A
mong the questions prosecutors were asked when they headed into the first trial were these main concerns: Why not try Hembree for both murders at the same time? Why stage two trials when the state could have tried both cases together? Why put everyone through a trial all over again, once the first case was fully adjudicated?
ADA Stephanie Hamlin explained: “We did want to join Heather and Randi. We asked to do that, but the judge would not allow it.”
The DA’s office had “all these arguments set up with case law” setting a precedent. But as the law reads, cases tried together must show enough similarities to match up to each other.
“I still think we should have been able to do it,” Hamlin commented.
One of the problems the judge faced was the scrutiny capital felony cases were given if a guilty verdict came in. The automatic appeal process begins right away. Judge Beal did not want anything to tip the balance and send the cases back to trial. He routinely erred on the side of caution—“And always ruled on the side of the defense, which is normal for a capital case . . . ,” said one court official. It was a smart move. All the DA needed was one death penalty sentence. And with the judge allowing testimony and evidence of Randi’s murder as part of Heather’s case, it was as though Randi was having her day in court, too.
Shellie Nations did not mind when the DA spoke to her about this. As long as Randi ultimately saw justice, that was all that mattered.
The defense, strangely enough, did not want the cases to be tried together. That was something the DA’s office found bizarre. Thus, in being able to try both separately, the DA had two chances at convincing a jury of guilt and death. Why wouldn’t Danny Hembree argue against that?
When it came time to discuss which of the girls’ cases should be tried first, Hamlin and Bell disagreed.
“For me, Randi’s case was a slam dunk,” Stephanie Hamlin explained with all due respect to her boss. “We had a cause of death. We had injuries. A punch to the nose. Blood evidence.... To me, it was a winner.”
Bell felt extremely sympathetic toward Heather. He wanted to try her case immediately. The problem Hamlin saw was that they didn’t have an official cause of death in Heather’s case and it could be argued. Suffocation doesn’t always show up on the body. It’s a clean way to kill someone. This posed a problem.
The one thing they did have, however, was a defendant saying—and explaining on video in graphic detail—how and where he had killed the victim. Down in the basement of Momma’s house, Hembree had given Hensley and Sumner a description, holding little back, regarding how he had killed Heather and she had struggled to her last breath. That alone was compelling evidence.
T
he next two witnesses came and went quickly, setting the scene of Randi Saldana’s murder. First up was Katherine “Kat” Sturgell, the unlucky horseback rider who stumbled upon Randi’s corpse. Then YCSO captain Jerry Hoffman, who responded to the crime scene and secured it.
After Hoffman, the state put up Sabrina Gast, who had testified briefly the previous day. Gast was brought back in to finish the technical side of the pathologist’s role in death investigations. Gast focused on Randi’s autopsy and what the medical examiner’s office had uncovered. The photos that came out of Gast’s testimony were the most brutal and graphic yet. They depicted what fire does to the human body when it is only partially consumed. Randi was unrecognizable, of course, save for her tattoos and several sections of her body that did not burn. Yet the most chilling photo turned out to be how Randi had been bound by that severed lamp cord Hembree had admitted to using on her legs. One photo showed this in all of its indisputable horror: her burned, blackened feet; her red legs, bound midway by a piece of copper with the plastic coating melted off. When one looked at this, it was clear that Randi’s killer took his time to bind her legs, took his time to drag her from the basement of Momma’s house to his car, took his time to package her body up in a blanket, took his time to drag her from the car to the woods, took his time to pour gasoline over her body and ignite it—but not, as the photos explicitly revealed, to stand by and watch her burn into ash.
Shellie Nations was sick to her stomach. The tears. The gut-wrenching emotional distress. Shellie had been shown photos of Randi’s jewelry during the investigation. Some of those (used here, too) were of Randi’s charred corpse, her jewelry still strapped on her body. The DA’s office had chosen to use 12 X 8 photographs that the jury could pass around and actually handle. This strategy worked twofold: One, to give jurors a close-up look at the carnage Hembree was responsible for; and two, so the gallery (family members of the victims, especially) did not have to be put through the often agonizing showing of graphic images on a large computer/video screen.
Bell took up questioning Gast. And for the most part, her testimony was clean and coherent, devoid of technical terms that few understood. Gast had a way of simplifying the most difficult aspects of medical evidence collection during autopsy and the coroner’s role at a crime scene.
Another important feature of Gast’s testimony was introducing the photos of Randi’s tattoos.
Within about twenty minutes, Gast was finished, Hembree’s defense not asking her one cross-examination question.
Then Eowyn Corcrain took the stand. Corcrain had an interesting job at the Medical University of South Carolina. Explaining her credentials, Corcrain said, “Well, I did a bachelor’s degree in biology and then a master’s degree in medical parasitology. . . .”
Parasitology is a subsection of pathology that involves field training and intense research “focused on identification of different sorts of blowflies. . . .” Blowflies are generally present in corpses left out in the elements for a period of time; yet, some will attach to a dead body minutes after it expires. Blowflies, within the cycle of life, are maggots. Blowflies, which generally feed on rotting flesh and meat, can smell a dead body from a mile away. They have a reputable purpose: cleaning the world of dead carcasses. But some see the irritating, metallic-colored, mechanical/futuristic-looking insects as a menace. After all, it is the “sheep blowfly” that reportedly causes the Australian sheep industry more than $150 million per year in losses.
“I did a postgraduate clinical certification in histopathology (examining tissue at a microscopic level) at the Medical University of South Carolina,” Corcrain explained. “I completed the Medicolegal Death Investigator Training Program at St. Louis University in St. Louis, and then I did about a year-and-a-half on-the-job training before I took my current position.”
Corcrain was the lead technician present at Randi’s autopsy. She took a sample of Randi’s blood. She then took that vial of blood and gave it to Brian Bagwell.
After that, Hamlin handed Corcrain over to Richard Beam, who promptly said, “We don’t have any questions, Your Honor.”
Ending the day, the DA’s office called another evidence witness, whose testimony was once again left unimpeached by Hembree’s defense team.
I
n order to win a case one feels might be slipping away, one must find a beat and go with it. An attorney must consistently remind the judge that he doesn’t like where a certain aspect of the opposition’s case is headed; and he must, gradually, without being overbearing or irritating, beat that drum again and again. The repetitious nature of it says he is not happy with what’s going on in front of him, which might ultimately be one of his issues on appeal.
For Richard Beam, as the October 20 morning session began without the jury present, his point of contention was the state’s theory of motive. He felt the state was continually changing its position regarding why Danny Hembree murdered the women. He felt the state should stick to its original theory of hating the behaviors of the women. He felt the state should not bounce around and bring in witnesses reflecting a different viewpoint from that original notion Hembree had given law enforcement during interviews.
“Just briefly, Your Honor, to clarify some issues we had yesterday so we know when we’re asking questions,” Beam said first thing.
Stephanie Hamlin, while getting her things together for the day and arranging them on the table, was struck by this comment. She stared at Beam.
This again?
she thought.
“We thought we understood the theory of the state’s case being . . . what their allegations of motive were, and, obviously, we’ll want to delve into those issues during cross-examination and things of that nature. Yesterday, there seemed to be some—I heard two
different
things from the state concerning their theory of motive.... We want to clarify that so we know the perfect questions to ask.”
Beam wasn’t challenging the state on its supposed motive flip-flop, necessarily; instead, he wanted to know where they stood so he could defend against it.
Hamlin was baffled: “Clarify what?”
“Is their contention this motive was . . . racially motivated or not? . . . We just simply want to
know
. . . how to frame our questions and ask them. We thought we understood that.”
The judge thought it was a reasonable argument. “What says the state?”
Locke Bell stepped in, stating rather tersely: “The state says Danny Hembree murdered Heather Catterton in this first-degree murder.
That
is our position in this case!”
“Is the state going to contend that they are not going to argue the racial motivation of this?” Beam wondered. “They seemed to say that yesterday to this court.”
Judge Beal had heard enough. Locke Bell had stated quite clearly the state’s case against Hembree, who had sat rather quietly and almost invisibly during the past few days. His only actions seemed to be to lean over every once in a while to whisper something in Beam’s ear, or to turn and blow Momma and his sister a kiss.
“Counsel,” the judge said, “I don’t see that this is a question for a judicial determination. I don’t understand. Can you cite me some law that says I can compel the state to reveal its theory of the case?”
Beam didn’t approve. “Well, Your Honor, when they’re objecting to questions we ask, the court is called upon to make evidentiary rulings, correct? Now, yesterday, Miss Hamlin told this court they were
not
contending this was a racially motivated killing when we were talking about questions to ask Miss Heffner. Then two hours later, Mr. Bell stands up and says they
were
! In order for us to
effectively
cross-examine witnesses and frame questions
appropriately
and ask questions that are
legal
under the rules of evidence, which the court has to rule upon, if their motive is that . . . we should be allowed to ask questions about
that.
”
Bell countered: “Your Honor, I believe Mr. Beam is wrong. Motive, as Your Honor stated, is not an element we have to prove. Mr. Hembree gives several reasons why he killed these two ladies, and he gives several reasons why he killed Miss Catterton—and there is
no
duty under the law”—Bell shook his head back and forth—“for us to pick which of Mr. Hembree’s numerous—well, he says, ‘motives’ . . . but we don’t have to prove motive.”
Beam considered continuing, but he caved: “That’s fine.”
They picked up the argument again for several more minutes as Beam could not let the issue go, but eventually they agreed to disagree.
The state called GCPD detective Chris McAuley, who talked about the search conducted at Nick’s house on the same night that Hembree was there. This allowed the state to enter photographs of Randi’s jewelry taken from Nicole’s possession.
As Beam began his cross, there was another break in the action so the judge could send the jury out and the lawyers could haggle over yet another inconsequential legal issue regarding potential future testimony.
When they returned to testimony before the jury, Beam brought up a point through his cross-examination of McAuley that the jewelry had been found in possession of Heather’s sister, Nicole, not Hembree, even though Hembree was present. Beam wanted this fact to be clear for jurors.
McAuley said it was.
After that, McAuley was done.
B
y far, the most sympathetic witness to date came next. Shellie Nations was an innocent murder victim’s family member. She walked slowly; her shoulders were slumped, and her head slightly bowed. It was hard for Shellie to be in the same room with Hembree—even worse, sitting in front of him, speaking about her sister’s life and final days. Shellie didn’t need a jury to confirm for her that
Danny Hembree had killed her sister. She
knew.
By looking at the man, Shellie later said, she felt him gloating, taking joy in the process—and that alone told her he was guilty.
Within a few questions by ADA Hamlin, Shellie brought the trial back to the reason why they were all sitting there. What this trial was about, Shellie implied with her gentle tone and motherly demeanor, was how two women had been brutally murdered. These were not women who did not care about their lives. These women did not grow up with the dream of becoming addicted to drugs. Heather and Randi were sisters and daughters; they were considerate human beings who got caught up in the street life. They did not deserve their fate. No one had the right to play God in their lives and decide what was best for them.
“Okay,” Hamlin said, “you indicated that [Randi] was charismatic and had a heart of gold.”
“Yeah. Randi, she was the type of person if you asked her for something and you needed it, the way we were raised is you gave it, you know, and you gave it with good intentions.” Shellie was sincere. She was her sister’s voice now. “She never really wanted to hurt anyone with the intentions of hurting them,” Shellie added, explaining how Randi was “the type of person if she knew . . . she hurt your feelings, she would come back and she would freely apologize and admit to her wrong in that.” Furthermore, Shellie said, she and Randi had been raised together their “whole lives” and she could not “count on one hand the arguments my sister and I had.”
Shellie talked about Randi’s love for jewelry, and how there was hardly a time in Randi’s life when Shellie could recall Randi not wearing jewelry.
After this introduction into Randi’s love of bracelets, necklaces, and rings (especially), Hamlin handed Shellie photos of Randi’s jewelry and asked her to verify the items.
There was one ring among other pieces of jewelry Shellie claimed “without a doubt” Randi owned “for fifteen years.”
They moved on to Randi’s tattoos.
As the first break of the new day came, the judge and lawyers discussed the idea of jurors writing things down, taking notes. This discussion went on and on. The judge even brought jurors in and questioned them.
When they were finished (not agreeing on anything specific), Shellie was asked to take the stand again and conclude her direct questioning. Over the next several minutes, Hamlin had Shellie identify several additional pieces of Randi’s jewelry and point them out in photographs.
As Beam opened his cross-examination, he asked Shellie how often it was she saw her sister.
“Not every day,” Shellie clarified. “Sometimes it may be once or twice a week. . . .”
“You knew her real well?”
“I knew her very well.”
“You knew about the problems she had?”
“I did.”
Then, being sure to get it on record, Beam said: “She had a drug problem?”
“Yes, she did.”
Bell and Hamlin listened carefully, waiting for the opportunity to pounce, paying close attention to how far Beam was going to take this. There was, of course, a difference between mentioning a victim’s lifestyle as it pertained to the case and bashing a victim for the sake of trying to make it appear as though her lifestyle had killed her.
Beam asked how long Randi’s drug problem existed. It was a fair question.
“I know it started early, at least in her twenties.... We had put Randi . . . I, myself, had put Randi in rehab, and it’s something she really wanted control of.”
“She never managed to get control of it—did she?”
“She tried.”
“I understand that she tried.”
“Yes, she did.”
“But she didn’t manage to get control of it—did she?”
“As far as the drugs? No. She never got a hold on the drugs.”
No sooner did the state wonder where Beam was headed than he asked Shellie if she ever went over to Shorty’s house with Randi.
Not only had she never gone to Shorty’s, Shellie said, but she didn’t even know to whom Beam was referring.
Then Beam asked a stupid question: “You knew she had two children?”
“She had three.”
“She had three?” Beam asked, shocked by this. He wanted to know where the children lived.
Shellie explained.
Beam said, “That’s because of the problems Miss Saldana had?”
“Yes.”
Beam used that as a bridge into the jewelry, but he realized Shellie couldn’t give him what he wanted, which was apparently that some of the jewelry did not belong to Randi. So after a brief discussion, Beam looked down at his notes and said: “I don’t think I have any further questions at this point.”