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.

Yogurt Shop Murders: charges dismissed today, part 2

Before I continue with today's observations, let me explain that the charges were dismissed "without prejudice", which means the charges against Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott may be refiled at any time--there's no statute of limitations for murder--but the state would still have to return to a grand jury if they refiled. The state maintains its position that Springsteen and Scott "are responsible for these murders..." More about the state's press conference in a minute.

Today's courtroom was packed--usually only one television camera is allowed inside and today there were many--and also included elected head District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, assistant DA John Neal, and police chief Art Acevedo. Bob Ayers, father of youngest victim Amy Ayers, was also there. I haven't seen any of the victims' family members attending any of these two years of pretrial hearings until today.

What led up to today's dramatic dismissals? In August, state District Judge Mike Lynch granted the state a continuance to continue its Y-STR DNA testing to try to identify newly discovered male DNA recovered from vaginal swabs taken from youngest victim Amy Ayers.

At that time, Lynch also issued an order designating today's hearing as the deadline for the state to give a "good faith determination" as to whether they'd be ready for a jury trial roughly set for January. Lynch told the state that he would not grant any more continuances for them based on the same basis of continuing its DNA testing.

Today, assistant DA Efrain De La Fuente announced that the state is not ready for trial, is still conducting its Y-STR testing, and has not yet identified the DNA's source. Therefore, De La Fuente said, "we have no other choice but to file an order for dismissal." The defense had no objection, of course, and even waived reading the state's motion before it was given to Judge Lynch.

Lynch signed the order, granting the dismissal motion "as to each indictment, as to each of the two defendants" and said that as soon as the order was filed with the clerk, Scott and Springsteen would be free from all their current bond obligations. And then we were in recess.

Defense attorneys briefly spoke to the press, encouraging everyone to have sympathy for the victims' families because they have suffered the most in this whole ordeal and expressing hope that continued DNA testing will identify the unknown male, that the killer "is still out there."

Robert Springsteen didn't stick around to speak to the press, but Mike Scott and his wife Jeannine answered a few questions. Scott said he was "glad to be where I'm at today" and when asked if or how he could not feel resentment, he simply said, "move forward." The couple said they couldn't comment now on whether they'd stay in Austin.

At the press conference in the DA's office, head DA Rosemary Lehmberg read from a written statement before taking some questions. In her statement, she said, "Make no mistake, this is a difficult decision for me and one I would rather not have to make. I believe it is the best legal and strategic course to take and is the one that leaves us in the best possible posture to ultimately retry both Springsteen and Scott."

Then police chief Art Acevedo spoke about the importance of DNA for properly convicting or exonerating, especially "in a state that leads the country in wrongful convictions." While saying that the state's focus is still on these suspects (Springsteen and Scott), Acevedo also said, "they are probably the right suspects."

When asked if Springsteen and Scott could now move to another state if they wished, Lehmberg said, "They're free to do whatever they want."

Wednesday, 10-28-09, 1:36 p.m. yogurt shop murders: charges dropped!

At today's (postponed for months) Yogurt Shop Murders pretrial hearing, defendants Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen walked into state District Judge Mike Lynch's courtroom with free will instead of being led in from holding cells by sheriff's deputies.

They walked out of the courtroom with free will and as truly free men for the first time in more than 10 years, after Judge Lynch signed an order granting the district attorney's office's motion to dismiss all murder charges for both Scott and Springsteen.

More details coming.

More from today's Yogurt Shop Murders hearing that resulted in the release of Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen on bond

Unlike past pretrial hearings, the courtroom this morning was very crowded and included head DA Rosemary Lehmberg, first assistant DA John Neal, and police chief Art Acevedo.

Defense attorneys objected to the state’s motion for a continuance because they say the state has had plenty of time--it’s been more than a year since they began the new Y-STR testing--to try to find out the identity of the unknown male DNA, and if they can’t match it to anyone, they should just drop the charges.

Furthermore, the defense argued, prosecutors haven’t said how much extra time they want and they will be using the extra time not just for DNA testing but for “trying to find more witnesses to shore up their case.” Prosecutor Efrain De La Fuente said the state was not looking for additional witnesses.

Judge Mike Lynch said he hadn’t seen the state’s motion for a continuance until he took the bench, and he seemed somewhat surprised by it.

The judge took about a five-minute recess to review the motion before granting the continuance, adding that at the next hearing on August 12, he “expects the state to give a better idea of a trial date or the court will set one” and that there will be “no more continuances.” Although the defense pushed for a September trial date, Lynch said he wasn’t prepared to set the date today.

Defense attorney Dexter Gilford said he wanted to revisit consolidating all four indictments for a single trial, a defense motion denied by Lynch in October 2007. Lynch told Gilford to file a motion with details of what the defense was seeking.

When the specifics of Michael Scott’s and Robert Springsteen’s personal recognizance bonds were addressed, neither the state nor the defense requested any special conditions beyond what’s considered standard for personal recognizance bonds. The conditions are as follows:
1. remain in Travis County
2. report any changes of residence/address
3. do not contact with families of victims or witnesses
4. do not consume alcohol or illegal drugs
5. appear at all case proceedings
Judge Lynch asked Scott if he understood the conditions of his release, and Scott answered, “Yes sir, I do,” in a firm voice.

Judge orders Yogurt Shop defendants free on personal recognizance bond, part 1

In about an hour, Yogurt Shop Murders defendant Michael Scott will walk out of jail with his attorney and wife, having been ordered free on a personal recognizance (PR) bond earlier this morning by state District Judge Mike Lynch. Defendant Robert Springsteen will also be released on a PR bond today.

Yesterday, Judge Lynch issued an order saying that if prosecutors asked for and were granted a continuance--jury selection for Scott's retrial had been set for July 6th--he would set both defendants free on a PR bond. Later yesterday, Lynch ordered this morning's hearing to allow the state and the defense an opportunity to discuss any last-minute problems or issues before jury selection.

But the hearing didn't end up being about last-minute trial issues, because prosecutors filed a motion for a continuance, saying they needed more time for continued DNA testing to try to identify the unknown male DNA found in at least two of the four murder victims. This unknown male DNA was discovered in March 2008 through Y-STR testing, a technology not available in 2001.

Lynch granted the state's request for a continuance (over the defense's objection) and, true to his word, ordered Scott and Springsteen free on a PR bond.

More details from this morning's hearing in a little while. Gotta read my notes.

Today’s Yogurt Shop Murders bond reduction hearing

A few surprises were finally revealed at today’s bond reduction hearing for defendant Robert Springsteen, Jr., during which the state and defense were given the opportunity to address DNA testing information contained in each side’s recently filed affidavits. “I want you to take the (DNA) results and tell me why the results are significant, from your position,” Judge Mike Lynch told the lawyers.

What we’ve known so far: March 2008 Y-STR DNA testing (not available in 2000) results from vaginal swabs of Amy Ayers obtained at the crime scene and the medical examiner’s office contain profiles of an unknown male, not consistent with any of the four original defendants. The state’s DNA lab, Fairfax, conducted those tests (plus tests from Eliza Thomas and Sarah Harbison, which yielded no results.) No DNA tests were conducted by the state on Jennifer Harbison.

What we didn’t know: according to defense attorney Joe James Sawyer, since that March 2008 testing, the state has not retested ANY other evidence!

Also using Y-STR, the defense’s DNA lab, Orchid Cellmark, then tested vaginal swabs from Eliza Thomas (no results) and Jennifer Harbison. Jennifer Harbison’s results show a mixture of two male DNA profiles, one consistent with her boyfriend, the other unknown.

That unknown male DNA profile from Jennifer Harbison is consistent with the unknown male DNA profile from Amy Ayers and is not consistent with any of the four original defendants. The state actually agrees with this, based on their DNA expert’s review of the defense lab’s testing. The state questions the reliability of the boyfriend’s DNA, but the defense lab reports it’s present in a mixture on both Sarah and Jennifer Harbison.

According to the defense, the presence of this unknown male DNA, which has been compared to more than 100 firefighters, police, medical examiner’s office personnel, etc, proves that neither Robert Springsteen nor Michael Scott nor Forrest Wellborn nor Maurice Pierce committed these brutal murders.

And even if one WERE to still believe those four guys were involved, the presence of a fifth guy (which is what the new DNA testing indicates) has never been mentioned by witnesses in the first round of trials or in either Springsteen’s or Scott’s alleged “confessions.” The state doesn’t seem to have an explanation when challenged by the defense to answer “who is this fifth guy?”

Tomorrow’s Yogurt Shop Murders hearing canceled

I was looking forward to attending the bond hearings scheduled tomorrow and Wednesday for Yogurt Shop Murders defendants Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott because witnesses were supposed to actually testify, presumably DNA experts from both the state and the defense.

But the hearings have been canceled for several reasons. Read details in the Statesman story here.

Yogurt Shop Murders: today’s closed door hearing

Although it was listed on the docket, today’s 1:30 hearing took place entirely behind closed doors. In fact, the courtroom doors themselves remained locked while a handful of slightly frustrated reporters and I (also slightly frustrated) sat outside in the hall for over an hour waiting to hear something.

Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott were not present, but I saw their attorneys enter the side door. Scott’s pro bono attorney from New York, Robert Romano, also attended the meeting.

At 2:45, Springsteen lawyer Joe James Sawyer emerged and talked to reporters. Although he couldn’t reveal specifics about the meeting, he did say that the writ of habeas corpus hearing for Springsteen would occur within 45 days. Scott lawyer Carlos Garcia said his team would be filing a similar writ soon. When asked if the state was warming up to the idea of setting bond, Sawyer said, “No, the only thing the state is warming up to is the theory that the earth is flat.”

Regarding the newly tested unknown male DNA (that does not match any of the original four suspects) found on three of the four murdered girls, Sawyer lambasted the DAs for believing that “science means nothing” and for their “romance with confessions.” He further criticized the Travis County DA’s office for being less DNA-progressive than Harris and Dallas counties, especially in light of the Christopher Ochoa and Richard Danziger exonerations, both of whom gave coerced false confessions to APD.

Sawyer said they would meet again next Tuesday at 1. Apparently it will not be a public hearing.

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.

Today's Yogurt Shop murders retrial pretrial hearings

I could not leave my construction-zone home renovation work today to attend today’s hearing, the first one I’ve missed in a year. Aargh!

The Austin Chronicle's Jordan Smith's article is here and The Austin American-Statesman’s Steven Kreytak posted his report,too. The trial start date for Michael Scott might be announced at the next pretrial hearing Dec 10.

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.

Yogurt Shop murders: more details from today’s hearing

Defense attorney Joe James Sawyer presented Judge Lynch with what was apparently a LONG list of items upon which the defense seeks to have DNA testing performed, explaining that the current, more sensitive and specific Y-STR testing was not available nine years ago.

After some argument from both sides, Lynch told the state and defense teams that they needed to “get together and whittle this (list) down…We need to determine what’s necessary and reasonable,” adding that it could cost a million dollars and take until 2012 if they were to test that entire list.

Lynch further advised the defense attorneys to “sit down with the state and whittle this to 20 to 30 things” that could be tested in two to three weeks.

Sawyer said he agreed with the court about not dragging things out and about meeting with prosecutors to progress towards a trial date. He clarified that in addition to the things on the list (that they intended to pare down), they were requesting DNA testing of fingernail clippings, palm prints, fingerprints, and a friendship bracelet belonging to Amy Ayers, which seemingly no longer exists. Defense wants to see all the state's chain of custody information on the missing bracelet.

At that point, prosecutor Efrain De La Fuente interjected, “We’ve had these meetings!” De La Fuente continued explaining, but I couldn’t concentrate on what he was saying because I was watching Lynch, who had slapped his hand over his forehead in seeming exasperation. Lynch then told the prosecutor, “If you’re gonna sit there and complain…tell me what you think I should be doing.”

After some requests from defense attorney Alexandra Gauthier regarding the defense team’s DNA expert, defense attorney Dexter Gilford told Lynch that, “as to items of obvious forensic significance, we’re well on our way to testing.”

Lynch ended by reminding the attorneys that both sides need to work together to move things forward towards trial. The next scheduled hearing is October 29.