guilt or the innocence of the
defendant and they go home. And the
Judge then decides what the sentence is going to be. There is an extra step in
capital murder cases. And that is,
Page 101
after the jury. returns a verdict
of guilt in a capital murder case, then that jury is required to consider a
sentence and to render an advisory verdict to the Judge. After that the Judge
discharges the jury and at a later hearing the
Judge himself actually
sentences the defendant.
But the advisory verdict is
very important, very serious .In other words, in this case, if this defendant
is found guilty, the 12 people remaining on the jury, after returning a verdict
of guilty, will have to render an advisory verdict to Judge Younger as to what
the sentence should be, either death or life in the penitentiary without the
possibility of parole. Based on these facts, I
want to ask you a few
questions.
Is there anyone on the panel who has ever written an article
or a report or signed your name to anything in writing in regard to the death
penalty? Reports, letters to the editor, correspondence with a friend. Mr.
Curry?
A JUROR: I have written a report in
school
on capital punishment.
MR. FRY: All right. Was that
in
undergraduate
school or high school?
Page 102
A JUROR: High school.
MR. FRY: High school. All right.
That's Mr. Curry. Anybody
else?
(No response.)
MR.
FRY: Anyone else on the jury panel have you ever argued in favor or in
opposition to
the death penalty, either in
public or in private, either in a group which was informal or a group
which was formal? For
instance, we have argued
about capital punishment in
my Sunday School @lass. Maybe you have done the same thing. Have any of you on this panel ever expressed
an opinion publicly or privately to another person about the death
penalty? Mrs. Little, you
have already done it a couple of times today, I think. Outside of the courtroom?
A
JUROR: Yes, among friends.
MR. FRY: Pardon me?
A
JUROR: Among friends.
MR. FRY: Among friends. Okay.
And in an informal discussion, then?
A JUROR: Yes.
MR. FRY: I saw another
hand. Yes,
ma'am.
Page 103
A JUROR: I have in classes as well as among friends.
MR. FRY: Classes and among friends. And you are Mrs. Smith?
A JUROR: Yes.
MR. FRY: First name?
A
JUROR: R-o-b-i-n-a.
MR.
FRY: Yes, sir.
A JUROR: James Wilkinson, informal among friends.
MR. FRY: Mr. Wilkinson. Did I see another hand on
the right-hand side? Yes, ma'am.
A JUROR: Among friends.
MR.
FRY: And your name? Mrs. Palmer?
A
JUROR: No, Painter.
MR. FRY: Painter.
Yes, ma'am.
A JUROR: Phyllis
Cook, and I have talked among friends and coworkers.
MR. FRY: Mrs. Cook.
A
JUROR: Yes.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Tom Floyd.
I'm sure I have discussed it at times, but I don't remember
anything specific, among
friends.
Page 104
MR. FRY: All right, sir.
Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Among friends.
MR.
FRY: Yes, sir. Your name, please,
s i r ?
A JUROR: Norman
Houben.
MR. FRY: Mr. Houben. Sorry, Mr. Houben. Did I see
another hand in the back? Okay, on the left-hand side. Yes, ma'am.
A JUROR: Lueguster Robinson,
among friends and family.
MR. FRY: Mrs. Robinson. And Mr. Latham. A JUROR: Yes, among family and friends. MR. FRY: Family and friends. Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: Among family and friends.
MR.
FRY: And your name?
A
JUROR: Sammy Bartlett.
MR.
FRY: Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Family, friends, and coworkers. MR.
FRY: And your name?
A
JUROR: Atteberry.
MR. FRY: I'm sorry. Atteberry. Yes, sir, right here.
A
JUROR: Butler Hine. I'm sure I have
discussed it sometime, but I don't remember
Page 105
specifics
MR. FRY: Mr. Hine.
A JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. FRY: The gentleman
back on my left.
A JUROR: Poole. Among friends.
MR. FRY: Mr. Poole.
Yes, ma'am.
A
JUROR: Catherine Richardson. I have discussed it with friends.
MR. FRY: Catherine Richardson?
A JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR.
FRY: on this end.
A JUROR: Kellie Rowe. Among friends.
MR. FRY: Thank you, Mrs.
Rowe. Directly behind you.
A JUROR: Stephanie
Turner. In class and at home.
MR. FRY: Mrs. Turner. All right.
Trying
to keep them in order. Yes, sir.
A
JUROR: Informally among friends.
MR.
FRY: Okay. Mrs. Yourick.
A
JUROR: In Sunday School and with
friends.
MR. FRY: Yes, ma'am.
A
JUROR: Bernice Ford, with family
Page 106
members.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Herbert
Bruce.
MR. FRY: Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Deerman. Among friends.
MR.
FRY: Mr. Deerman. The lady behind you.
A JUROR: Judy Lamon.
I'm sure at some point I have discussed it.
MR. FRY: All right. Do any of you belong to any group,
association, whether it be religious, civic, or otherwise, that has an official
policy or an official philosophy in regard to capital punishment? Any group,
any church, religious organization that, as far as you know, has a policy one
way or another?
(No
response.)
MR.
FRY: Have any of you on the jury
panel ever belonged to or
contributed to an organization by the name of Amnesty International?
(No
response.)
MR.
FRY: Okay. I have told you that the law
in this state for this crime is, the only two alternatives for this punishment,
for this crime,
Page 107
is either death or life without
the possibility of
paro1e. My next question is
not intended to challenge anyone's beliefs, to diminish your right as a citizen
under the Constitution of the Federal Government or the State to express your
beliefs,
but I merely have to ask you
about your beliefs and what you choose as individuals to believe about the
death penalty. And you understand that
that is an authorized punishment in the state of Alabama.
Please
raise your hand if you are opposed to the death penalty as a form of
punishment. Ms. Little, we have already got yours down.
Thank you. Mrs. Robinson, you are personally opposed to it as
a form of punishment?
A
JUROR: Yes.
MR.
FRY: Are there others?
(No response.)
MR. FRY: This kind of gets into your religion and your
personal beliefs, I guess. It's not
something we always want to talk about with a room full of strangers, but I
really need to know this, this is serious.
Mrs. Robinson and Ms.
Little, do you believe there
is no place in society for capital punishment? Ms. Little?
Page 108
A JUROR: I wouldn't say that there is no place, but I
haven't made a decision. So if I
haven't made a decision, it's no right now.
MR.
FRY: You would answer that as far as you
know there is no place?
A JUROR: Right. Right now.
MR. FRY: Mrs. Robinson, how about you?
A JUROR: I feel the
same way. I don't really know that
there is a place.
MR. FRY: You can't perceive,
you can't,
in
your mind, see a place for it?
A JUROR: Right.
MR.
FRY: Okay. The rest of you, let me ask you this question
-- and I'm almost through, so bear with me.
I'm going to ask you a multiple
choice question. Let me
explain it to you, then I'm going to give you an A, B, and C answer, and
hopefully everybody will fall in either A, B, or C. If this works, you should.
Assume that you have
been chosen as a juror on a
capital murder case. After hearing all of the evidence and the law as explained
to you by the Judge, you are convinced under the law that the defendant is
guilty as
charged
of capital murder. Now, the Judge has
told
Page 109
you that you must render an
advisory verdict and
that there are only two
choices, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or death. Now,
I'm going to read A, B, and
C. You should decide which one of these would
apply to you. Okay. Don't answer.
I'm going to read them to you first, then I'll go back and let you
answer in just a minute.
Based
on these facts, which would apply
to you. A: I
would consider voting on the death penalty.
B: I might consider voting on the
death penalty. And, finally, C: I would not vote, would not consider to vote,
on the death penalty as a sentence. Okay.
Is everybody with me? All right. You know, you decided the defendant is
guilty, you have got to make a decision, there are three
choices. Would you consider
the death penalty, you might consider the death penalty, or you absolutely
would not? First, let me see the hands, if I may,
of
those of you who would consider the death
penalty
as a sentence, that's answer No. A.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Answer No.
B, I might consider death as
a sentence. All right. And I would
like to get these names, if I may.
Mrs. Burns. Mrs. Carpenter. Mr.
--
Page 110
A JUROR: Collins.
MR. TRY: Mr.
Collins. Yes.. sir.
A
JUROR: Cowley.
MR. FRY: Cowley. Yes, sir.
A JUROR: Anthony Fair.
MR. FRY: In back, back
here.
A JUROR: Kell.
MR. FRY: Mr.
Kell. Yes, ma'am.
A JUROR: McCalpine.
MR. FRY:
McCalpine. Spencer. Going on down. Yes, sir.
A JUROR: