Blood Ambush (17 page)
Authors: Sheila Johnson
50
On June 12, a motion with an exhaustive title was submitted to the court on Barbara’s behalf: “Motion to Suppress ‘Statement of Admission’ as Alleged by Agent Brent Thomas in His Words, Expressions, Assertions, Idioms, Sighs, Release, Movements Or Sarcastic Tone Purported to Be the Words, Expressions, Assertions, Idioms, Sighs, Release, Movements Or Sarcastic Tone of the Defendant, Barbara Ann Roberts.”
The object of this motion was to suppress the statements that Barbara had allegedly made on April 26, 2006, as evidence against her in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, as rebuttal evidence or as impeachment evidence, which the motion claimed was in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Alabama Constitution.
The facts listed in the motion were as follows:
Barbara was charged with capital murder for theft of property, abduction, or attempted abduction and murder of Darlene Roberts on April 6, 2006.
Barbara was arrested in Conyers, Georgia, on April 19 and charged with the murder, and extradited to Cherokee County, Alabama, on April 21.
On April 26, Barbara met with Agent Brent Thomas and Investigator Mark Hicks. Agent Brent Thomas signed an interview sheet alleging words, expressions, assertions, idioms, sighs, release, movements, or sarcastic tone as purported to be Barbara’s words. The motion went on to claim that the statement was, in fact, the words of Agent Thomas and not those of Barbara, and therefore were hearsay.
The officers told her, the motion said, that they knew she had committed a murder because they had videotapes, physical evidence, confessions, and eyewitness testimony that she had called her attorney, Steve Lanier, at her arrival at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, of which he had documentation to that effect, and Lanier advised her to proffer attorney-client privilege and advised her not to speak with anyone without his presence, and that he would call her the next day for details of the situation.
The argument presented in favor of the motion being granted were as follows:
Barbara was seized and interrogated on less than probable cause, in violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Accordingly, her statement was obtained after an illegal seizure and must be suppressed, along with all other fruits of the illegal seizure.
Barbara did not voluntarily answer questions or voluntarily make a statement, but was instead coerced into responding to the police interrogation, the motion said. The circumstances surrounding the interrogation, the motion claimed, were coercive, and the police made material misrepresentations to the defendant. The motion said the totality of the circumstances showed that the statement was involuntary and taken in violation of federal and state constitutional guarantees, and that the state had failed to prove that Barbara’s statement was voluntary.
Another claim in the motion was that Barbara had not adequately been advised of her Miranda rights, that she did not knowingly and intelligently waive her rights, and that the state had failed to carry its burden of proving that she had validly waived her rights.
For those reasons, the motion stated, Barbara’s statement was obtained in violation of constitutional and state law.
51
As with almost all other similar court cases, the months prior to the capital murder trial of Barbara Ann Roberts were filled with a continual stream of motions—filed dozens at a time—having to do with everything from potential jurors to evidence to witnesses. In June, the stream of paperwork had become a veritable flood as time for the trial grew nearer. On June 13, a particularly large group of motions on Barbara’s behalf was filed in the office of Circuit Clerk Dwayne Amos.
A “Motion for Personal Service on Potential Jurors Who Do Not Respond to Their Summons, and for the Court to Determine All Excusals” was presented to the court, asking that service of summons on jurors be determined so as to avoid any prejudice to her right to a fair trial. The motion asked that personal service be made upon any jurors who failed to respond to their summons mailed by the clerk, and that the court hear and determine any applications for excusal or to have jury service deferred only after notice to Barbara and Stallings. The case, the motion said, had received extraordinary news coverage in the Centre media, as well as throughout the state. There was widespread knowledge about the case in the community, and strongly held opinions about Barbara’s guilt and the appropriateness of the death penalty in this case.
She was also entitled, the motion said, to have the jury selected in a manner that did not raise or leave any question as to how the pool from which the jury was struck had been assembled. It was of vital importance that the process leading to consideration of the death penalty be fair and reliable.
Another document, a “Motion to Require Disclosure of Any and All Information Concerning Prospective Jurors That May Be Favorable to the Defense,” asked for a court order requiring the district attorney to disclose any information about prospective jurors that would be exculpatory to Barbara with regard to either guilt or punishment. Since it was to be a capital prosecution, said the motion, exacting standards must be met to assure that it was fair, and Barbara was clearly entitled to any and all information in the possession of the state that could prove favorable to her during trial.
Another motion filed on June 13 sought an order requiring the district attorney to reveal any connections of any sort with prospective jurors: a “Motion to Disclose the Past and Present Relationships, Associations and Ties Between the District Attorney and Prospective Jurors.”
The motion asked the court, pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1 of the Alabama Constitution, for an order requiring the district attorney to reveal any and all relationships, associations, or ties with any prospective jurors, and to disclose any and all notes, memoranda, or records in the possession of the state concerning any relationships, associations, or ties between the office of the district attorney and those persons called for jury duty in this case.
In support of the motion, Stallings noted that the state, through the district attorney, had announced that it possibly intended to seek the death penalty, and Barbara was entitled by the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the law of Alabama to be tried by impartial, fair-minded jurors.
52
The next motion in line was for individual sequestered voir dire. It was an attempt by Stallings to insure that prospective jury members did not have an opportunity to “compare notes” with one another, either before or after being questioned. Stallings asked that he be allowed to question those prospective jurors individually and apart from all the other jurors, to sequester those who had already been questioned from those who had not, until such time as the jury was selected, and to admonish prospective jurors not to talk with one another regarding the case. The motion asked for individual questioning of prospective jurors on the basis of the extensive and highly prejudicial publicity that had followed the case, and the severity of the penalty sought by the state. It said that such action was constitutionally required if Barbara was to receive a fair trial before an impartial jury.
Also filed was a “Motion for Disqualification from the Jury Venire of All Potential Jurors Who Would Automatically Vote for the Death Penalty If They Found Ms. Roberts Guilty of Capital Murder.”
This motion petitioned the court to disqualify from the jury pool all potential jurors who would automatically vote for a sentence of death if they found Barbara guilty of the intentional murder of Darlene Roberts. A number of Amendments were cited, both from the United States and Alabama Constitutions, and the motion said that as a matter of constitutional law, it was established that a potential juror was not fit to sit on a capital sentencing jury if that person would automatically vote for the death penalty in the event the defendant was found guilty of capital murder.
The next motion in the series was a “Motion to Disqualify All Potential Jurors Who Knew or Were Acquainted with the Victim or Her Family.”
In the case of the murder of Darlene Roberts, this was somewhat more of a consideration than it might have been in other areas of the nation. Cherokee County, Alabama, was a rural area where people knew their neighbors, visited with their friends, and large extended families often were in very close, continual contact with each other. It was a distinct possibility in this case that many people who might be called for jury duty either knew, worked with, or were related to Darlene or Vernon Roberts, or their other family members and acquaintances. And it was almost a certainty that nearly everyone would have, at the very least, heard something about the case, either from others or from the media.
Rodney Stallings intended to be very careful regarding jury selection for those reasons, as well as many others. The motion at hand requested a court order disqualifying from jury service all members of the jury pool who knew or were acquainted with Darlene, or with any member of her family. Individuals who had been exposed to highly prejudicial information regarding a capital defendant must be presumed biased for purposes of sitting on the capital sentencing jury, and thus should be excused from jury service, the motion said. Exacting standards must be met to assure that the jury was fair.
Due to other cases of his that were fairly high-profile and due for trial during the same week as Barbara’s trial was scheduled—and with the intense, extreme amount of pressure generated by a capital murder defense—Rodney Stallings was beginning to feel overwhelmed. One of his other cases, in particular, had garnered a great deal of publicity; it had to do with the arrest of one of the county’s well-known convenience store owners, and public opinion ran high regarding both guilt and innocence.
Stallings was working practically around the clock in an attempt to keep up with everything, much like a juggler with too many balls in the air at one time.
“People were telling me that I looked like the walking dead,” Stallings said. “I wasn’t sleeping or eating, and it was taking a real toll on me, and my family, and my staff.”
53
On June 18, Stallings filed a second motion to continue, asking the court to continue Barbara’s trial for several reasons from its date of June 23, 2008, to a later date. First he stated that he had four cases set for the week of June 23, 2008, in addition to Barbara’s capital murder trial. The motions to continue in the four cases had been filed as the state’s deadline for the plea offers in those cases had expired on Monday, June 16, at 12:00
P.M.
, and they were subsequently denied.
P.M.
, and they were subsequently denied.
Stallings told the court that he had been completely inundated with Barbara’s case. Due to the complexities and dire consequences associated with capital charges, he believed that an adequate defense could not be provided due to the need to prepare for the four other cases also set for trial during the June 23, 2008, docket. Therefore, he asked that the court grant the motion to continue the case to another available date.
It came as a devastating blow to Barbara’s defense when the motion to continue was denied, and the trial, as well as the four other cases, were set to proceed as scheduled, with no additional time to prepare for any of them. Rodney Stallings had been under tremendous pressure before; now, with the motion to continue unexpectedly denied, and the trial looming, desperate times were going to call for desperate measures. He had fully expected the continuance to be granted, and now he would have to ramp up his preparations for the trial drastically.
In addition to the failed motion to continue, another large group of motions were filed on Barbara’s behalf on June 18. One of those most important to the outcome of the trial was a “Motion in Limine to Preclude the State from Moving to Admit into Evidence Photographs Prejudicial to Ms. Roberts.”
The photos in question, taken at the crime scene and at the autopsy, were incredibly shocking and gruesome, and Stallings feared the jury would be unduly swayed by the sight of them and, therefore, prejudiced against his client.
The motion asked the court to act pursuant to the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Alabama Constitution, and preclude the state from moving to admit into evidence any gruesome and highly prejudicial photographs of Darlene Roberts’s body.
Gruesome and highly prejudicial photographs of the victim, Stallings said, would advance no evidentiary purpose and serve only to inflame the passions of the jury in violation of Ms. Roberts’s rights guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.
The state’s photographic evidence depicted full-body and close-up head shots of the victim that were entirely gruesome, gory, and inflammatory. They served no evidentiary purpose, the motion said. Because it was a capital prosecution, exacting standards had to be met to assure that it was fair. The court must not permit the photographs to be introduced at Ms. Roberts’s upcoming trial, Stallings said. The prejudicial effect of the photographs would clearly outweigh their probative value, and their admission would constitute irreversible error.
Stallings cited several prior court cases where photos of the same nature had been ruled inadmissible at trial. Even when dealing with noncapital cases, the court had ruled as inadmissible the introduction of photos during autopsy, since they did not portray wounds at the time they were inflicted.
The motion also said that the Alabama Legislature had mandated that no death sentence should be imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factor. And at a capital trial, the avoidance of inflammatory appeals to the passions and prejudices of juries was constitutionally protected. The United States Supreme Court, the motion said, had repeatedly held that
because of the qualitative difference [between death and any other form of punishment], there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.
because of the qualitative difference [between death and any other form of punishment], there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case.
As a matter of state law, the motion said, it was established that where the prejudicial effect of photographs outweighs the probative, they should not be admitted.
Another point in the motion stated that it was clear from the photographs introduced by the state as discovery that close-ups of the victim’s head and the full-body shots of the corpse had very little to do with whether Ms. Roberts committed these acts, and even less to do with what penalty she should suffer if she was found guilty. Instead, the photographs were gratuitously gruesome and inflammatory. The purpose of the trial, the motion said, was to determine the truth about guilt or innocence. Ms. Roberts entered the court cloaked in a presumption of innocence. It was no answer to say that Ms. Roberts had only herself to blame for the gruesome nature of the photographs of a killing she wasn’t even alleged to have committed personally. At that juncture in the trial, she was presumed innocent, and at the sentencing, if any, she was to be judged by a fair and impartial jury, not an inflamed panel.
The motion stated that under the law, the photographs must be excluded, even if they did have some evidentiary value in light of their highly prejudicial nature. A previous court case had established that a photograph must be excluded if there was no showing that
the probative value outweighs any prejudice.
In particular, the motion said, that rule applied to the admissibility of photographs that depicted gruesome scenes involving victims of violent crime. In interpreting that evidentiary role, the courts had stated that
in situations where the state has already made out its case and the photographs are merely cumulative in nature and were not “substantially necessary to show material facts or conditions” the probability was high that the probative value of those photographs would be outweighed by their prejudicial effect.
the probative value outweighs any prejudice.
In particular, the motion said, that rule applied to the admissibility of photographs that depicted gruesome scenes involving victims of violent crime. In interpreting that evidentiary role, the courts had stated that
in situations where the state has already made out its case and the photographs are merely cumulative in nature and were not “substantially necessary to show material facts or conditions” the probability was high that the probative value of those photographs would be outweighed by their prejudicial effect.
If Barbara was convicted, Stallings said, the gruesome bloodiness of the photographs would have an enraging impact on the jury. What was relevant in a capital sentencing hearing, he said, was assessing the conduct, culpability, and character of the defendant. Instead of a sentencing hearing in which the jury was required to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstance, thoughtfully consider Barbara’s role in the offense, conscientiously judge her character and background, and finally decide whether she should be executed or sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, the jury would be overwhelmed by the gruesome photographs and would be motivated by passion and prejudice.
Because Stallings had seen the photographs of Darlene Roberts, he knew they would have a great negative impact on the jury. His motion was an attempt to suppress those photos and lessen the damage they were very likely to do to Barbara’s case if they were shown during the trial. His efforts failed, however, and as Darlene’s family members fled the courtroom to avoid such an upsetting sight, the jury would be shown the gruesome photos of Darlene Roberts lying facedown in the murky water of the farm pond, her horrific injuries plainly showing.
Other books
An American Love Story by C. S. Moore
Golden Boys by Sonya Hartnett
At Your Service: Tammer by Lila Munro
Dreaming of You by Jennifer McNare
History of Rock 'n' Roll in Ten Songs by Greil Marcus
Who Murdered Garson Talmadge by Bishop, David
Las aventuras de Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
My First Murder by Leena Lehtolainen
Ice Dreams Part 1 by Melissa Johns
Surrender Your Independence by Trinity Blacio
