C
HAPTER 36
H
ORNY AS
H
ELL
Charles Reams was an attorney who specialized in probate and civil litigation. He explained that simply put, probate “is when the court determines that a document is a person’s last will and testament after they die. It can include estates and assets.”
Reams said that sometimes people who died had not drawn up a will. In that case, Reams would often be called in as a neutral party by people who were arguing over who should get what after a person died. Reams acted as a neutral party in dividing the estate.
Richard Tuttle showed Reams a handwritten document, allegedly penned by Alan Helmick, and asked Reams, “Are handwritten wills valid in Colorado?”
Reams answered, “Yes, they are.”
“Do you have to prove that the person who died, actually authored the document?”
“Yes. That’s the problem with them.” Reams then spoke of lawyer-drafted wills, which didn’t have problems. And there were also “holographic wills” supposedly written up by the person who had died. For holographic wills, it had to be proven that the person who signed it was actually the person who had died.
Tuttle asked if a handwritten will, dated November 2, 2004, concerned Alan and Miriam Helmick. Reams said that it did. Then Tuttle asked, “In Colorado, can a person cut a surviving spouse completely out of an estate?”
Reams answered no. Then he said for one hundred years, Colorado had ruled that a surviving spouse could not be completely cut out of an estate, no matter what the person who had died had written. A spouse always got $26,000 right off the top, no matter what, and up to $24,000 just to help meet expenses for up to a year while the estate was being settled.
On top of that, Miriam was going to receive $25,000 from a life insurance policy that Alan had taken out. There was also something called an intestate share. Reams said, “In this case, the surviving spouse would receive theoretically the first one hundred thousand.” So Miriam was not going to be destitute, as she had claimed. Nor was the “prenuptial agreement,” which she was always talking about, valid in cutting her off from the money mentioned by Reams.
Tuttle asked, “Why is this prenuptial agreement not valid?” Reams replied, “First of all, the legislature has spelled out protections for the spouse. In any prenuptial marital agreement, there must be a fair and reasonable disclosure of the assets.” Reams added that Miriam could waive her right to receive money and property from Alan’s estate, but she had not done that.
Tuttle then questioned, “If Alan Helmick and Miriam Giles bought things after their marriage in June 2006, it’s not affected by this prenuptial agreement?”
Reams responded, “It doesn’t seem to address it. According to probate law, it’s assumed that they’re held in joint tenancy.”
Tuttle also asked, “Bottom line, what would Miriam Helmick be entitled to in the wake of her husband’s death?”
Reams answered, “She would receive, at minimum, one hundred thousand dollars. And there is another legal right she has. It’s a complicated formula, but she has a right, as the surviving spouse, from five to fifty percent of assets, depending upon the years they were married. You take into account the joint tenancies, life insurance, assets the spouse owned before the marriage, even assets given away two years prior to death.”
Once again, it was not quite true that Alan was worth more to Miriam alive than dead. She was in line to receive a substantial amount of money, compared to the six hundred dollars that she had when she first arrived in Grand Junction in 2004.
Steve Colvin, on the other hand, tried to prove that the estate had to pay creditors first, and that was going to be a substantial amount of money. Not only that, it could take up to a year to do that. So for the first year after Alan Helmick’s death, Miriam was going to receive very little money, if any at all.
During the year, from June 2008 to June 2009, Miriam hadn’t even asked for an allowance out of the estate. Colvin questioned if Miriam had ever applied for something called an “elective share,” to help her pay her expenses.
Charles Reams replied, “Not to my knowledge.”
In fact, Colvin contended that Miriam didn’t even know about money that was owed to her as a surviving spouse, because she was not a trained lawyer. Colvin said, “If you’re not a probate lawyer, it’s certainly possible you wouldn’t know anything about intestate shares and elective shares and all that stuff?”
Reams answered, “That’s highly likely you would not know it.”
Colvin also asked if anyone, including Miriam, had ever challenged the prenuptial agreement. Reams said that no one had.
Colvin queried, “Is it fair to say that laypeople may well think that in a prenuptial agreement, whatever you had before the marriage is yours, period, end of story?”
“Yes.”
“And if she thought the prenuptial agreement was valid, there was no reason to make claims on the estate, correct?”
“Correct.”
“Has any claim been made by Ms. Helmick against the estate, to your knowledge?”
“To my knowledge, which is somewhat limited, I’m not aware of one.”
“And is it your understanding that everything in the estate was in Mr. Helmick’s name and that there was not joint tenancy of any property?”
Reams replied, “As far as title in joint tenancy, I’m not aware of any.”
Colvin’s whole line of questioning tended to bolster the assumption that Alan Helmick was more valuable to Miriam alive than dead. In fact, the moment Alan died, it left Miriam virtually penniless.
The things Charles Reams had been talking about were so complicated, even Judge Robison asked him a few questions.
One question was “Can the time limit to claim any and all inheritance for any of the situations be put on hold due to a criminal case?” In other words, could Miriam have an extension on deadlines, as the criminal case went forward, and then make claims on the estate if she was acquitted of murdering Alan?
Reams answered, “I’m not aware of an exception concerning the criminal case. There are situations, however, where the court can extend the time limit for the elective share.”
As with most witnesses, Aline Lee testified in a manner that was consistent with her previous statements to police. On cross-examination by Steve Colvin, she often seemed uncomfortable and distressed. Aline agreed with Colvin that her memory of exact dates was not good when it came to remembering when certain conversations with Miriam had taken place.
Colvin asked, “When you first talked to her, you told us that you asked her point-blank, ‘Did you murder him,’ right?”
Aline answered, “Yes.”
“And when you did that, you looked her right in the eyes, right?”
“Yes.”
“And it was after she answered that question, you went ahead and you loaned stuff to her, right? Money and jewelry.”
“Yes, over the period of time.”
“And you wouldn’t have done that if you thought she murdered him?”
“ No.”
Later in the testimony, Colvin wanted to know when Miriam had made the statement that she was “hornier than hell.”
Aline said it was just before she went down to meet the man in Orlando.
Colvin added, “Now that statement, you didn’t even want to say it here in court today, right?”
“ No.”
“Because it embarrasses you, I gather?”
“Yeah, a little bit.”
“And I gather you thought it was inappropriate to say it?”
“Yeah. For a grieving widow.”
“At some point after her husband is murdered, is it okay for her to be as horny as hell?”
“Yeah, probably so, but I don’t know what time that is for anybody. You know, everybody grieves differently.”
“You didn’t think it was acceptable for Miriam to feel that way?”
“I just thought it was unusual.”
Perhaps facetiously, Colvin asked, “So, normally, when you talk to grieving widows whose husbands have been murdered, when do they say they’re hornier than hell?”
The witness responded, “I’ve talked to a lot of people that lost husbands and I’ve never heard anyone saying anything like that behavior.”
Colvin got the witness to admit that Alan had been murdered in June of 2008, and Miriam did not make her comment about being horny as hell until later October or November of 2008. In fact, Colvin contended that Aline Lee had not even told Sergeant Henry Stoffel about this incident during his first interview with her. She had only mentioned it just before the present trial.
And then he got to the point that Aline Lee had a problem not only with Miriam Helmick, but with her defense team as well. Colvin asked, “You were told that my investigator Barbara Bullock, with the public defender’s office, wanted to talk to you. And you never called us, but you did talk to law enforcement, right?”
All Aline said to that was “um,” which was taken for a yes. Colvin added, “Between the time that Sergeant Stoffel came to your house and talked to you, and the time you called him about that statement, you had gone on the Internet and looked up about Ms. Helmick’s case, right?”
Aline agreed that she had done that because she was curious. So Colvin asked if she had then called up law enforcement right after she had gone online. What ensued was an exchange over whether she had done so right away or much later.
One of her answers was very disjointed. “I don’t know when they . . . of when I got on first to . . . you know, check into about if it was true that she . . . you know, so if it was true of some of the things . . .”
Finally Colvin butted in and asked, “The answer is you don’t know, right?”
She finally replied, “I don’t really know.”
Another comment that came up in testimony was what Aline Lee had told Investigator Stoffel on December 9, 2008: “Miriam had to get rid of her lawyer (probably Colleen Scissors) ’cause she couldn’t afford to pay her anymore.”
Colvin continued, “She was real excited, kinda impressed, by this Kilpatrick guy, right?” (He meant Charles Kirkpatrick.)
“Yes.”
And Colvin got her to agree that Miriam was not only excited because “Kilpatrick” had money, but that he liked dancing and horses as well. She agreed and said, “I don’t think it was just the money.”
Tammy Eret got a chance to redirect questions to Aline Lee, and Eret asked why she had such a hard time recalling specific dates during that period of time when Miriam was back in Florida.
Aline said, “Well, I just lost my mother, who I had been taking care of for twelve years. It’s a very hard thing. So I wasn’t very good with dates.”
Just before Eret ended her redirect, she said, “Initially, before Mr. Colvin started his cross-examination, you got teary-eyed. Did you consider Miriam Helmick a friend of yours?”
Now the witness was more than just teary-eyed. She began crying on the stand.
Steve Colvin looked upon this as a cheap trick, so he objected. When the lawyers approached the bench, Colvin told Judge Robison, “This is an appeal to the passions of the jury by pointing out her emotional state, thereby bolstering her credibility. I’m objecting on that ground.”
Eret countered, “I’m just asking her if it’s difficult to provide information. She started crying. I can’t help that she started crying.”
Judge Robison overruled the objection, and Eret asked once again, “Did you consider her to be a friend of yours?”
The answer: “In the past, yes.”
C
HAPTER 37
A “J
UVENILE
” S
TAGED
C
RIME
S
CENE
On direct testimony, Mike Pruett, Alan Helmick’s former brother-in-law, mostly talked about his conversation with Miriam at the dinner after the funeral. Once again, Mike, the brother of Alan’s first wife, spoke of how jarring it was to hear Miriam pronounce about a Dance Junction ex-employee: “He’d better hope he has a fucking alibi!”
Tammy Eret asked if Miriam indicated that she had a suspicion about who the shooter was. Mike answered that she didn’t know for sure. And then he began to say, “Knowing Alan the way I did—”
Before he finished his sentence, Steve Colvin quickly objected. In a sidebar out of the hearing of the jurors, Colvin told Judge Robison, “I anticipate the witness is going to testify that knowing Alan as well as he did, he knows that Alan would never have turned his back on a stranger in his house. Therefore, Alan had to have known the shooter. That’s complete speculation, and it’s improper. We’re asking the court to not allow the answer that’s about to come out.”
Eret responded, “Well, it’s habit evidence. And if he can testify that he’s known Alan Helmick since 1967, and knows him well—knows him to always confront people and never shy away and turn his back on somebody, and is very cognizant of strangers, that’s a habit that is allowed in.”
Colvin retorted, “They haven’t laid the foundation for habit. He (Pruett) hasn’t testified to his observations of Alan when he was in the presence of a stranger in his house. How can you get a habit without laying observations that he’s seen before?”
In the end, Judge Robison sided with Colvin and said that the question could not be answered because it was speculation.
Later, on direct, Mike Pruett spoke of what he knew about the car fire in Delta. Eret asked him, “Do you remember telling law enforcement that Miriam was giving you the impression that Alan was going to cover for her in that incident?”
He began to say, “I remember getting the feeling that if you’re sitting in the car by yourself, and the person you’re with comes to the—”
Before he could finish his statement, Colvin anticipated that he was going to say that Miriam went to the back of the car, and it must have been she who put the wick in the gas tank and lit it. Colvin objected, saying, “This isn’t testimony. It’s speculation and opinion.”
Judge Robison sustained that objection as well.
When Steve Colvin got his turn, he got Mike Pruett to admit that he’d contacted Portia Vigil after the funeral and told her that he might have some things that would be of interest to law enforcement. Mike also admitted that he wasn’t surprised when an investigator contacted him.
Colvin got into the fact that Mike had personally investigated three burglaries dealing with his own property, and two of these had led to convictions. Colvin asked if Pruett considered himself a “bit of a criminal investigator.” He replied that he asked a lot of questions in those cases.
Colvin then spoke of Mike being surprised when Miriam had pronounced at the dinner after the funeral about an ex-employee: “He’d better have a fucking good alibi!”
Colvin queried, “What surprised you? The fact that she was indicating that this guy better have a good alibi, or that she was using profanity?”
Sharon’s brother answered, “The profanity. It caught me off guard in the realm of the environment that we were in.”
Colvin then said, “Fair to say, you’ve never been at a funeral of a murdered spouse, right?”
“Never have,” he replied.
An important part of the prosecution’s case was the fact that they contended that the so-called robbery scene at the Helmick home on June 10, 2008, had been staged. To lend weight to the prosecution’s argument, they called Special Agent Robert Morton to the stand.
Before his testimony went very far, however, Steve Colvin wanted to voir dire Morton because Colvin did not buy the argument that Morton was an expert witness when it came to staged crime scenes. Judge Robison gave Colvin his wish.
Colvin began by asking if Morton considered himself to be an expert in the staging of crime scenes.
Morton replied, “I have an expertise in that. Yes, sir.” Colvin next wanted to know how Morton had supposedly gained the expertise he claimed to have. Morton continued, “It comes from experience in looking at thousands of cases.”
Colvin continued, “So you look at a crime scene and you decide whether or not it’s staged, right?”
Morton responded, “After examining all the evidence and discussing it with law enforcement officers, and reviewing all the material that goes along with that, yes.”
Colvin wanted to know who validated his decision as to whether the crime scene was staged or not.
Morton stated, “It’s validated through other people that I work with.”
Colvin retorted, “Ultimately, in the end, the truth of the matter is nobody knows for sure whether it’s staged or not. They just know whether they agree with you or not. Fair?”
Morton responded, “Other than it being a professional opinion, yes.”
After the voir dire of Robert Morton, Richard Tuttle argued to Judge Robison on whether Agent Morton was an expert witness: “I think there’s sufficient foundation laid. An expert can be judged as an expert in terms of experience, education, and training. I think he’s laid the sufficient foundation, having seen over a hundred staged crime scenes.”
Judge Robison ruled in favor of Tuttle, saying, “Mr. Morton is presenting expert testimony based on his experience, and the foundation that has been laid is appropriate and adequate for him rendering expert testimony.”
Tuttle’s questioning of Morton continued, and Morton spoke of the information that had been given to him by MCSO investigators. Morton added, “In the FBI’s uniform crime reports, which are published every year, there’s a section where they examine murder, robbery, burglary, rape, et cetera. Under murder, there’s a section that talks about murder by circumstance. For example, during a robbery. In 2007, there were approximately 2.2 million burglaries in the United States. There were approximately 14,189 murders in the United States in 2008. In 2008, there were eighty-seven murders in conjunction with a burglary. That is about .005 percent. A very small number.”
As a reference point, Tuttle asked how many people were struck by lightning and died in the United States in the same year. The number of people killed by lightning was much higher than those killed during a burglary.
As far as the staging of the robbery/murder at the Helmick home, Tuttle asked what degree of sophistication had been present.
Morton replied, “The staging was very unsophisticated for the reasons I talked about earlier. Obviously, it was done by someone who does not have a lot of criminal experience, particularly as a burglar. It was almost juvenile in its nature of staging.”
During his cross-examination, things became very heated between Special Agent Robert Morton and defense counsel Steve Colvin. Colvin knew this testimony was important as to whether the jurors believed that Miriam Helmick had killed Alan and then staged a robbery scene, or whether a real burglar had surprised Alan and murdered him.
Colvin asked if to be successful at staging a robbery/ murder, someone would have to be a good burglar or a police officer who knew about such things.
Morton answered, “Not necessarily. Burglars usually don’t kill people, so a burglar wouldn’t know how to stage a murder.”
Colvin said that was not his question, and he tried again. “To convince you that it wasn’t staged, they would have to be someone who’s really skilled in either burglaries or a police officer. Is that right?”
Morton replied, “They would have to be extremely skilled, yes.”
Colvin then asked if Morton had ever made mistakes in his assessments of whether a crime scene had been staged or not.
Morton testified, “I try to minimize errors, like anybody else does. I try to look at the entire thing in totality, as well as the circumstances. Using that barometer, measure the fact that the crime scene is very consistent with being staged and not consistent with a burglary gone bad. Have I ever made an error in describing a crime scene as being staged, and afterward found out it was not? No, I have not.”
Colvin wouldn’t give up on this point. He asked, “Had you made a mistake, you wouldn’t know it. Let’s say the jury acquits Ms. Helmick. That doesn’t prove that you’re wrong, because, according to you, they would be wrong, correct?”
Morton answered, “The jury isn’t
only
determining whether the fact that I described the crime scene as staged. It’s just one aspect of it.”
Now things got even more contentious. Colvin questioned, “Even if the jury disagrees with your expert opinion, you still are going to maintain that you are correct because you don’t make mistakes on this issue?”
Morton shot back, “That’s an overly simplistic statement, sir!”
Colvin wouldn’t give up, however. He said, “So you agree, then, that if the jury acquits Ms. Helmick, you will have your first time that you’ve ever been wrong on a staged crime scene?”
Morton responded, “No, sir. That’s not what I said!”
“Do you know if Mr. Helmick is one of the 14,189 murders? Because you don’t even know if Mr. Helmick got counted, right?”
Morton answered, “The way the Uniform Crime Reports work is that the department is mandated by federal law to report murder cases. There’s a means that they use to compile data and send it in. Exactly which case out of those—well, I’m sure [the Helmick case] is in there. I can’t tell you which one without asking somebody from Mesa County who actually submits that data.”
Colvin pushed on: “So the answer to my question is, you don’t know whether or not there’s really 14,190, because you don’t know if Mesa County counted this as a murder?”
Morton replied emphatically, “I know that there’s been 14,189 murders reported in the UCR in 2008.”
“And you don’t know if this one was reported, right?”
“That’s correct.”
“And you certainly don’t know if this was reported as a homicide in conjunction with a burglary, right?”
“ No.”
“So you don’t know if it fits in that eighty-seven or not?”
“No, I don’t.”
Moving on, Colvin got Morton to agree that people were killed by lightning every year in the United States. It was a small number compared to the entire population of the country, but it did happen. Then Colvin asked, “Do you still think some people get killed in a burglary gone bad?”
Morton responded, “Yes, it does happen.”
Colvin asked if Morton had been given any more discovery material on the Helmick case since October 30, 2008. Morton said that he hadn’t received any new material since then. At that point, Colvin asked, “So your assessment could change, were you given additional investigative resources, additional discovery?”
Morton stated, “Depending on the nature of the information.”
“And based as part of your professional opinion, you say this was a staged crime scene, but you can’t say who staged it?”
Morton answered, “For purposes of this testimony, the only thing I’m allowed to say is that the crime scene was staged. And in the majority of staging cases, there’s a relationship between the offender and victim.”
“Hypothetically, if someone knows that Mr. Helmick and Mrs. Helmick travel together frequently, and sees a vehicle leaving from the Helmick house, they certainly would have reason to think there was no one there. Would you agree?”
“That could be possible.”
“And if someone saw them leave and went into the house, even though there were still vehicles parked there—if they had reason to think Mr. and Mrs. Helmick were always together, they would go ahead and go in. Would you agree?”
“Yes. If the offender is specifically targeting the Helmick house.”
“If a burglar was in the house, was confronted by or saw Mr. Helmick, was startled and shot him, is it reasonable to say they might want to leave at that point?”
“In the context you said it, yes. But that’s not what the crime scene reveals to me.”
“Well, would you agree with that if somebody shoots somebody, their first thought may be ‘I better get out of here.’ Not that ‘I should rummage through the china cabinet’?”
“If that was the sequence of events.”
“Your professional opinion arrived at was based upon a review of the crime scene photographs and videos. It’s not based upon any interviews of witnesses. Do I understand that correctly?”
Morton responded, “That’s correct.”
Richard Tuttle had one more crack at FBI agent Morton on this important issue of a possible staged robbery/murder scene. Tuttle asked, “Did you see any evidence in your review of the crime scene photos, crime scene video, and all that information that would suggest to you, or support the idea, that Mr. Helmick, who was shot in the back of the head, was ever confronted by a burglar?”