And Never See Her Again (29 page)

As promised, the prosecution had presented new witnesses not called in the first Franks trial. It was anticipated that even more new witnesses would be called on day two.

Mike Adair, looking as cool and confident as he had the previous day, sat in the witness-box to complete his testimony. He had little left to convey but made one lasting impression with jurors.

Adair informed the men and women of the new panel that initially there had been a number of other suspects in the abduction of Opal Jennings, including her father. Through the investigation these suspects had been cleared, and the case against Richard Franks was the one that stuck. He felt certain Richard Lee Franks was responsible for Opal Jennings's disappearance.

Forensic scientist Max Courtney's testimony may have left confusion in jurors' minds when he stated he was certain of Franks's guilt, even though no DNA evidence linked Franks to the six-year-old's abduction. Courtney confirmed that there was no physical evidence found in Franks's car linking Opal to the vehicle, but Courtney explained he based his conclusion on the vast amount of circumstantial evidence compiled prior to Franks's arrest. He, as others involved in the investigation, considered Franks's past history as a sex offender, his familiarity with the area, his car closely matching the description of the car taking Opal away, his altered appearance soon after the kidnapping, and Franks's own statement given to investigators.

The witness following Courtney was familiar to anyone who had followed the first Franks trial. Jesse Herrera had once served as Ricky Franks's probation officer. Herrera seemed to have lost the tenseness he showed during the June trial. Throughout the aggressive cross-examination by Ed Jones concerning the exact date he had turned over a tip to the FBI, Herrera maintained his composure. Several jurors rolled their eyes, while others visibly drew in deep breaths, obviously turned off by Jones's perceived harassment of the witness.

With the exit of Jesse Herrera, Judge Gill announced a welcome midmorning break. As everyone in the courtroom stood to watch the jury retire to the jury room, Greg Miller picked up a large black plastic binder with a white sheet of paper taped to the outside bearing the name of Richard Franks.

After flipping through more than one of the tabbed indexed sections of the binder, Miller rested his glasses on the table and rubbed his eyes. Those sitting behind Miller saw the wide neck and broad shoulders of the prosecutor, but the weariness on his face was hidden from their view.

After the break Eric Holden spoke of his interview with Franks the night of Franks's arrest for the minor traffic violation. Holden testified until a lunch break was taken, and he was back on the stand after the noon recess. Jurors appeared to listen closely while Miller questioned the witness, but during the defense's cross-examination they appeared disinterested, their eyes heavy and their shoulders slumped.

Lisa Callahan next interviewed Kathy Manning, leading the investigator through obtaining the traffic warrant for Franks and his arrest. The crowd laughed as Manning explained she had enlarged the Miranda green card on the Xerox machine because she "had trouble with the small print." They chuckled again, giving a break from the intense detailoriented testimony, when she explained that Charlie Johnson typed Franks's statement because "he was the only typist in the office."

Humor was abandoned when Greg Miller set up an easel in front of the jury box and placed an enlarged copy of Franks's confession on it. Even before Manning began reading Franks's statement, it was apparent jurors were reading it silently to themselves. Faces furrowed; one juror shook his head; another put her hand up to her mouth; while still another folded her arms across her stomach-all visibly shaken by the words of the accused. As Manning read the statement, Franks looked down at the table, avoiding the stares of jurors. When Manning completed the reading, Franks's eyes lifted to look angrily at the female investigator.

Mannings's testimony ended with Ed Jones asking, "In your opinion, don't you think Opal and her family deserve a better investigation?"

"I believe it was a good investigation," Manning replied with assurance. She was excused.

The second day's testimony ended with Danny McCormick. As in the first trial the seasoned investigator was direct in his answers, displaying a no-nonsense manner while explaining the procedures taken by the Special Crimes Unit after apprehending Franks. Judge Gill announced the trial would continue the following morning.

As day three of Franks's second kidnapping trial began, the defense requested permission to introduce a witness out of order. With permission granted, Dr. Richard Leo took the stand.

A tall, thin man with a short beard and black hair, Dr. Leo held a Ph.D. from UCLA and was in private practice specializing in police interrogations. Dr. Leo's specific expertise was in police interrogation practices, police procedures, and false confessions.

Dr. Leo stated that interviewers always want to verify a suspect's statement, determining if it is true or false, by using four specific criteria:

1. No crime had occurred.

2. A physical impossibility that the suspect could have committed the crime.

3. Scientific exoneration (the DNA doesn't match).

4. The suspect confesses; then someone else comes forward and confesses.

Lisa Callahan scribbled a note on a piece of paper, then turned and handed it to Bill Parker, seated behind her. The note read: "None of his four areas fit this case." Parker, a noted expert himself, nodded slightly. Callahan looked satisfied and turned her attention back to Dr. Leo's testimony.

Dr. Leo stated that according to a 1996 publication by the Department of Justice, in the twenty-nine DNA exonerations cited, 20 percent had false confessions.

According to Dr. Leo, it was first important to find out if the suspect possessed knowledge only the killer could know. He added that, too often, the suspect would feed back what they were told by the police. Dr. Leo stated he believed this feeding of information could be eliminated if all confessions were tape-recorded.

"Alaska and Minnesota require by law that all interrogations be videotaped. It becomes an objective record of the interrogation. It answers `he said/she said' allegations," Dr. Leo stated.

Dr. Leo added that when a suspect gives a false confession, typically they recant it.

Judge Gill called for a much-needed recess. Jurors, as well as spectators, were growing weary during the doctor's lecture-type testimony.

After the break Lisa Callahan challenged the study cited by Dr. Leo.

"You cite twenty-nine cases mentioned in the article, but there were approximately three hundred eighty-nine thousand interrogations nationwide during that period; is that correct?" Callahan asked.

"Yes."

"The twenty-nine you talk about were only.0007571 percent of all those interrogated. Wouldn't you say the vast majority of confessions are true?"

"Yes."

Dr. Leo left the courtroom en route to his previously scheduled lecture at Claremont College, then on to Cypress the following day for a teaching assignment. He walked with an air of self-importance.

Following the interruption of the state's witnesses by the inclusion of Dr. Leo for the defense, Greg Miller called the next prosecution witness.

Vivian Largent, her brown hair slicked back in a tight bun, told the jury that she had known Judy and Ricky Franks for about two years and had visited their home on many occasions.

"We had normal conversations," Largent stated. "In my opinion he has a lot of common sense."

The witness identified photos of Ricky Franks when he had a mustache, long hair, and pimples on his face. She told jurors he often wore a red ball cap and had surmised it must have been his favorite.

"I saw Ricky and Judy at noon on March twentyseventh at my house. He seemed distant, and I asked him what was wrong. He said he had a lot on his mind," Largent stated.

"Did you notice anything unusual about him?" Miller asked.

"His hair, he was almost bald. He had told me he wanted to let it grow until he was thirty-one or thirtytwo years old. It was considerably shorter than it is today," Largent remarked.

Everyone in the courtroom turned their attention toward Ricky Franks. His expression remained stoic.

"I saw him off and on until his arrest, but I never saw him wear the red ball cap again," Largent added.

Ed Jones then asked for the defense if Largent had cut Franks's hair for him the week before March 27.

"Yes, I often cut it. I cut it for free," Largent responded. But she insisted she hadn't cut it as short as she had seen it on March 27, 1999, the day after Opal Jennings was abducted.

Next on the state's witness list was Special Agent Lori Keefer. She told the twelve men and women of the jury that she had been with the FBI for 111/2 years. She was assigned to the Fort Worth agency in the Violent Crimes squad, dealing with kidnappings, bank robberies, and fugitive matters.

It was difficult for some to believe the soft-spoken, petite, and attractive young woman on the stand was an FBI agent assigned to such criminal activities.

Agent Keefer explained that in July 1999 she had been involved in the 0. J. Simpson case, and in August 1999 she had met with Ricky Franks.

As in Franks's first trial Keefer told the jury about the false scenario given to Franks on the evening of his arrest, and his response.

"He said angrily, `I knew when I admitted having Opal, I'd get blamed for every crime like it,"' Keefer said.

The statement passed on by Keefer gave rise to conjecture by spectators. Franks had admitted in his statement he'd taken Opal and he admitted it once again when given the false scenario. Why, then, wouldn't the jury believe he had been responsible for her kidnapping?

When the defense had no questions for Keefer, the state called Special Agent Andy Farrell to the stand. Farrell told of his role in heading up the task force for the FBI and the progression of the case. When Farrell was passed to the defense for crossexamination, judge Gill called for a welcome noon recess.

At 1:20 P.M., Ed Jones began his cross-examination. The senior FBI agent explained that Randy Crawford, Opal's father, had been scrutinized closely as an initial suspect. Although Crawford was living in Nashville at the time, he had once stated if he ever came and picked up Opal, he would take her to East Texas and they would never see her again. Leola Sanderford had believed it was possible that Crawford had taken their daughter, just to get back at her. He had had Opal's name tattooed on his body and professed his love for her, although he hadn't spent much time with Opal during her six years. But Crawford had been eliminated as a person of interest when his alibi in Tennessee had proved credible.

Farrell's long testimony covered all of the points made in the previous Franks trial, and although repetitive for the prosecution, defense, and those spectators who had endured both trials, it was the first time the second jury had heard the evidence. Neither the prosecution nor the defense intended to let anything of evidentiary value go unsaid.

After two hours of cross-examination, the defense passed Andy Farrell for redirect back to the prosecution. At that point in the trial, Judge Gill called for an afternoon recess.

While Ricky Franks rested in the holding cell adjacent to the courtroom, his family milled around outside. Twenty minutes later, they were back in the courtroom.

Farrell spent another long hour on the stand before Greg Miller announced that the state rested its case.

Everyone in the courtroom let out a sigh of relief. The testimonies had been long and tedious. With the defense calling only two witnesses in the previous trial, the courtroom audience anticipated a brief presentation before the judge adjourned the jury and they began deliberations.

But the defense had reviewed their strategy and decided to present expert testimony as to the mental integrity of their client. If the jury believed that Ricky Franks was truly retarded, Haley and Jones hoped they would see the confession as one coerced from a childlike adult and disregard the statement during deliberations. Dr. Daniel Lowrance, Ph.D., was called to testify.

Dr. Lowrance had met with Ricky Franks, reviewed previous IQ tests taken by him prior to Franks's first trial, and evaluated his school records. Dr. Lowrance stated that his best guess of Franks's overall performance, based on three IQ scores, was an IQ ranking of 64. The score placed the thirty-year-old defendant in the mildly retarded range. Dr. Lowrance stated Franks read on a fourth-grade level.

The measurements, assessments, and determinations presented by Dr. Lowrance seemed to catch the attention of the jury, although many in the gallery fought to keep their eyes open.

The witness told the packed courtroom that Franks had been in special education since he was in the first grade, and was presently on the level of a functioning adult in a sheltered workshop.

"Mr. Franks is on the lower end of minimum-wage earners," Dr. Lowrance stated. "If he managed a store, they'd be bankrupt. He can perform laborintensive work with supervision, but they would have to stay on him even if the work level is low."