Blood Ambush (23 page)

Read Blood Ambush Online

Authors: Sheila Johnson

67
Because of the delays in obtaining a complete trial transcript and other necessary materials, the defense and the prosecution filed a joint stipulation for extension of time to rule on posttrial motions, in which both parties had agreed to extend for an additional thirty days the court’s time for ruling on the defendant’s pending motion for acquittal or for a new trial, which was filed on September 29. Before that time expired, a second joint stipulation was filed, extending the deadline for the court’s time for ruling beyond November 27, 2008, up to and including December 27, 2008. And after that, a third joint stipulation was filed, giving an additional forty-five days that extended the deadline beyond December 27, 2008, up to and including February 10, 2009.
When a fourth joint stipulation for extension of time to rule on posttrial motions was filed on February 10, it extended the court’s deadline beyond February 10, up to and including April 30. But that would be the final extension.
The first appeal hearing for Barbara Roberts was held on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, at the Cherokee County Courthouse. The parties present for the hearing had gathered in the main courtroom that morning, but there were many other people with business not related to Barbara’s hearing crowded into the large room. Courthouse personnel quickly realized that the courtroom had been double-booked accidentally that day. People who were in attendance for Barbara’s appeal were summoned to a smaller courtroom, which was just large enough for Barbara and her attorney, Angela Cochran Morgan, DA Mike O’Dell, ADA Bob Johnston, Officer Bo Jolly, Chief Deputy Tim Hays and three other law enforcement officers, two court staff, and Judge David A. Rains.
A motion for a new trial had been filed on September 29, 2008, and also another motion for acquittal.
The first issue presented by Morgan concerned the several plea offers Barbara had been offered during the course of her case.
“Ms. Roberts could not have had meaningful communication with her attorneys about plea offers due to the medications she was on at the time,” Morgan said. “The trial should have been continued due to that.”
The next item addressed by Morgan was the claim that the statements by Barbara on April 19, 20, and 26, 2006, that had been admitted into the trial, were not properly documented.
“The statement made on April nineteenth was not signed by Ms. Roberts, and ABI Agent Brent Thomas asked for it not to be recorded,” Morgan said. “The statement on the twenty-sixth, made at the Cherokee County Jail, was not recorded, either. The one made on April twentieth was recorded, but not much information [on her right to an attorney to be present] was given to Ms. Roberts prior to signing the statement.”
 
ADA Bob Johnston then addressed Morgan’s statements.
“The motion to continue was filed without enough reason to justify its being granted,” he said. “Mental evaluations showed Barbara Roberts was competent to stand trial and could assist Rodney Stallings during the trial. There was no reason to postpone the trial.
“As to the admission of Barbara Roberts’s statements, she was willing to talk without an attorney present, and even requested interviews.”
 
Morgan then claimed that the court had erred in allowing the testimony of Tonya Regalado during the trial, and Johnston countered by saying that Tonya Regalado’s statement was not the only one of its kind.
“The court allowed the glasses—found too long after the crime to be allowed,” Morgan stated. “The scene was unsecured for twenty-four hours before the glasses were found.”
“Other evidence introduced at the trial tied the glasses to the murder,” Johnston answered.
 
Morgan then moved on to a topic she hoped to pursue more successfully.
“The most important issue here is that the defendant did not receive effective assistance at the trial. Rodney Stallings didn’t provide adequate evidence to continue the case. He told the court that Ms. Roberts didn’t fully understand the settlement offers [she had received earlier on in the case], and he failed to have doctors present at the June hearing to verify her mental state. He only provided an unsigned and undated letter from Dr. Junkins.
“Rodney Stallings told the court in June that due to problems with her medications, he could not have a meaningful conversation with Ms. Roberts about plea agreements.”
Barbara had been sitting, listening, restless in her seat. She had lost considerable weight during her time at Tutwiler Prison. She seemed frail and anxious.
“There was no last-minute plea offer,” Johnston told the court. “Ms. Roberts has not shown any remorse for the crime, and her obstinance has caused her not to accept the offers that had been made for one and a half years previously. It’s easy now to complain about her representation.”
Johnston cited several appeals cases involving representation during criminal trials, and told the court that being granted an appeal “requires showing that counsel made serious errors that deprived the defendant of a fair trial. The defendant must prove failure of the attorney.”
Johnston then pointed out that there was no evidence that Rodney Stallings didn’t provide Barbara with effective representation. He said that claims of performance prejudices must show reasonable probability that results of the trial would have been different if representation had been handled differently.
“The defendant’s glasses were found at the scene and led to her. Her statements showed that she was there,” Johnston said. “It was not Rodney Stallings’s fault that the glasses were left there. Now, only in hindsight, she wants to complain about Rodney.”
Judge Rains asked Johnston for a copy of a letter written by Barbara, praising Stallings and saying how much his representation meant to her.
“She has written other letters complaining about Rodney Stallings,” Morgan countered. “She felt like he was family, but since then, her opinion has changed. I feel like, after reading the transcript, the argument has to be raised. She was not competent to help him prepare for the trial. Mr. Stallings did not provide evidence for a continuance. The doctor testified at the trial that her competency could have changed, but Mr. Stallings didn’t request a reevaluation of her mental state.”
Johnston told the court that Barbara was in full assistance of Stallings during the trial.
“Mr. Stallings failed to pursue an insanity plea,” Morgan argued. “A psychiatric evaluation was performed, but Mr. Stallings hadn’t received it at the time of the trial. Ms. Roberts paid five thousand dollars for another psychiatrist to evaluate her, and no such evaluation was performed. An independent examiner should have been hired with the five thousand dollars. Rodney Stallings should have requested a reassessment of Ms. Roberts’ mental condition.”
Johnston told the court that Barbara was lucid during the proceedings, and recalled evidence.
“Rodney Stallings was not adequately prepared for the trial because he thought a continuance would be granted,” Morgan countered. “He didn’t start preparing until the continuance was denied. He introduced several exhibits without enough explanation. His defense strategies were the ‘spaghetti effect,’ where you throw enough of it at the wall and some of it will eventually stick. His defenses seemed desperate, first claiming that Vernon Roberts did it, then claiming that Barbara Roberts was physically unable to do it. There was no evidence on Vernon Roberts’s involvement. By throwing him in, it becomes ‘spaghetti.’”
“Rodney Stallings did what many do,” Johnston answered, “with a guilty client on his hands. He claimed her codefendant was more culpable and was behind it all.”
Morgan then switched to the issue of her client’s physical problems, saying that Stallings had failed to provide the jury with enough proof of Barbara’s physical disabilities and weaknesses.
“I don’t believe the jury would have recommended the death penalty if they didn’t believe Ms. Roberts pulled the trigger. She had said she couldn’t hold or fire the shotgun because of her disability.
“Dr. Junkins had said that, according to her disabilities, her type of injuries would cause loss of upper-body strength. If an assessment had been properly performed, the outcome of the trial would have been different.
“I shot my husband’s shotgun over the weekend, to see how it felt. It wasn’t easy. If Rodney Stallings had offered evidence, he could have shown Schiess could have done the shooting. The gun was a pump-action, and it was hard to do.”
Morgan told the court that Barbara had only come to the South River Gun Club with Schiess on one occasion. The green plastic, the gauze, and the cable found in the truck tied Schiess to the murder, she said. And the witness Richiez had testified that Barbara’s face was red, she appeared to be crying, and he had seen Schiess push her into the truck.
Morgan also reminded the court that Investigator Mark Hicks had been informed by the FBI of Schiess’s money transfer of $1.8 million to a Swiss bank account, and Jim Captain had testified that Schiess talked to him several times after the murder about various suspicious topics.
“All the facts pointing to Schiess were not presented to the jury. At best, the defense was a half-hearted effort,” said Morgan. “Ms. Roberts had the right to a better defense.”
Johnston told the court, “Everything we just heard was presented to the jury. [As for Ms. Roberts’s ability to fire a shotgun], adrenaline powers people to do what they could not ordinarily do.”
Judge Rains then addressed Ms. Morgan: “You said you believed the jury concluded Ms. Roberts pulled the trigger because of the eleven to one vote for the death penalty, and that result came about because of Mr. Stallings’s poor representation. If Mr. Stallings was ineffective, isn’t the fact that Ms. Roberts was sentenced to life without parole contradictory?”
Morgan respectfully pointed out to Judge Rains that if Barbara had not been convicted of capital murder, she could have received a lesser sentence.
Judge Rains then spoke directly to Barbara.
“The court clerk received on March ninth a letter from you requesting a copy of the court file and transcript, and a motion for discovery. The entire record was made available to your attorney. It is my judgment that by providing it to the attorney, I will not ask the clerk’s office to prepare a separate, complete record for you.”
Barbara told Judge Rains that the authorities at the prison had told her that was how she had to obtain the information, and told her that it had to be sent from the court and not from the attorney.
“Don’t expect me to grant a request for the shipment of such a large amount of records to the prison,” Judge Rains told Barbara. “It places an unreasonable burden on the court reporter to request a second copy.”

Other books

Prelude for War by Leslie Charteris
Totally Toxic by Zoe Quinn
Half Blood by Lauren Dawes
The Elves of Cintra by Terry Brooks
Customer Satisfaction by Cheryl Dragon