final day of Laura Hall re-sentencing trial

The maximum verdict of 10 years in prison plus $14K in fines was announced by the presiding juror today around 4:25, after the jury deliberated for more than 5.5 hours. There were nine sheriff's deputies positioned in Judge Flowers' courtroom for the reading of the sentencing verdict. 

I've never seen the presiding juror choose to read the verdict rather than allowing the judge to read it. I've also never seen a jury include the maximum fines in their verdict. Mr. and Mrs. Hall left as soon as the sentencing verdicts were read. Judge Flowers allowed one television camera to tape the closing arguments and the verdict, so I think some of the local affiliates--KVUE, KXAN, KEYE, News8Austin, and KTBC--have some of it on their websites.

The sentences run concurrently, so Laura Hall will get credit for the approximately two years' jail time she's already served.

Closing arguments this morning lasted a little more than an hour. Assistant DA Chris Baugh began by telling the jury, "She is guilty...like it or not." He said that the prosecution was asking for the maximum 10-year sentence because by law, that's all they can ask for, although they want more. One by one, he showed the jury graphic autopsy photos of Jennifer Cave's mutilated body while asking, "How do you rehabilitate a person who would do this?" Some jurors looked away from the photos. 

Baugh asked the jury if the mutilation was meant to hide Cave's identity or "is this just evil?" He continued, "Was Laura Hall not saying 'F-you' to Jennifer Cave? Was Laura Hall not saying 'F-you' to her family?"

Baugh said that Hall has "threatened almost every person" in this court and that he has "no doubt I'll be added to the list." He asks the jury to impose the maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, especially so that Jennifer Cave's family can have some relief, at least for awhile.

Defense co-counsel Amber Elliott then began. "Trials are about evidence and the law, not emotion...They're about reason and the facts." Elliott said there is no emotion in science, which in this case is the DNA. She said that the DNA experts from the prosecution and defense disagree on which items should have been tested and the interpretation of the results. 

Elliott said, "No one can say that DNA is Laura Hall's..." and urged the jury to focus on "where the (Hall's) DNA is not found: the machete, the hacksaw, and the buck-knife." "The DNA tells us who did this: Colton Pitonyak," Elliott said.

Defense attorney Joe James Sawyer began by reminding the jury that people are wrongly convicted and that there's a difference between "actually guilty" and convicted. He said there are "two batches of evidence", one being the "look how terrible she is batch." He said the 19 jail phone calls the prosecution played were out of perhaps thousands, with certain lines picked to play. Sawyer asked the jury, "We know she's bipolar; do you think that leads to reasoned analysis?" He added that many people, "if in jail wrongly convicted" would also be bitter and angry and curse and say terrible things.

Sawyer continued, "Then there is evidence from the Sedwicks." He reminded the jury that he didn't ask the Sedwicks any questions when they testified yesterday because "they're entitled to tell their story" and that he can't imagine the horror of losing a child to murder, especially with the added horror of what was done to Jennifer Cave's body. He said that if the jury was basing its sentence on the Sedwick's grief and torment, "then 10 years, 100 years is not enough..."

Sawyer told the jury that the people doing the convicting in this case were the "she-said witnesses", led by Nora Sullivan, who "we know lies." He talked about other "she-said" witnesses--Henriette Langenbach, the two jail witnesses, and the jail witnesses' psychiatric counselor. 

Sawyer reminded the jury that whomever did the mutilation had the time, commitment, and strength to carry it out, and that person was Colton Pitonyak. He asked the jury for probation and said "we should punish people for things they've really done", not for what we think they've done.

Prosecutor Allison Wetzel told the jury that, in considering punishment versus rehabilitation, they should remember "the nature of the crime." "Rehabilitation is not under your control; it's up to her," Wetzel said, adding that protection of society is the overriding role of our justice system. She talked about how Langenbach is a crook, but a crook who knew that what she was hearing from Hall wasn't right and that she had to tell someone, plus she knew lots of details that weren't widely reported.

Wetzel said she wasn't going to defend Nora Sullivan, who is a friend of Hall and Pitonyak, and seems to have some "screwed-up values." "Nora is stingy with information," Wetzel said, adding that Sullivan was protecting Pitonyak, a "dope dealer." Wetzel said that although Sullivan won't give you answers unless you ask the right questions, her story is corroborated by phone records.

Wetzel continued, "Laura Hall was in love with a gangster drug dealer--that's who she's attracted to." "Colton Pitonyak is bad and evil: Laura Hall and Colton Pitonyak have that in common." Wetzel said that Laura Hall's father testified that Hall had a mental illness but that everyone's going to have to rely on him because no mental health professional testified. Wetzel said that Hall doesn't have a mental illness; she's a "sociopath."

Judge Flowers then read instructions to the jury and sent them to deliberate around 10:20 a.m.

Back to regular life and lots of weed-pulling for me now. Grateful for the rain this week because I didn't have the time or energy to water the garden while attending the trial. I was planning to sleep in tomorrow, but I want to watch Wimbledon and World Cup, so I'll just sleep in a teensy bit.

day three of Laura Hall re-sentencing trial

Today's testimony didn't end until 7:15 p.m., after the defense presented its case and both sides rested and closed their evidence portion. The prosecution began this morning by showing snippets of statements Laura Hall made for CBS' "48 Hours Mystery" show. I apologize now for any errors, but I'm really tired now.

Then audio recordings of 19 phone calls Hall made from jail, which were recorded by the jail's phone system, were played. The jurors were provided transcripts to follow. Check out the content of many of the calls here, from Austin American Statesman's Steven Kreytak:

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/index.html

On cross exam, defense attorney Joe James Sawyer asked APD Detective Mark Gilchrest if these 19 recorded jail phonecalls were out of maybe a thousand and were redacted and edited, only parts of a complete canvas. Gilchrest said yes. Sawyer asked Gilchrest if he knew that Hall had been in the jail's intense psychiatric or general psychiatric unit the entire time she'd been incarcerated. Gilchrest said he didn't know.

Sawyer also asked, "There's no evidence that Laura Hall was present when Jennifer Cave was killed?" Gilchrest answered, "Correct."

The state's last three witnesses, whom all testified in Hall's 2007 trial, were Said Aziz II, Jim Sedwick, and Sharon Cave Sedwick. In addition to recounting their previous testimonies, Jim and Sharon Sedwick told the jury they took the threats made about them by Hall (heard on the jail calls and to which the victim services people had given them a heads' up) very seriously. 

Jim Sedwick said that although he'd always owned rifles and hunting guns, he bought a handgun for the first time. Sharon Cave Sedwick said she was very uncomfortable being alone when Hall was not incarcerated and that she was afraid for her children and even her dog.

At 5:15, the prosecution rested their case. The defense called the first of their four witnesses, Dr. William Watson, who is an independent forensic DNA consultant. Watson explained that in the world of forensic DNA, a person that "can't be excluded" from a DNA profile doesn't mean the DNA actually came from that person but that it could have. He also said said that there's no way to determine when or how DNA got where it's found.

Defense co-counsel Amber Elliott asked Watson if anyone can say for sure that the DNA (found as Hall "cannot be excluded" in mixtures with Pitonyak on several items tested) is really Laura Hall's. Watson agreed that no one can say for sure that DNA is actually Hall's.

The second defense witness was one of Pitonyak's 2007 trial lawyers, Sam Bassett. He testified that in preparation for Pitonyak's trial, he met with Nora Sullivan for about 45 minutes regarding her conversation with Pitonyak on her balcony at 3 a.m. the morning of Cave's murder and some timeline issues. He said he asked Sullivan if Hall (who had accompanied Sullivan to the jail when Sullivan visited Pitonyak) had ever said anything about her (Hall's) involvement in Cave's murder or dismemberment. Sullivan told him she didn't recall anything like that.

The next witness, Jason Mack, wasn't available to testify in person, so Sawyer and Elliott read his 2007 trial testimony into the record.

The last defense witness was Loren Hall. Sawyer first asked Hall what his relationship was to Laura Hall. Hall said "I'm her father." He choked up as he said it. He said Laura Hall had never gotten into any trouble or had any violations when she'd been out on personal bond. He said one of the first things his daughter did when she got out on bond was to begin laser treatments to get the "Colton" tattoo removed from her leg.

Sawyer asked Loren Hall if his daughter had ever been diagnosed with any mental disorders or illnesses. Hall teared up and said, "Bipolar," adding that his daughter went from one extreme to another. At that point, Laura Hall started crying. Loren Hall said that his daughter was not the same person heard on the jail audio tapes earlier today and that she'd had adjustments in medications to control her bipolar disorder.

Sawyer asked if Hall understood the terms of potential probation and its risks. Hall said yes and that he understood there were programs to assist the mentally ill. Hall then told the jury that Laura Hall will meet the conditions of probation. Both Loren and Laura Hall were crying.

On cross exam, prosecutor Wetzel's first question of Loren Hall was, "Did her bipolar condition cause her to cut off the head of Jennifer Cave?" Hall said he knows his daughter's innocent of everything and began to talk about his feelings about findings of past prosecutorial miscounduct. Wetzel cut him off, saying "Answer yes or no," and explained his job as a witness. 

When asked if he understood his daughter had been found guilty of tampering with evidence, the evidence being the mutilation of Jennifer Cave's body, Hall said, "I don't get that part...I heard nothing about her dismembering Jennifer Cave's body." Hall said he knows his daughter "feels sorry for the Cave family." 

Wetzel asked him if he heard the jail calls this morning, in which Laura Hall calls Sharon Cave a bitch. Hall said his daughter had been under many different medications.

Wetzel asked if Hall had "done anything to make it more or less likely she (Laura Hall) will follow the rules of the court?" Hall asked if Wetzel meant past or future, and Wetzel said past. Hall said, "I made sure she got proper medical care."

Wetzel said Hall had no respect for the legal system, this court, or the people involved in it. Loren Hall said he had respect for the legal system, just "not some of the people that manipulate it..." Wetzel asked if he had the same "obscene references" to people involved in this court that his daughter does. Hall said, "I don't think so."

Wetzel asked Hall if he was aware of his daughter's interest in violent deaths. Hall said he didn't know, that he didn't talk to his children about violent deaths. Then Hall said to Wetzel, "...maybe you do (talk to your children about violent deaths), but I don't." Wetzel pointed out the phone conversation between Laura Hall and the unknown male, in which Hall says she thinks the mall suicide he witnessed is exciting.

Wetzel asked if "we can count on you and your wife" to make sure Laura Hall stays on a straight path if she were to get probation. Hall replied that they were confident their daughter would continue her current record of staying out of any trouble.

Wetzel pointed out that in 2005, Loren Hall tried but was not able to stop his daughter from staying out of trouble. Hall said he has a better relationship with Laura Hall now than 2005 and that "if she (Laura) had been on medication then, none of this would have happened." 

Hall said that prayer, proper medical care, and therapy, along with their large support group, would be the best way to help his daughter stay out of trouble. He said, "In the last three years, when she's been out on bond, she's never gotten into any trouble. She's always been a good daughter." He added that, whether or not they believe him, his heart goes out to the Cave family. He said "I believe our daughter's innocent... I think we're victims, too...Everyone's a victim here."

The defense closed and both sides closed the evidence portions of their cases.

Closing arguments are tomorrow morning, then the case will go to the jury.

day two of Laura Hall's re-sentencing trial

Today I was especially looking forward to hearing any new testimony I hadn't heard during Laura Hall's or Colton Pitonyak's 2007 trials, and that finally happened in the afternoon session, when some jail witnesses and jail psychiatric counselors testified.

 

The first senior psychiatric counselor from Travis County's Del Valle jail testified that in September 2005, two inmates made statements to her regarding things Hall allegedly said to them and that she made a memo of those statements at the time.

 

The first former inmate, who was convicted of a felony as a minor but is now on probation, testified that she was housed in the same unit as Hall in September 2005. She testified that she had a few conversations with Hall, in which Hall said she (Hall) didn't know why she was in jail.

 

The former inmate said that from Hall, she understood Jennifer Cave to be Hall's "boyfriend's girlfriend" and that Hall referred to Cave as a "fucking bitch and a stripper" that Hall was angry her "boyfriend was cheating on her with her (Cave)." She also testified that Hall said the "eeriest part was cutting her bone."  She said she reported the conversation to the jail counselor.

 

The second former inmate, who was convicted of felony burglary of a building in 2006 and a 1993 misdemeanor larceny charge, was also an inmate in Del Valle in the same unit as Hall in September 2005. She testified she had no direct conversations with Hall but that in a voluntary group therapy session of more than five inmates, Hall said "the whore was just a dancer and she deserved to die."

 

She said she reported Hall's statement to the jail counselor on the same day. The private investigator for Pitonyak's current appellate attorney, Joe Turner, contacted both former inmates. Apparently, based on the private investigator's interviews with these inmates, Turner wrote out affidavits that each signed.

 

On cross exam, defense attorney Joe James Sawyer elicited that this inmate had relied on Turner's notes to remember most of the content of her original statement. She testified today that she is now uncomfortable with the word "confessed" in her original affidavit. It was unclear exactly in what context the word "confessed" appeared because her affidavit was not presented as evidence.

 

The afternoon's next surprise was when Hall's former 2005 cellmate, Henriette Langenbach, testified. In Hall's trial, Langenbach testified that Hall talked to her frequently when they shared a cell and that when she asked Hall how she could cut up a body, Hall said, "How many grandmothers can tell their grandchildren that they cut up a body?"  

 

Today, Langenbach backed off her earlier testimony, saying that Hall never told her that she (Hall) was actually physically involved in mutilating Cave's body. Much of Langenbach's testimony today was consistent with her 2007 trial testimony

 

On cross exam, Sawyer wrangled with Langenbach about the timing of her turning over her notes of conversations with Hall, implying she took the notes as a calculated way of getting herself a better plea deal.

 

Another witness from Hall's 2007 trial, Javier Rosales, today appeared to back off from some of his former testimony, too. In his 2007 testimony, Rosales, who was a co-server with Hall in the summer of 2006 at Baby Acapulco's restaurant, said Hall told him "she helped him do it" then masterminded her and Pitonyak's escape to Mexico. 

 

Today, Rosales testified that Hall never directly spoke of mutilating Cave's body. However, Rosales was consistent today in his testimony from 2007 that Hall said Cave's murder was "a victimless crime."

 

The prosecution's case seems to be winding down. Tomorrow morning they will begin by playing some snippets from interviews Hall granted CBS' "48 Hours Mystery" show, and then I think they'll play audio tapes of calls Hall made from jail. Guessing the defense case will begin late tomorrow morning or early afternoon.

day one of Laura Hall's re-sentencing trial

Why is a re-sentencing trial happening? An appeals court upheld the 2007 conviction of Laura Hall for misdemeanor fleeing apprehension and felony tampering with evidence associated with the 2005 murder and mutilation of Jennifer Cave; however, the court overturned her 5-year sentence based on its finding of prosecutorial misconduct during the punishment phase of the 2007 trial. Colton Pitonyak was convicted of the murder of Jennifer Cave and received a 55-year sentence.

 

This morning in state District Judge Wilford Flowers' courtroom, the new trial (for sentencing purposes only) began. The new jury began to hear much of the same testimony from many of the same witnesses that I heard in Hall's and Pitonyak's trials. 

This time around, the prosecutors are Allison Wetzel and Chris Baugh instead of Bill Bishop and Stephanie McFarland, who were the prosecutors in Pitonyak's and Hall's 2007 trials. Hall's defense attorney is Joe James Sawyer.

 

Jennifer Cave's mother, Sharon Cave Sedwick, and Sedwick's husband Jim sat in the front row of the prosecution side, along with the victims' services women and Stephanie McFarland. Laura Hall's parents and a few other family members sat in front on the defense side. Hall, dressed in a black suit with a white blouse, was led to the defense table by a sheriff's deputy.

 

In Wetzel's opening statement, she urged the jury to consider what "price to put on these two crimes" and "what price to put on her (Hall's) conduct", to focus not only on the crime "but the criminal, what kind of person she is..." Wetzel said that during Hall's periods of incarceration, "she has made phone calls from jail" (which are all recorded) that the jury will hear and that will help them decide "whether she's a person who is a danger to society." 

Wetzel told the jury that the prosecution is seeking the maximum sentence, 10 years in prison.

Defense attorney Joe James Sawyer began his opening statement by telling the jury that, although a jury convicted Hall, whether Hall is guilty is a matter to be determined by a future appeals court. Wetzel immediately objected and asked the judge to instruct the jury to disregard that statement. The judge sustained her objection and instructed the jury to disregard.

 

Sawyer told the jury that they should be concerned with the truth. He said that Pitonyak "had degenerated into such a sociopath" that he destroyed himself and everyone around him and that he was a "drug-dealing, street-talking sociopath that had become obsessed with killing someone."

Sawyer told the jury to really focus on the motives and credibility of the witnesses, including the witnesses from jail, and especially Nora Sullivan (not a jail witness), who was Pitonyak's condo neighbor and friend. Sawyer finished by asking the jury to come back with the verdict that gives Hall probation.

Sullivan testified today, and Sawyer's cross examination of her was fiery. She seemed to hold her own. When Sawyer asked Sullivan if she was helping Pitonyak's attorneys on his current appeal, flying all the way here from California home, she said, "Yes. It (the flight) was paid for." 

At Pitonyak's trial, Sullivan testified that Pitonyak knocked on her door around 3 a.m. the night of Cave's murder, asking to borrow her phone and telling a crazy story about having just been involved in a "shootout with three Mexicans" in his condo and that he'd fired two shots. 

Sullivan testified that Pitonyak, who was carrying a Smith and Wesson 380 semi-automatic pistol, seemed drunk but functional and that she didn't believe his shootout story at all, especially because her condo was only about 150 feet from his and she would have heard the shots.

 

At Hall's trial, Sullivan also testified that, while Pitonyak was in the 10th street county jail awaiting trial, Hall went with Sullivan to visit Pitonyak, although Hall had to stay in the waiting room because she wasn't allowed to contact him. Sullivan testified that after that, she and Hall occasionally talked and that Hall told her that the afternoon after Cave's murder, Hall was annoyed because she had to keep urging Pitonyak to get back to cutting up Cave's body. Cave's head and hands had been severed from her body when her body was discovered.

Sawyer implied that the reason Sullivan had never before mentioned (in previous police interviews and court testimony) the alleged Hall comment until Hall's trial is because Sullivan is such good friends with Pitonyak that she'd say anything to "help" him and that she partly blames Hall for Pitonyak's conviction. Sullivan says she never mentioned the Hall comment because she wasn't asked until shortly before Hall's trial.

The prosecution's case resumes tomorrow morning.

part 2 today's Laura Hall hearing

Outside state District judge Flowers' courtroom, lots of television cameras (including the 48 Hours Mystery crew) were set up to get their shots of Laura Hall walking into the courtroom. Hall smiled and said "hi everybody" but admitted she was nervous. When asked how she felt walking into the courtroom, she said, "Last time I hyperventilated, but I know I'm in good hands... as soon as Sawyer (her attorney) gets here." Her aunt told her that Sawyer was in the courtroom, and Hall said, "oh good."

It was a regular docket this morning in state District Judge Flowers' courtroom, not a hearing just for the Laura Hall matter, so there were lots of lawyers and their clients milling around waiting for their cases to be called. Sharon Cave Sedwick (Jennifer Cave's mother) and Jim Sedwick sat with some friends across the aisle at the front right.

Hall sat at the front left of the public gallery with her aunt, father, and grandmother and appeared upbeat and sometimes animated, chatting with her family and occasionally some reporters.

After sitting through more than an hour of docket call, Judge Flowers called a morning break. I stood up and was talking to Statesman reporter Steven Kreytak, when Hall walked up to us, already familiar with Kreytak. Hall and I had never spoken to each other before. She asked us what we thought of the football game last night. Kreytak and Hall are Colts fans, and I am a Saints fan. The three of us talked about the Superbowl for a few minutes.

Another reporter joined us and asked Hall her goal. She said, "trying to clear my record." When asked what she hoped the outcome of her sentencing retrial would be, she said she was hoping for probation. Hall said, "There is a football game and I'm the football, and I'd rather be the quarterback--or the coach."

Hall said she was less scared of all the reporters this time around, adding, "You guys are just people like me." She also said, "I wanted to go to Sarah Lawrence (College) so bad!" She told us she's living with her parents and that although she has a UT government degree, she's not looking for a job right now because all her focus is on her retrial. She added that she was "not going to law school in this state."

After two hours, Hall's case was finally called. Hall and attorney Joe James Sawyer and assistant district attorneys Stephanie McFarland and Allison Wetzel took their respective places. McFarland began, saying that Hall's current appeal bond has expired. Sawyer told Judge Flowers that Hall poses "no reasonable risk of flight", that she's made all her court appearances.

Flowers replied, "Let's just guarantee a speedy trial," denying Sawyer's request to extend or renew the bond, and ordering Hall into custody. The sheriff's deputy kind of had to bearhug Hall to cuff her, and as she was being dragged out she cried out to Judge Flowers, "I'm not guilty! Let me go home! You need to let me go home!"

A few minutes later in the courtroom, Hall's screams were still audible from the holding cell right outside the courtroom. From her reaction, it appeared that Hall had no idea she could be locked up today. I didn't know that was a possibility either.

Judge Flowers told Sawyer that this case would be a priority and then set a March 4 docket call, with a tentative March 8 sentencing retrial start date. McFarland said the state had some discovery she thought Sawyer would want to look at. Both sides seemed a little iffy about being ready for trial March 8.

Outside the courtroom, Hall's father, Loren Hall, talked to reporters. He said his daughter has been working at the family's resort, got her driver's license back, and has been studying for the LSAT. He said, "I know my daughter's innocent."

Sharon and Jim Sedwick spoke briefly to reporters--they'll be witnesses in the retrial so are limited in what they can say--but said they were very pleased with Judge Flowers. Sharon added that it had been a tense morning for everyone.

part 1 today's hearing: Laura Hall remanded into custody; sentencing retrial set for March 8

March 4 is the next hearing. I just got back from this morning's rather dramatic hearing and need to decipher my notes now about the hearing itself and my brief unexpected conversation with Laura Hall. Details soon.

Laura Hall: Third Court of Appeals orders new punishment trial

Read the latest from the Austin American Statesman here. There’s a link to the actual opinion at the end.

I attended the oral arguments in front of the Third Court, and you can read my observations in my previous post. And here.

Laura Hall appeal: new briefs filed

These post-submission briefs were recently filed with the Third Court of Appeals. They address a point of contention during oral arguments last month re prosecution witness Henriette Langenbach’s New Zealand convictions.

State pg 1

State pg 2

Appellant pg 1

Appellant pg 2

Laura Hall: today’s oral arguments (part 2)

Ultimately, defense attorney Ken Mahaffey maintained that, “These violations add up.” Prosecutor Bryan Case, while conceding that there was “a little misconduct here and here and here…” maintained that the errors weren’t necessarily material and must be evaluated separately.

After the hearing, Mahaffey declined to answer reporters’ questions, citing ethical concerns. Then Loren and Carol Hall spoke to reporters. Loren said, “We know our daughter’s innocent.” He said they had visited Laura last night and that “she’s not doing real well…” but that she’s holding up as well as possible “when you know you’re innocent.”

Loren also said that his daughter was having dental problems and had been taking antibiotics for eight months. When asked her opinion of today’s hearing, Carol said, “It went well.” She also said the prosecution will do anything to win.

After the Halls left, reporters talked to Sharon Cave and her fiancé Jim Sedwick, who appeared confident. Sharon said, “Colton got his due. Laura got her due.” She said that Laura could have chosen to "do the right thing" so Jennifer's body wouldn't have been mutilated and that Laura is “obviously mentally incapacitated.” Sharon expressed concern for herself and her family’s safety when Laura gets out.

Case also answered reporters’ questions. He said he considered the state’s errors “insignificant…some technical” and that there was “no injustice in this case.”

I didn’t see any prosecutors or defense lawyers from the original trial at today’s hearing, which I found a little curious because they were present for oral arguments in Pitonyak’s appeal.

Laura Hall: today’s Third Court oral arguments (part 1)

In the Third Court of Appeals this morning, Justices David Puryear, Alan Waldrop, and Bob Pemberton heard Ken Mahaffey argue what he sees as points of error in Laura Hall’s trial that are so serious that Hall’s convictions should be reversed or she should get a new trial. Bryan Case argued on the state’s behalf.

Mahaffey began by telling the panel that he has never been removed from an appellate case as is stated in the amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief submitted by Doug Conley. He further clarified that he was once appointed to take over a case after the first attorney had been removed.

Of the seven points of error Mahaffey cited, the three involving the prosecution’s failure to disclose certain evidence elicited the most questioning from the justices. Mahaffey argued that prosecutors had known for a full week before she took the stand that prosecution witness Nora Sullivan’s statement contained new information, and yet the defense was not made aware of this until Sullivan began to testify.

Mahaffey said the prosecution should have told the defense that witness Henriette Langenbach had been to prison for kidnapping cases in New Zealand, information which could have affected her credibility. Mahaffey said, "It is the duty of the prosecution to turn over exculpatory evidence whether or not it’s material." Mahaffey further claimed that these were not just discovery violations, but Brady violations.

Mahaffey also argued that the jury should have heard that sentencing-phase witness Doug Conley had not been able to identify Hall from a police photo lineup, a fact the jury could use in judging his credibility.

Case argued that Conley had told prosecutors that he knew his passenger was indeed Laura Hall because he’d seen her in the news. After questions from the justices, Case conceded that the information about Conley should have been turned over to the defense. Case argued that it was not material because Conley would have testified that he recognized Hall from the news had he been cross examined.

Case also conceded that the state violated a discovery order by not turning over Nora Sullivan’s statement but said it wasn’t a Brady issue. Justice Waldrop asked Case his thoughts about the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct described in Conley’s amicus curiae brief, saying he had expected Case to be vigorously denying them. Case said there was no basis for the allegations.

Case explained that one of the allegations, the felony Hindering Apprehension indictment, was not improper because the state considered the flight of Hall and Colton Pitonyak a “continuing offense.” Case implied that it was immaterial anyway because the jury convicted on the lesser charge of misdemeanor Hindering Apprehension. Conley is “basically making up” the information regarding prosecutorial misconduct, Case said.

Laura Hall: Third Court of Appeals to hear oral arguments tomorrow

Tomorrow morning a Third Court of Appeals panel will hear arguments re Laura Hall’s 2007 convictions and I plan to attend. A Travis County jury found Hall guilty of class-A misdemeanor Hindering Apprehension and 3rd-degree felony Tampering with Evidence in the 2005 murder of Jennifer Cave. Excerpts from briefs filed by both sides are contained here.

For more detailed info and more documents, check this out, recently posted by The Austin American-Statesman's Steven Kreytak.

Laura Hall: Third Court of Appeals oral arguments now set

Third Court of Appeals justices will hear arguments re Laura Hall’s September 2007 convictions of hindering apprehension and tampering with evidence in the murder of Jennifer Cave on September 24, 2008. Ken Mahaffey is the appellate attorney for Hall. Read short excerpted summaries of briefs submitted by the Appellant (filed 3/10/08) and the State (filed 5/14/08) below.

appellant1

appellant2

appellant3

appellant4

state1

state2

state3

state4

No reversible error found by 3rd Court in Pitonyak appeal: conviction upheld

I've been out in the yard allot today and just now heard about Colton Pitonyak's first appeal attempt being denied.

kvue
Third Court of Appeals Opinion

Well worth reading is the summary within the Court's opinion, which is a clear, detailed narrative of the case, even if you don't care to read the entire opinion.

Current status of Laura Hall's appeal

According to the Third Court of Appeals website, Hall's attorney, Ken Mahaffey, filed a motion for extension of time to file brief on March 3rd, and that brief is now scheduled due April 2, 2008. I have no idea when/if oral arguments might be scheduled, but I'd be interested in attending.

A Bit More Info Regarding Laura Hall's Latest Status

Laura Hall still remains in county jail. According to the Third Court of Appeals website, Hall's appellate attorney, Ken Mahaffey, was granted his February 1st "Motion for extension of time to file brief" and now his "Status Appellant brief due" date is 3/03/08. Who knows how long it takes from the filing of that brief to oral arguments?

KVUE Reports Laura Hall's Parole Request Denied Today

I just caught the report a minute ago, so here's the link. According to Clara Tuma's online report, Hall will not be eligible for parole again until February 1, 2009.

Part 2: Trying to Sort Out Today's Pitonyak Appellate Oral Arguments

Sometimes I get caught up in the trees and don't see the forest, sorry. So I'll back up here.

Terrence Kirk did all the oral arguments for the defense today, while Joe Turner was seated beside him and later spoke to the press with Kirk. The defense went first in front of justices David Puryear, Jan Patterson, and Diane Henson. The State argued next, then the defense got a short rebuttal to end.

Kirk began by talking about how particularly horrible, tragic cases such as this one sometimes lead to a tendency to bend the law. He said he'd address four arguments: illegal trespassing, illegal search, incompetent counsel, and lesser-included charges.

I didn't fully understand the first argument about ineffective counsel and tomorrow shall try to look up the case law mentioned, but Kirk said something about the fact that during Pitonyak's trial, his attorney Roy Minton did not object to the State's evidence about APD officers' telling Sharon Cave and Jim Sedwick that breaking into Pitonyak's apartment would be illegal and that they broke in anyway. And apparently Pitonyak's other attorney, Sam Bassett, had brought all this up in pretrial hearings and Minton's effectively waiving error at trial equaled ineffective assistance of counsel.

Kirk cited some case law and justices Diane Henson and David Puryear questioned him about how his argument jibes (or doesn't) with the fact that even Minton and Bassett said in their opening arguments that this case was not a who-dunnit and what does Pitonyak's admission on the stand do to his argument?

Kirk then argued about how the evidence discovered during the illegal search (please see my part 1 previous post) should be excluded.

Kirk later addressed the issue of the exclusion of lesser-included charges, starting by saying that insufficient memory of the event alone should allow the inclusion of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide charges instead of only the murder charge, citing a case I'm still trying to find. It sounded like he said "Shroeder" and that's just my first-instinct spelling of that name. (I welcome anyone's research and a link to this case!)

Kirk also said that the recklessness (implying no intent) presumed just by the fact of the gun's being shot should make the lesser-included charge(s) allowed.

For the State, Bryan Case began by talking about the emergency doctrine (please see my part 1 previous post re Miles.) Justice Henson asked him how that related to the present case. He said that he couldn't give her case law involving a true emergency doctrine case and that he'd have to refer again to Miles and that, really, Miles is an exigent circumstance case and that in his opinion, emergency doctrine is exigent circumstance.

Then Case addressed the issue of lesser-included charges. He said that Pitonyak's claiming (in his trial testimony) that he had no idea what happened that night and at that same time claiming he was certain he was the one who killed Jennifer Cave didn't make sense--that one of these proclamations had to be a lie. Case further argued that current law says that the jury must believe (from the evidence presented) that the defendant is guilty of only the lesser charge (I think he mentioned case law named Hall here), that we don't have a "just as likely" (the lesser charge or the higher charge) standard.

Kirk had a brief but pointed rebuttal, emphasizing that the end does not justify the means (regarding illegal entry and its resulting evidence.) He finished rather dramatically, saying, "In the words of Atticus Finch, 'For God's sake, do your duty!'"

Part 1: Trying to Sort Out Today's Pitonyak Appellate Oral Arguments

I'm going through my notes now and will try to write a more comprehensive post in a little while, but for now, case law cited by both sides was Miles , although each side had a different interpretation of its application as to whether evidence discovered by a private citizen's (Sharon Cave and Jim Sedwick) breaking the law (by breaking into Pitonyak's apartment) should be excluded from trial.

One of Pitonyak's attorneys, Terrence Kirk, said that what the Miles case boils down to is if the police can't do it (e.g., break into an apartment), a private citizen can't do it either--analogous to trespassing--and therefore evidence discovered during that illegal (entry) activity is inadmissible at trial. He further challenged the court to find any case law justifying this kind of illegal entry. Justice Jan Patterson then remarked that the evidence could still come in through Laura Hall's testimony, if she were given immunity and testified.

On this issue, arguing for the State, Bryan Case said that the Miles case says that if the police can do it, an individual person can do it, too, under certain exigent circumstances and that fits this case. Patterson asked, "so Miles is your best authority?" Case answered, "Miles is the best authority other than common sense."

More later...

Today's Pitonyak Appellate Oral Arguments and Last Night's "48 Hours Mystery"

I wonder if CBS moved up its air date of last night's "48 Hours Mystery" because of today's Third Court of Appeals oral arguments in The State of Texas v. Colton Aaron Pitonyak? I'll be watching those arguments this afternoon. At trial, Pitonyak's lawyers wanted manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide (according to my own trial notes, so I hope I got that right) included in the charge, not solely first degree murder. So I think that Judge Flowers' ruling against allowing the lesser-included charges will be the primary issue on appeal.

More "48 Hours Mystery" Video Promos

Here are more CBS video promos for tomorrow night's "48 Hours Mystery" episode, scheduled to air at 9 p.m. Central time.