Return to John Wille's Homepage

STATE OF LOUISIANA                                 * 40TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
EX REL                                                        * PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
JOHN FRANCIS WILLE, Petitioner     * NO. 85-0225 "A"
VERSUS                                                       * STATE OF LOUISIANA
JOHN WHITLEY, Warden                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 

                    PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF

    Mr. Wilte files this Petition for Post-Conviction Relief requesting that
this Court vacate his judgment of conviction for first degree murder and sentence
of death. This Petition is divided into the following sections. The first section
sets forth an introduction to the case, section two details the procedural
history, section three sets forth the facts supporting the claims for relief, and
section four presents the constitutional violations occurring in the prosecution
of Mr. Wille.
                                                         SECTION 1

                                                   INTRODUCTION

    John Francis Wille did not kill Nichole Lopatta, nor did he have anything to do with her abduction and death. He is innocent of the crime for which he is convicted and sentenced to death.  He walked into a charged courtroom, burdened with false confessions, missing access to critical information hidden by the state showing that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the
crime with a lawyer woefully inadequate for the job. Mr. Wille's last hope at trial was his lawyer.  However, his lawyer was sentenced by Judge Caire to represent Mr. Wille as a punishment for being convicted of federal felonies involving fraud and deception on government agencies. Not only that, his lawyer, a politician and businessman, had only tried two cases before a jury. One was a burglary, one was a personal injury suit.
    Things got worse. Shortly after trial began, his lawyer had what he describes as a nervous breakdown; finding himself on the floor of the Judges chambers crying uncontrollably and unable tocontinue. The judge, rather than granting a recess, ordered Mr.Wille's unprepared, young co-counsel to take over.

His conviction was a result of a no-holds-barred prosecutionthat fs not only reprehensible and
unethical, it is manifestlyunconstitutional. His confessions are false, procured by over-zealous law
enforcement officers who cared not for the truth--they were looking to solve the tragic crime of
Nichole's death.  The prosecutors bought these .confessions" hook, line and sinker. They, too, cared
nothing about the truth; to make matters worse,they hid evidence that would have exonerated Mr.
Wille.  This case is a miscarriage of justice and reversal is required.

Mr. Wille, at twenty-one years old, wanted to be somebody. He had been the scapegoat of his family,
suffering much abuse; hewanted attention. soon after his arrest he began talking wildlyabout various
murders he said he committed. As to most, thepolice were unconcerned, knowing them to be false, but
they soonlearned how to get Mr. Wille to say anything. Lt. Tom Perryremembers, "He's not saying
alot, but if you tell him something about a certain crime, he'll tell you about it." The tacticswere
standard issue: drugs, sleep deprivation, promises.

Mr. Wille comes before this court with a most seriousallegation, backed up by some of the world's
leading experts inthe psychology of false confessions.1

Aside from Mr. Wille's propensity to tell lies, theprosecution sealed his fate through a series of
intimidation ofwitnesses, deception, and coercion. The state had no evidenceinculpating him in this
crime except his word. There was noblood found in the car, and no forensic evidence linking him
toHichole's murder. Three key defense witnesses would havedevastated The state's case, but they
were not called to the
______________________

1Drs. Gudjonsson and MacKeith have set the pace in thisfield and have been invovled in such cases as the Guilford Fourand the Birmingham Six; cases in which convictions wsre procuredby false confessions, and later  reversed.


stand. One, an innocent bystander, would have shown that it wasabsolutely impossible for the Mr.
Wille to have committed themurders as he said he did, so the bysts-nder's identity, despitethe
prosecutor's obligation, was suppressed. Another witnesscould have positively placed Mr. Wille in
Milton, Florida on theafternoon Sichole was kidnapped, some 160 miles away, so lawenforcement
officers brought this witness into an interrogationroom for six hours in the middle of the night to
"convince" herthat her information was inaccurate. A third would havetestified that Billy Phillips and
Nichole Lopatta died ondifferent days, but trial counsel failed to call him to thestand. What is also
important here is that Billy Phillips, aparanoid schizophrenic with a history of self-mutilation, mayhave
cormnitted suicide. Certainly, he did not have wounds on hisbody consistent with anything Mr, Wille
said.

    If the crimes had happened as John Wille confessed, therewould have been blood all over the car;
there was none. If thecrimes had happened as John Wille confessed, Billy Phillips wouldhave bled to
death; but he drowned. If the crimes had happenedas John Wille alleged, he would have had to drive at
least 60miles, commithorrendous actB, stopping here and there, in alittle over a one hour period Of
time; physically impossible.

    An innocent man has been sentenced to death. Justice andthe law require reversal.

                                                         SECTION 2

Information Required by C.Cr.P. art. 926D

The 40th Judicial District Court of the Parish of St. Johnthe Baptist, Division "A", sitting in Edgard,
LouisiaNa ischallenged by this application for postconviction relief.

Petitioner was convicted by a jury on December 6, 1986, andsentenced to death on December 8, 1986.
He was convicted of onecount of first degree homicide, under La.R.S. 14:30. Be Blednot guilty and not
guilty by reason of insanity at arraignmentand trial.

Petitioner was represented at trial by George Oubre and Robert Beenel, who were both appointed by the court to represent him because of his indigency.
Petitioner did not testify at trial.

    Appeal of right was filed and the conviction and sentencewere conditionally affirmed at 559 So.2d
1321 (La. 1990).  Petitioner was represented by court appointed counsel, Michael S. Pawer and
Denise LeBoeuf, Michael S. Fawer PLC, 530 NatchezStreet, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 on direct
appeal. The casewas remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if aconflict of interest existed
between petitioner and George Oubre,his trial counsel. At the remand hearing petitioner
wasrepresented by Robert Becnel and Barry Landry; the hearing,before the trial judge, found no
conflict existed.

    Petitioner's conviction and sentence of death were affizedat 595 So.2d 1149 (La. 1992). On
appeal from the evidentiaryhearing petitioner was represented by Robert Becnel.

    This is petitioner's first application for post-convictionrelief.

                                    STATE OF FACT SUPPORTING CLAIMS

                                                    INTRODUCTION

    The case against John Francis Wille is John Wille's word.  His confession to the murder of Nithole
Lopatta was the only substantive evidence introduced at his trial. That confessionwas obtained after
Judy Walters, his girlfriend and co-defendant(2), had given a number of statements implicating him in
the murder. His confession was obtained, using her statements,after he had confessed to other
murders, then retracted thoseconfessions. Nis confession is unreliable; it is untrue. JohnWille has been
convicted and condemned to death on his own word, and that word is false.

Judy Walters confessed to witnessing John Wills commit anumber of murders. Her confessions were
much lengthlet and more
______________________

2John Wille and Judy Walters were arrested within two daysof each other and charged with arson and burglary in Santa RosaCounty, Florida. They were co-defendants in that case.


elaborate than Petitioner's. She was convicted of the first degree murder of Nichole Lopatta and of
Billy Phillips, the hitchhiker who allegedly participated in Nichole's rape, abduction, and murder.(3) Her
confessions were obtained during weeks of interrogations conducted under illegal and coercive
conditions. The fact that she confessed to these murders, implicating John Wille, was told to Wille
during his own interrogation; facts "elicited" during her confessions were used to formulate leading
questions which appear in his statement.(4)  Walters's numerous confessions were coerced; they are
false.

    Sheila Walters, Judy Walters's daughter, was 13 years old at the time of Nichole Lopatta's murder.
She was interrogated for hours by law enforcement officers from the FBI and Jefferson Parish, with
no friendly adult or guardian present; she was told she could help her mother by corroborating her
mother's story.  She confessed to participating in the kidnapping of the child, and said that she
witnessed the murder of both Lopatta and Phillips.  Petitioner's jury was told by an FBI agent that
Sheila's statement agreed with Wille's confession. She took the stand at his trial briefly, only to refuse
to testify.  Her confession was not voluntary, and it is false.

    All three people recanted their confessions; they began recanting almost immediately. The reasons
that they confessed to murders they did not commit are different in each case. The evidence that
supports the claim that their confessions were false was never presented to Petitioner's jury. Much of
it the state failed to disclose to the defense, in violation of Petitioner's constitutional rights to a fair trial;
the evidence which was disclosed was not presented because the court appointed attorney, George
Oubre, failed to provide Petitioner with
___________________

3 State v. Walters, 514 So.2d 257 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1987),cert. denied, 523 So.2d 811 (La. 1988). Wille's false
confession admits to the killing of Billy Aden Phillips. He was indicted but never tried for that murder.

4"The law enforcement officers who questioned defendant had already obtained a detailed statement from Judith
Walters and were able to ask probing questions." 559 So.2d at 1327, n. 2.


minimally effective representation.

    This is a:case about three people who confessed to heinoustand horrific
crimes of which they were not guilty. There is agreat deal of evidence that these
three confessions areunreliable; there is much to explain why and how such a
thingcould happen. Petitioner requests a hearing before this court,so that he may
present this evidence and provide theseexplanations.

THE TRIAL OF JOHN FRANCIS WILLE (5)

    Jodee Loparia, last saw her daughter Nichole at about 4:30p.m. on June 2, 1985
at her home in the Tres Vidas apartmentcomplex in Jefferson Parish. T. 2093.6
After returning from arestaurant at about 6:00 p,m., Ms. Lopatta, discovered
thatNichole was missing and sent another daughter out to look forher. T. 2095. She
eventually called the police to report thatNithole was missing. T. 2096. A search
party was assembled, andafter an unsuccessful search of the immediate area of
thecomplex, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was called to ¯assist. T. 2100.

    The next day, FBI Special Agent VicHarvey was put in chargeof coordinating a
task force to search for the missing child. T. 2110.  Numerous interviews in the
complex were conducted, themedia was alerted and flyers were distributed. T.
2114. Thecase received extensive media coverage and "literally hundredsof" calls
were receivedby the task force with possibleIinformation about the girl's
disappearance. Id.

    Based upon this initial investigation, a prime suspect wasidentified; he was
a friend of Ms. Lopatta's named Gerardo Perez. T. 2117.  An extensive search was
conducted over the next fewdays involving numerous agencies and about 400
military personnel

    5The facts discussed in this section are adduced from thetrial record and from information that was
disclosed to Mr. Wille's counsel prior to trial. Numerous facts which suppressedfrom counsel at trial will
be discussed infra.

    6Citations to the record are as follows: "R. "is to therecord on appeal; "T. "is to the transcript of the
trial. 


and law enforcement officers. T. 2153.
    On June 6, 1985,' the body of a little girl was discovered by a citizen
walking through a wooded area near Interstate 55 and Highway 51, approximately
8 miles north of LaPlace. She was identified as Nichole through her
fingerprints. The following day, Dr. Paul McGarry performed an autopsy and
determined that the cause of death was strangulation. T. 2482, App. 21.

    Also on June 6th, a citizen discovered the body of an adult male floating
in the water under Interstate 55, about 2 miles from where Nichole's body was
located. Law enforcement officers determined that the bodies were unrelated
as the time of death of the two appeared to be different; it was determined
that the adult male, later identified as Billy Phillips, was dead a few days
before Nichole. Mr. Phillips as cause of death was determined to be drowning.
App. 22.

    Mr. Wille was represented at trial by a convicted felon,George Oubre, and
bya young, inexperienced lawyer, Robert Becnel. Mr. Oubre was in essence
sentenced to represent Mr. Wille; the trial court, Judge Walton Caire,
appointed him to thecase in order to fulfill probation conditions of his
felony sentence. Mr. Oubre had pled guilty to giving false statements to
banking institutions, fraud, received a fine and was ordered to perform 416
hours of community service. Mr. Oubre,s total trial experience prior to the
appointment consisted of two jury itrials (one criminal and one civil) and a
traffic case before a judge. He had never been involved in a capital case.?
With just 40 hours left to fulfill his felony sentence, Mr. Oubre was
appointed to this case.

    Mr. Oubre was well known in the community and the state. He had
represented the citizens of St. John, St. James, St. Charles, and Ascension
Parishes as a state senator, and had received about a half a million votes in
his race for attorney general. He was
_________________________________

    (7)Although Mr. Oubre was an assistant district attorney for eight years in the '60's he never tried a
case at that time andprimarily represented the Police Jury and various agencies in St. Charles Parish.
Hearing on Remand at 13. 


indicted on the federal felony charges the day after he returned from the
well-publicized Paris trip with then newly elected Governor Edwards. His
indictment and subsequent conviction received nationaI media attention and
was the subject of numerous stories locally. He assumed the role of lead
counsel.
    At the time of the appointment, Mr. Becnel had been a member of the bar for
18 months. He, too, had never been involved in a capital case.
    The sole direct evidence against Mr. Wille consisted of two statements he
had given on August 27, 1985 at the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department in
Milton, Florida. Circumstantial evidence presented by the state was the
testimony of a witness who in August, 1985, stated that she identified
photographs of Mr. Wille and Judy Walters as appearing in the Popeye's store
where she worked on June 2, 1985 at 8:00 p.m. She did not make an in-court
identification of Mr. Wille.
    The state also presented the hearsay testimony(8) of Vic Harvey who stated
that Mr. Wille's confession was fully corroborated by statements given by Ms.
Walters and her 14 yearold daughter, Sheila. Harvey stated that based upon
interrogations with Ms. Walters, the investigators were able to "Corroborate"
the alleged facts she told, T. 2137, and that Mr. Wille's statement was
"completely corroborated" by Sheila Walters. T. 2143. Harvey went so far as to
say "Mr. Wille's statement was sufficient that it could be cooperated in
almost every detail and it was cooperated in every detail capable of
cooberation.. (sic) T. 2192
    The only other evidence implicating Mr. Wille was a hair
found on Nichole's body that was "consistent" with his hair. The state's
forensic expert explained that his evidence was a very

    (8)Defense objection to Harvey's testimony was overruled bythe court, who erroneously stated, "Mr.
Harvey was present whenMrs. Walters did this. Therefore, he has the right to say what cMrs. Walters did in his
presence. If he were not present I wouldnot allow it. it would be hearsay." T. 2139. At another timethe court
stated, "Well, if [Harvey] spoke to the person, if hespoke to Mrs. Walters he can say that because that's
directevidence that he himself heard." T. 2145. 


limited value in inculpating Mr. wille because hair can only beused to exclude
a suspect. T. 2425.
    The state's witnesses testified that no forensic evidence was found
linking Mr, Wille or the car he was allegedly using to the murders of Nichole
or Billy Phillips. For example, the one fiber found on Nichole's body could be
linked to fibers found in the car, no blood or other body fluids of any
evidentiary value were found in the cars nor on any of the physical evidence
allegedly associated with the crime. T. 2174.
    Mr. Wille was not without a defense, however his lawyers were woefully
inadequate for the job and failed to call two key witnesses to trial. One
witness, Sandy Becker, would have testified that John Wille was at her house
in Milton, Florida on June 2nd in the early afternoon. App. 55. The other
witness would have established, as the coroner had initially believed,that
Billy Phillips had been dead for 2-3 days prior to Nichole's death. App. 15.
    However, even if his lawyers were able and competent, the state's
misconduct alone would have ensured a conviction.

             PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT -- EVIDENCE HIDDEN BY THE STATE

    The state possessed information that was exculpatory and favorable to Mr.
Wille's defense, yet it hid the evidence in order to stack the deck against
him. Even though Mr. Wille has yet to receive the 6,200 documents held by the
FBI, the complete St. John the Baptist Sheriff,s Office's files on Mr. Wille
and the various crimes the sheriff seems to believe he was involved in, and
the complete Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office's files on the investigation
into the kidnapping and murder of Nichole and the death of Billy Phillips,(10)
what Mr. Wiile has been able to
_________________________

    9The car was taken to the FBI lab in Washington for analysis. Print. 2172.

    10Undersigned counsel filed a public records act request with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office
many months ago and received a small amount of documents. When undersigned counsel recently contacted the
office to make sure that all of the documents in its possession had been disclosed, they learned that about
900 documents were withheld.  However, the Sheriff's office now claims it cannot locate the missing
documents. 

 uncover thus far from law enforcement records is shocking.
    The information uncovered recently presents due process Violations under
the Brady doctrine. First, the prosecution knew or should have known that some
of the evidence is false, second,the prosecution knowingly presented evidence
or failed to correct evidence when it appeared that created a false
impression, and third, some of the evidence is favorable and/or exculpatory to
the defense. Mr. Wills presents the black letter law on these issues infra,
and shows that the state cannot now be heard to argue that the due process
violation is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, nor that there is not a
reasonable probability that confidence in the verdict is undermined.
    In sum, aside from the gross misconduct regarding coercing and
manufacturing confessions from Mr. Wills, Ms. Walters and young Sheila
Walters, discussed in detail in the sections following, the state failed to
disclose the following:
        -> Nichols was last seen at the apartment complex after7:00 p.m.;
        -> Danny Fredricks, a suspect and Billy Phillips roommate,also
           failed  a polygraph test after police found blood on his walls
           and a hacksaw in his possession;
        -> FBI Agent Vic Harvey, committed perjury, lied on the stand and
           gave testimony that created a falseimpression;
        -> A wealth of evidence that could have impeached many ofthe
           state's witnesses;
        -> The state found not one, but several (between five and
           twenty) fibers on Nichole's body;
        -> Mr. Wills and Judy Walters gave confessions that were
           verifiably false.
    The discussion must first begin with the fact that the state possessed
evidence that shows it was physically impossible for the crime to have taken
place as the state's proof suggests. The state's only direct evidence linking
Mr. Wills to this crime,i.e., his two statements admitted at trial, is
directly contradicted by the fact that Nichole was seen at the apartment complex after
7:00 p.m.
    Carley Treadway was interviewed on June 11, 1985. He seems to be the last
person to see Nichole at the apartment complex and gave critical information
to assist the task force in learning about Nichole,s disappearance. In this
interview, Treadway explains that Re saw Nichole at 7:00 p.m. at the complex's
pool. The pertinent portion of his interview discovered recently is as
follows:

        Q. O.K. when was the next time thac you saw her then?
        A. About 6, about 6:50.

        Q. About 6:50? Why would you say it was 6:50?
        A. Because that,s when we had to come in about 7:00. I had to
           go get them.

        Q. O.K.
        A. They checked in with my sister. I was swimming.

        Q. O.K. where, did you find them at 6:50 when you
           went to look for them or what?
        A. Uh, No, I didn,t find them until about, about 7,

        Q. Wait minute, let's back up a little bit? You
           stated more or less, it was 6:50 in the afternoon?
                A.  Yes

        Q. O.K. Mike Polit, your brother, told you to go look
           for the kids at around 6?
        A. Around 6:50.

        Q. About 6:S0 PM?
        A. Yea.

        Q. O.K. did he state why he wanted you to go look for the kids.
        A. Because it was late for them to be out.

        Q. Who was at the end of the sidewalk?
        A. It was Nichole, Pepper, Dawn and Kelly, listening
           to a little radio.

        Q. O.K. what time was this?
        A. It was 7:00.

        Q. How do you know it was 7:00?
        A. Cause when I got back it was 7:01, 7:0, getting to get on 7:02.

        Q. What you say, you found the kids by the pool?
        A. They were at the end of the sidewalk by the pool.

        Q- O.K. what happened at this time, what did you do?
        A. I brought the two kids home,  Pepper ran into the
           house and we stayed there the rest of the night.

        Q. What two kids you brought home?
        A. Pepper and Dawn.

                    Q. Pepper and Dawn. O.K. who did you leave at the
                        pool,  I say at the, more or less what they call
                        the breezeway where the kids were playing?
                   A.  I don't know, I think Nichole and Kelly might have
                        went home, and so, that was the last I
                        seen her, I stayed in the house.

                    Q.  O.K. when you brought Pepper home, you left, who
                          was left playing?
                    A. There was Nichole and Kel.

                    Q. Nichole and Kelly was left playing there?
                    A. Yea.

                    Q.  O.K. what time again you say was the next time
                           that you saw the girls?
                    A.  It was about 6:50 when I went look for them and
                          last seen them about 7:00.

                    Q.  That's when your brother told you to go look forthe kids?
                    A.  Yea, that's

                    Q.  In other words you hadn't seen the kids say
                          between 2:15 and say ten minutes to seven?
                    A.  I seen them before that when they checked in, and
                          that was it, cause I was swimming.

                    Q.  O.K. could you explain this to me? Could you tell
                          me, do you remember what type of clothing Nichole had on when
                          you left her by the pool at approximately 7:00, 6:50 you said?
                    A.  I don't remember her pants, but she had a light blue shirt on.

                    Q.  She had a light blue shirt? Anything else abou the shirt that you remember?
                    A.  It was like a T-shirt, something like a T-shirt, light blue.

                    Q.  O.K. do you remember anything else about her?
                    A.  I just glanced when I got the kids. I told them to come home and that was about it.

                    Q.  O.K. do you know anything about Nichole changing
                           any type of clothing, during this
                           particular time?  Did she borrow a shirt from
                           Pepper or one of her other friends?
                    A.  I don't know, I don't know that.

                    Q.  O.K. at 2:00 when they first went to get thecandy, did you, can you tell me
                          what type of clothing she had on at that particular time?

                    A. That was the shirt, a blue shirt.

                    Q.  O.K. that's the same Shirt that she had on at 7:00
                          that evening when you were, the
                          last time that you saw her, before they asked you to go look for her?
                    A.  Yes, sir.

App. 25. (sic passim).

    Treadway's knowledge was corroborated by his sister, Bonnie Polit. She was interviewed on June 5,
1985; the report states:  Ms. B. Polit advised Detective Biggs she learned from her brother, Michael, on the night Nithole disappeared, Carley Treadway, brother, went out to look  for Pepper and Dawn - her two (2) children at approximately 1845hrs., to no avail.  Approximately twenty (20) minutes later he again attempted to locate his nieces and found Pepper, Dawn, Nichole Lopatta and Kelly McElveen located by the pool listening to a radio.  Carly .physically took Pepper and Dawn home leaving Kelly and Nichole by the pool. On same day, Detective Biggs verified the above information with Carley Treadway and Michael Polit.

App. 25.

    Further corroboration that Treadway was out looking for his nieces near 7:00 p.m. was known
to the state through Nichole's mother. During a detailed statement on June 17, 1985, Jodee Lopatta
told Vic Harvey the following:

       SGT. TAFFARO: Getting back to the ah, we're now at about 7:00 P.M. - 7:10 P.M. around
       the [time]  this fifteen year old brother of Tara came looking forPepper and at the [same]
       time you're now looking for Nichole, wondering where she's at -
       JODEE:   Righti

App. 28.

    The great importance of this evidence is that it is completely inconsistent with the state's proof,
i.e., impossible to have been accomplished. The apartment complex is about 40 miles from the
where Nichole,s body was found. According to the state,s evidence, Mr. Wille and company lured
Nichole into the car in Terrytown, drove across the Mississippi River to a secluded area near
Interstate 55 and Highway 51 north of LaPlace, raped, sodomized and strangled the girl, stabbed
Phillips 82 times and cut off his hand, engaged in more sex, drove to another location to dispose of
Billy's body, drove to a gas station to change clothes and wash up, and then drove to Kenner and
ordered chicken at Popeye's at little after 8:00 p.m.
    At trial, state's witness Davis testified that persons resembling Mr. Wille and Ms. Walters came
into the store at "about seven, eight, several hours before we closed." T. 2460.ll
_________________________
 

11Debra Davis, the Popeye's employee called by the state,was interviewed in August, 1985. She first states that shebelieves Mr. Wille and Ms.
Walters came into the store "after 7,close to 8 o'clock.. When she is asked, "So, could it have beenafter 8 o'clock then since it was dark?" She replies,
"It couldhave been., App. 24.


 George Perez was a prime suspect who, as Harvey testified,¯ was probably checked out as
thoroughly as I've ever seen." R.  2117.12  Even though the "investigation focused on Mr. Wille
exclusively once we determined he committed the crime," (R. 2164,emphasis added), it is the province
of the fact finders, not the police, to determine who committed the crime. The state's suppression of
evidence that inculpated Perez prevented the defense from calling into question the state's
investigation,offering an alternative theory of who killed Nichole, and from performing an independent
investigation of Perez.
    George Perez was seen by Nichole and her sisters masturbating on the girls' bed. (It is unknown at
this time whether the state informed trial counsel of this.)
    Danny Fredericks lived with Billy Phillips. On June 28,1985, Fredericks agrees to take a lie detector
test, which was accomplished on July 2, 1985. On that date, Fredericks failed the polygraph, and "could
not give logical reason for failing test"  App. 26.  Jimmy Phillips, brother of Billy and roommate of
Fredericks, reports on July 2d that there is blood on the wall of their house and Fredericks "was hiding
a hacksaw on the backporch." Id.  Later that evening, the police seize the hacksaw ,and samples of the
blood on the wall.
    The state failed to disclose to the defense that one of  its key witnesses, FBI agent Vic Harvey,
committed perjury on the stand.  Prosecutor Daly was present when Harvey, under oath, testified
before the grand jury to things that differed from his trial testimony.
    At the grand jury hearing, Harvey states,  "[Nichole] was last seen by a responsible adult at
probably three-thirty in the afternoon."  Grand Jury Transcript 8.   Harvey knew this to be
_____________________

12Perez was given a polygraph test on June 11, 1985. Hefailed it. The questions that he responded "no" indicateddeception. They were: Did you see
Nichole the day shedisappeared; Did you cause Nichole's death; Do you know for surewho caused Nichole's deathf and Can you take me to where any
ofNichole,s missing clothes are. He admitted to having sex withjuveniles. This information was supplied to trial counsel.


alse; he was present when Nichole's mother was interviewed on June 17, 1985, when she told
him that she left Nichole at about, fifteen minutes to 5:00.' App. 24. He also knew that Matthew
Alan Breland saw Nichole at the pool between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. on June 2nd, and that Carley
Treadway saw Nichole at 7:00 p.m.  However, it was not in the state's interest to present this
evidence to the grand jury because, even with the information that Nichole could have been taken
from the complex at 3:30 p.m.,one juror stated, "the time frames don't make much sense to me."
Grand Jury Transcript 63.
    In an apparent attempt to divert any questions regarding why the labs were unable to find any
evidence of blood or body fluids in the car, Harvey tells the grand jury that, "our guys in
Washington tell us if you get in the back seat of a car and it's a vinyl car, vinyl car seat, not
cloth, and you scrub it with tide and water you can just about get rid of all the evidence."
Grand Jury Transcript 57. What Harvey fails to tell the grand jury is that there were cloth covers
over the vinyl seats that were sent to Washington for analysis which revealed negative results.
App. 24.
    Harvey also states, contrary to known facts, that, .We know that they were not in Florida
where they said they were initially. We,ve talked to the people that they initially used for an alibi
and they said they were not there. We know the girl was not in school." Grand Jury transcript at
69.  First, Sandy Becker's affidavit belies this statement, App. 55, and, second, Sheila Walters was
in school on June 3rd. App. 18.
    Further, in order to divert any problems regarding inconsistencies of the statements and known
facts, Harvey makes up facts as if they were true. For example, he states, "But [the Popeye's
clerk] distinctly remembers he and she coming in and he getting those extra bags." Grand Jury
transcript at 62.  Debra Davis, the clerk, testified at trial and gave a pre-trial statement where in
she states that the man asked for a single bag.
T. 2454. Harvey headed up the investigation; he interrogated Mr. Wille.  He lied on the stand and the state knew it.

                         A.  Yes, 'sir. I either had the information related to me personally or
                                 by the persons who received it.

                          Q.  And did you receive any information, andinformation whatsoever
                                 which would have lessened Mr. Wille's culpability for these actions?
                          A.  Absolutely not.

                                  A   We did not interview Mr. Wille till the end of August.

                    R. 2676-79.

    He himself interrogated Mr. Wille on August 10th and 11th, and while it is not known who the
"we" Harvey is referring to, it has recently been discovered that FBI agents Dill and McFaul
interrogated Mr. Wille on the 12th. This was not disclosed at trial.

    Harvey gave the impression that the pornography found near Nichole's body which contained 18
latent fingerprints that did not match Mr. Wille had nothing to do with this case. He stated,
"Simply we were never really too optimistic [of finding Mr. Wille's prints on the material] due to
the distance away from the body which the objects were found and the general debris area."
R. 2149.  He later stated that the pornography was twenty to twenty-five feet from Nichole.
R. 2181. It is probable that the agent was very optimistic regarding finding Mr. Wille's prints,
because in fact, he was told by Judy Walters that Mr. Wille placed the pornography on the
ground.  Mr. Wille shows infra that any inculpatory statement given by Ms. Walters is unreliable
and false, and that the pornography was not his.  The importance of Harvey's testimony is that it
gave the impression that Mr. Wille's prints could not be found on the materials because he had
nothing to do with it.

    The state failed to reveal information in its possession that Becker "provided a most specific
and unquestionable information as to her whereabouts in the occurrences with WALTERS and
WILLE..."  App. 24.  Law enforcement officers intimidated and badgered Sandy Becker, a friend
of Mr. Wille's and Ms. Walters's, with the ultimate goal of completely confusing her so that the
falseconfessionstheyHadorchestratedcouldnotbeimpeached.
Becker knew that she had seen Mr.Wille at her home in the afternoon of June 2nd, she told the police this.

                On August 12, 1985, I was living in Virginia when I received a letter from
                John Aguero a close friend and assistant state attorney inMilton,Florida.
                Mr. Aguero told me that the police were investigating crimes allegedly committed
                by John and Judy and wanted to question me about my knowledge of them.I
                agreed to come to Milton to meet with them afterMr.Aguero said he would try
                to reimburse me for my expenses.

                Shortly there after,my husband and I drove straight to Milton from Arlington,
                Virginia. Thedrive took about14 hours, and we arrived at about 6:00p.m.
                I called John Aguerro from outside of town, and he told me to come straight to
                his house, not to buy any newspapers because the police didn't want me
                to know anything.  Soon after we arrived at his house, he told us to go directly to
                the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department.  I was taken into a room with
                Cpl. Larry Bryant and anotherdeputy.  I wasi nterrogated for at least six hours.  I
                say interrogated because it was definitely not an interview.  OfficerBryant began
                asking me many questions about John and Judy and was specifically interested
                in whether I had seen  either of them on June 2, 1985.

                        I explained toOfficerBryant that I sawJohn on June 2nd a Sunday in
               my house in the early afternoon about 2:00.  I told him I was positive about the
               date and time because the day before, Saturday, the1st I made a police report with
               my friend and employer,  Barbara Peden, regarding the theft of ringsf rom the
               trading post.  On Saturday the lst, Barbara told me that on Friday, the 31st, John
               and Sheila came into the store.  She said she noticed Sheila was looking
                at some Jewelry. After they left, she realized that 3 rings were missing and felt
                that Sheila had taken them.  Barbara and I called the sheriff's department and  a
                deputy named Randy came to thes tore in thea fternoon on June the 1st and
                we talked to him about the rings.

                7.     Even though I had had a falling out with John and Judy, and had asked
                them to move out of my house, I wanted to tell John about the police report.
                I stayed at home on Sunday in case John and Judy would come by, I told
                Officer Bryant that I spoke with John in my bedroom on Sunday afternoon.
                He became outraged and began telling me that I could not have seen John then
                and that I was lying.  I explained that I had no reason to lie, but he
                continued badgering and intimidating me, and insinuated that I was lying.
                Officer Bryantwas very hostile towards me.  The interrogation continued past
                midnight.  I was very,very tired from the long trip down and became confused due
                the badgering and hostile questioning.

                At one point, my husband came into the room, saw what was going on, and
                said that some of the things that Officer Bryant was saying were false.  Officer
                Bryant asked him to leave the room. My husband went outside and called
                John Aguero and asked him to come to the office.  Mr.Aguero came and spoke
                with Officer Bryant. I was allowed to leave after that.
         Either the next day or the day after, I went back to the sheriff,s office and was questioned by Sheriff Coffman, OfficerBryant and two other law enforcement officers.  I explained once again that I was positive that I saw John on Sunday the 2nd and showed Sheriff Coffman my calendar.  Sheriff Coffman began accusing me of being involved in the theft of the rings from the Trading Post.  They tried their best to get me to believe that I was totally confused about when I saw John, but I continued to tell them that I was positive that he was at my house on Sunday afternoon.

I will never forget that experience. Officer Bryant made me feel terrible, as if I had done something wrong by telling him the truth. It still bothers me to this day.

App. 55.
        The state,s failure to produce at trial the numerous statements given by Mr. Wille and
Ms. Walters violated due process for the reasons explained more fully supra. In
connection with this, the state's failure to disclose the many statements elicited from
Mr. Wille to which there is no independent recordation also violates due process.  There are:
        In the morning of August 8th, in an interrogation with Larry Bryant, Bryant tells Mr. Wille, "I
believe you spoke with the investigators from Louisiana last night about incidents there.
App. 1-B.
        In the evening of August 8th, Robert Hay of St. John theBaptist Sheriff,s Office, questions
Mr. Wflle about his alleged involvement in the death of Ida Boudreaux.  He states, 'Prior to
this statement didn't you say you had just gotten off and you came straight home?  App. 1-C.
During that same interrogation, Hay is questioning Mr. Wille about another alleged murder; he
states, 'Earlier you said Mark didn,t know how to swim.'  Id.
        Equally important, the state failed at trial and has since failed to produce information about
interrogations regarding Ms. Walters.  For example, on August 9th, Larry Bryant tells
Ms. Walters, 'previously we were talking and you said John Wille got your hair wet--tell us about
that., App. 2-B.  On August 18th, Ms. Walters was interrogated by FBI agents Peel, Harvey and
Scott.  During this session, the agents make numerous references to information discussed on
August 12th, however, the state has failed to disclose any information regarding what was being
discussed on the 12th regarding any alleged Louisiana murders.  App. 2-K.

    Furthermore, prosecutor Daley is fiat wrong When he states:  'Your honor, to the best of my
knowledge, the State has produced all of the oral statements that it has, well, of course I premise
it on this, the State has provided Defense counsel with any written record of those statements
made by Mr. Wille."   R. 1023.
    Joe Warren, a criminalist With the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, was given between five
and twenty fibers found at the autopsy of Nichole.  He sent the fibers to the FBI lab for
examination.  No reports of the analysis on these fibers have ever been produced.

                                JOHN WILLE AND JUDY WALTERS

John Wille
    John Francis Wille was born on Valentine's Day, February 14, 1964, in Amarillo, Texas, while
his father was the second of seven children born to Pat Heron Wille and John D. Wille. The
family moved back to Louisiana in 1966, eventually moving into the home they still occupy in
Laplace.  John's family life was troubled.  His father was physically and psychologically abused as
a child, and comes from a family in which there was suicide and mental illness.
App. 37.  His mother came from a very poor family; there is an extensive history of alcoholism,
suicide and mental retardation on her side. App. 39.
    John D. and Pat Wille brought their separate histories of familial problems to the raising of their
seven children. Their children report that life was unpredictable and often frightening in their
household. App. 38, 40.  Almost immediately it seemed that John Francis was singled out in the
family for particular blame and punishment.  His aunt, cousins, and sisters report that he was the
Child who seemed to get the most frequent beatings, and who was beaten most severely.
App. 46, 54.
    John was beaten a lot by Uncle Johnny and Aunt Pat. He got hit in the head a lot,
    usually with their knuckles.  Sometimes they would make him kneel on rice. I can
    remember the times that John would leave the house orrun away and Aunt Pat and
    Uncle Johnny would lock the doors so that he could not get back in.  They were always
    very mean to him.
App. 46.
    John was also the victim of his parents' verbal abuse as well.  The children, especially John, were
often called names such as "sons-of-bitches" and "bastard'.   John was told often that he was
"stupid" or "lazy", especially when his learning disability began to affect his performance in school.
App. 38.
The psychological abuse sometimes took an especially cruel form.

    John was also ignored and left alone often. UncleJohnny and Aunt Pat used to come over to
    our house andbring all the kids with them except John. They eitherleft him home alone or he stayed
    with his grandmother.  Even one Christmas day they brought the whole family over to celebrate, but
    they left John at home. When we asked where John was, they simply said that he had been bad and
    was not allowed to come.

App. 46.

John seemed to be Punished in ways that wereunreasonably harsh. John was always being yelled
at and blamed for things he often did not do.  I remember one Easter, John was punished for something.
I'm not sure why Uncle John and Aunt Pat were upset with him but all of John's brothers and sisters got a basket full of candy and John only got a basket full of rocks. I felt so bad for him.  He was just a kid.

App. 54.

        A pattern began to emerge very early in John's life. If  his parents discovered that one of
    the children had done something wrong they would gather them all in one room and punish
    them until the "culprit" admitted he or she was wrong.  The other children soon discovered
    that John could always be relied upon to "confess", even if he had not done anything wrong.
    The children would be made, for example, to kneel on the ridged linoleum floor until
    someone "owned up" to the infraction.  Anna, Melissa, and David would begin to urge John
    to confess, saying things like, "Come on John, Just say you did it.  You know you will."
    App.38, 40.  Eventually, John would give in and say he was in the wrong, even when he
    wasn't.  Sometimes the other children would then be invited to hit him or punish him
    themselves, for not confessing sooner.  App. 40.
        His mother confirms this.
        We had a rule in our house. If somebody did something
  wrong - like take their Daddy's lunch meat when they weren't supposed to--we would punish
    all of the children until One of them confessed. We would make them knee on the linoleum in
    the kitchen until one of them admitted they did it.  The kitchen is right next to the living room in
    our home and I could sit in the living room and hear everything that was going on in the kitchen.
    It may have taken as long as an hour or even more, but in the end John always confessed.  I
    could hear all the kids saying to him, "Come on John, just say you did itl   Tell them you did it
    so we can get up, John."  And it never failed that John would come to us and tell us he did it.
    It got to be a habit and after a while it didn't take any time at all for John to confess and get
    his whipping.

App. 39.

John thus began a pattern of protecting the younger children particularly his Sisters. He also
began a pattern of fantasizing and story telling.  Everyone who knew him confirms his
compulsive bragging and inventing.

By far the most bizarre trait I have seen in my son is his fantasizing, which became much worse after
he lost his grandparents.   He started concocting elaborate stories which not only weren't true, but
were obviously untrue to anyone who knew John.   For example, he would tell people that he was on
the high school football team that won the state championship.  He even told the Sheriff who lives across the street.  Now, anyone who knows John knows that while he did play football for a time, he did not play on any team that won a state championship.   John's grades fell through the floor and he ended up quitting in the 10th grade (he had repeated 2 grades).   Another example is he made up an elaborate story which he told a woman we know:  that John had a child-- a son--who died when his mother left him in the car while it was idling.   The child managed to slip the car out of gear and it rolled into the street in the path of an 18-wheeler truck which struck the car, killing the child.   When the woman asked me about this, I was dumbfounded.   It was the most incredible story I had ever heard.   I was doubly stunned because this woman lived in our community and I couldn't imagine how John could think he could tell such an obvious tale and not have it get back to us.   But that is the most curious thing.   John seemed to believe these stories.  When I confronted him, he actually became frustrated and irritated, as if he were upset with me for trying to take his fantasy from him.

App. 39.
 

    Other family members agree.  "[John] started when he was younger telling stories, and as he got to
be a teenager or older the stories got worse.  I grew to wonder whether John even knew what
the truth was."  App, 40.  "John's thinking is so confused he sometimes doesn't know fact from
fantasy."  App. 38.

As John got older I started to notice that he would make up strange stories, especially about himself and what he had done. He would claim fantastic things, such
 as that he was on a champion football team that had won the state championship, or that he knew someone he had no way of knowing or that he had done something he couldn't possibly have done.   Most of the time this was done in the context of  bragging or attempting to create an image of himself that he wanted others to have of him.   It was pathetic because it was obvious to everyone that John was a kind of pitiful kid who was starved for attention and didn't have much going for him.   John seemed to have no self esteem and to be desperately trying to get people to like him and accept him.

App. 37.

    John's unhappiness at home got much worse when his grandmother died.  "John took my
mother's death the hardest.  He was just about to turn 14.  When I told the children she had died,
John was stunned and couldn't accept it.  He began to cry uncontrollably and say, "You're lying,
you're lying, she's not dead", over and over.  Then he ran away and was gone
for hours."
App 39.
    John ran away again several times before leaving home for good.  He hitchhiked to Houston
when he was only 15, living precariously and coming home hungry and "bedraggled".  App. 39.
He also became involved with a series of older women, talking about how he helped them take
care of their children and how he loved them.  App. 46, 54.  When he was twenty years old he
met Judy Walters.

JudyWalters

    Judy was born to an unwed teenager in Mississippi in 1953.  Her mother, Barbara Hurst, had
been raised mostly in a Baptist orphanage, because her feckless mother and father either
abandoned their children or were unable to care for them.  App. 45.  After Judy's birth Barbara
married a man twenty years older than herself, and bore him three children. Mack Hurst Sr.,
Judy's stepfather, was a pedophile.  He began molesting Judy when she was 7 years old, and
continued until he was jailed for it,when Judy was 13. App. 45.
    The Mississippi court permitted Mack Hurst's release from jail on Barbara's plea that she could
not provide for herchildren without his paycheck.  But the court refused to let Mack
and Judy live in the same house, so Judy began a series of moves

from institution to foster care. She was unhappy and self-destructive, and she married at
the age of 15.  The teenagers soon divorced; Judy got married again almost immediately,
to Vondell Walters.  App. 45, 34.
    Vonde11 and Judy Walters moved to Louisiana, and had two children, a girl Sheila and
a boy Billy.  She began a lifetime of severe vascular headaches, complicated by her depression.
Judy did not get the normal family life she craved after her own miserable adolescence. Her
husband Vonde11 began to demand demeaning sexual compliance from Judy; when he did not get
his way, he beat her.

        In the beginning the relationship was not abusive.  However, Vondell soon began talking about
    numerous sexual fantasies, which involved his watching me have sex with different men.  At first this was all talk.  I had two children and had to stay home with them, so he left me alone for the most part. However, there came a point when things changed.  Vondall became more and more insistent about my having sex with other men.  Healso had become quite abusive, threatening and beating me.  Finally he made me go to a bar in Metairie, where he picked out a man and took us to a motel room.  Vondell had been encouraging me to drink, and though I had never done so before, on this night I drank a tremendous amount of Southern Comfort. I recall having sex with a man I had never met while Yondell took pictures.
        This became a regular part of our marriage, and Yondell seemed to become more and more obsessed with sex.   It was always the same pattern:  Vondell would come home from work on a Friday night and say:
    "Judy, get ready, we're going out."  And no matter how much I begged and refused, he would threaten and beat me until I went.  I started to drink more and more in an effort not to feel or be aware of what I was doing.
    Yondell was very particular about how he orchestrated the evenings.  He had to pick the men and I was not allowed to talk to them at all.  He would photograph us as the men were having sex with me.   One time I had sex with as many as 5 men during one weekend.  At times, Yondell would then have sex with the men if they allowed him.  Vondell could rarely have sex unless it was under these conditions.   It was a horrible way to live.
    I felt like I was in a perpetual nightmare.   Nothing was normal or nice.

Affidavit of Judy Walters, App. 34.

    When John Wille first met Judy and Vondell, he had a girlfriend named Julie. Vondell was very
friendly to John at first, and invited Julie and John to live with him and Judy for several months.
John and Judy developed a strong friendship, which Yondell encouraged.  "John would come by
the house on Goodhope Street, in Norco, almost every day to talk to me.  During this time Vondell let John be a surrogate parent to Billy and Sheila--if something around the house needed attention, John would try to take care of it.  He helped the kids with their homework--Vondell would tell me to "Ask
John about it" when I raised a problem with the kids." App. 34.
    When Judy and John became lovers, Yondell at first had no objection, assuming it would be just
another "threesome", as he called it.  App. 24.  But John said he loved Judy and did not want to
degrade her, and Vondell began to treat John with hostility.  During 1984 Judy
and John were involved in several minor police scrapes for disturbing the peace; John was
arrested for trespassing at the house on Goodhope Street where Judy and Vondell lived.
App. 27, 34.  His court-appointed lawyer, Vic Bradley, was so struck by John's capacity to
tell outlandish stories as if he believed them that he asked for John's sanity to be evaluated.
And Judy's drinking became worse and worse.
    In December 1984 and again in January of 1995 Judy was arrested for drunk driving and public
drunkenness App. 34.  She was ordered by the court in St. Charles Parish to receive in-patient
care for her alcoholism.  She was discharged on March 1, 1985, after a thirty-day rehabilitation at
F. Edward Hebert Hospital.  Judy was determined not to allow her sexually and physically abusive
husband to coerce her into returning to the behavior that led to her alcoholism.  She and John
Wille were still involved; Vondell was still opposing their relationship.

App. 34.

                                    John Wille and Judy Walters in Florida

    In May of 1985 John Wille, Judy Walters, and Judy's daughter Sheila moved from Louisiana to
Milton, Florida, in Santa Rosa County.  App. 34, 44.  They lived precariously, staying with a friend,
Sandy Becker, until they wore their welcome out, and then on the property of new acquaintances,
Jane and Jerry Wells.  TheWells lived in a school bus, and permitted John, Judy and Sheila

Goodhope Street, in Norco, almost every day to talk to me.  During this time Vondell let John be
a surrogate parent to Billy and Sheila--if something around the house needed attention, John would
try to take care of it.  He helped the kids with their homework--Vondell would tell me to "Ask
John about it" when I raised a problem with the kids." App. 34.
    When Judy and John became lovers, Yondell at first had no objection, assuming it would be just
another "threesome", as he called it.  App. 24.  But John said he loved Judy and did not want to
degrade her, and Vondell began to treat John with hostility.  During 1984 Judy
and John were involved in several minor police scrapes for disturbing the peace; John was
arrested for trespassing at the house on Goodhope Street where Judy and Vondell lived.
App. 27, 34.  His court-appointed lawyer, Vic Bradley, was so struck by John's capacity to
tell outlandish stories as if he believed them that he asked for John's sanity to be evaluated.
And Judy's drinking became worse and worse.
    In December 1984 and again in January of 1995 Judy was arrested for drunk driving and public
drunkenness App. 34.  She was ordered by the court in St. Charles Parish to receive in-patient
care for her alcoholism.  She was discharged on March 1, 1985, after a thirty-day rehabilitation at
F. Edward Hebert Hospital.  Judy was determined not to allow her sexually and physically abusive
husband to coerce her into returning to the behavior that led to her alcoholism.  She and John
Wille were still involved; Vondell was still opposing their relationship.

App. 34.

                            John Wille and Judy Walters in Florida

    In May of 1985 John Wille, Judy Walters, and Judy's daughter Sheila moved from Louisiana to
Milton, Florida, in Santa Rosa County.  App. 34, 44.  They lived precariously, staying with a friend,
Sandy Becker, until they wore their welcome out, and then on the property of new acquaintances,
Jane and Jerry Wells.  TheWells lived in a school bus, and permitted John, Judy and Sheila
to live in an old trailer near them.  John tried to get part-time work, and they pawned items and
borrowed small amounts of cash.  App. 34, 44, 18.  Judy and John's relationship altered for the
worse. Subsequent psychological evaluations have shown them both to be dependent upon and
obsessed with each other. App. 4, 6.  John had already exhibited bizarre behavior, telling fantastic
stories to the Wells; he began to act obsessively jealous of Judy, accusing her of infidelities.  App.
18, 34.  Judy began drinking again, and continued taking Elavil, which had been prescribed for her
at the hospital in Louisiana.  She had several migraine headaches so severe she went to the
emergency room of the Santa Rosa County Hospital; she grew more and more depressed.  App.
20.
    Late in June, Judy was arrested for drunk driving in Mississippi.  This triggered Sheila's decision
to leave her mother and John and go to her grandmother in Laurel, Mississippi.
App. 44, 45.  At the July 4th holiday Vondell Walters visited and brought Billy, who stayed with
his mother and John Wille in Florida until their arrest.  App. 43.  Although Billy remembers John's
kindness and concern for him and his mother, John admits that he began hitting Judy during their
fights. App. 6, 43.  This was a new low for them; it was John's disgust for Vondell's abusiveness
that initially had brought the couple together. App. 34.

                                                        The Arrests

    In mid-July John and Judy had a falling-out with the Wells, who then ordered the couple to
leave their property.  On July 15, John and Judy reported to the police that the Wells had stolen
some expensive books and some jewelry from them. The next day Jane Wells filed a police
complaint, alleging that John and Judy had stolen jewelry, clothing, and pots and pans from her.
App.18.
    Judy, John, and Billy moved to an apartment on Route 4 in Milton.  Judy and John continued to
drink and fight; their relationship deteriorated.  In the early morning hours of August 6, 1985, John Wille and Judy Walters drove by the property where the Wells were living.  John set a rag on fire, and hung it from the screen door; he set another small fire in a shed between the trailer and the bus.
App.  l-A, 2-A.  The Wells called the police at 3:08 am to report that they had a suspicious fire
and they had seen Wille and Walters driving down their road.  App. 18.
    Judy quarreled with John about the arson at the Wells. She was drunk, and they fought. They
returned to the apartment, and sometime around dawn, she took all the Elavil she could find in the
hopes that she Would die.  App. 34.  John became alarmed at her condition.  Billy, who was 11,
remembers John giving his mother a raw egg to make her throw up, then telling him to get in the
car.  App. 43.  John dropped Billy off at a nearby store, called a friend to come and get him,
then raced to the hospital with Judy.  Santa Rosa County Sheriff,s Deputies Larry Bryant, Steve
Collier, and Charles Sloan intercepted John on the way to the hospital, expecting to interview and
perhaps arrest him for the arson.  App. 18.  After speaking to John, they followed him to the
hospital, where Judy was admitted for a tricyclic overdose.  App 20.
John was requested to follow them to the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department, and complied.
He made a statement admitting the arson, but denying that Judy was even present. He was
arrested at 10:00 am. App. 18.

                                    The Murder Confessions- John Wille

    When Jane and Jerry Wells called the Sheriff's deputies to tell them of the arson and their
suspicions of John Wille, they also said that Wille had told them he committed an arson and murder
previously, in Laplace, Louisiana.  App. 18.  They were referring to the death of Ida Boudreaux, a
woman who lived near John's home.  John, whose stories often involved bragging about how
"tough" he was, had indeed told the Wells, Judy Walters, and others that he was responsible for the death of Ida Boudreaux.(13)   Santa Rosa County must have contacted St. John the Baptist Sheriff's Office immediately, because Robert Hay and Kenneth Mitchell, two deputies form St. John, were in Florida August 7, interrogating Judy Walters as she lay half dead in the intensive care unit at the Santa Rosa Hospital. App. 2-xx.
    This was not the only time the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department had heard a rumor that
John Wille was wanted for crimes in Louisiana.  In May, Vondell Walters, resentful of John Wille,
wanted his estranged wife to return to Louisiana to live with him.  He first tried to have John
arrested for allegedly kidnapping Judy.  App. 55.  When this failed, he told Judy that
the bodies of two murdered people had been found not far from Laplace and that "they" were
looking for John.  App. 32.  Judy told John, who called his sister Anna because Anna worked for
the St. John Sheriff's Office.  Anna told him that there were two bodies found in St. John in
June, and as far as she knew they didn't suspect John or anyone else from Laplace. App. 40.
    Once the Santa Rosa County deputies began interrogating John Wille, they had more than the
gossip of an angry husband or an aggrieved neighbor: they had the first of John Wille's murder
confessions.  On August 6, 1985, John Wille apparently confessed to the murder of Ida
Boudreaux.  On August 7, Santa Rosa County

        13It is Worth noting that neither the Wells nor Judy believed him.  Jane Wells stated to the police that "We thought he was talking through his hat just a 21 year old little kid blowing off steam... bragging... 2 or 3 times he had bragged about this woman he had burned up in the house because he wanted us to think he was some big terrible thing and I didn't buy it because I've raised three boys myself."  App. 18. Judy had been told by a real estate agent that Ida Boudreaux died in a house that was hit by lightning. "Then one day in Florida I heard John tell Jane and Jerry Wells that he had beaten up an old lady and burned her house down with her in it.  I knew this wasn't true, and so did Jane, because she told him so.  John used to tell stories that we knew were just talk, stories that couldn't be true."  App. 34.   See infra, for evidence suggesting that John Wille's confession to the murder of Ida Boudreaux was a false confession.

    "A police report in the arson file states that John Wille "referred to" the murder of  Boudreaux in his statement of 8/6.  App. 18.   There is no reference in Wille's 8/6 statement to Boudreaux.  App. 1-xx.  The first statement about Ida Boudreaux  in the petitioner's possession is in  App. 1-xx, dated 8.8.85.
For discussion of the statements that were never disclosed to the Deputy Larry Bryant reported that John made an offhand comment that he "didn't have to kill"
a man who had died on the highway.  On August 8, 1985, John confessed to beating Ida
Boudreaux, saying she then died in a fire he had started. App. 1-C.
    Later that same night John gave a detailed statement about the death of Frank Powe, a man
who had been found on 1-10 the morning of July 15, 1985, after witnesses saw him run over by
at least 4 cars. App. 18.  In that same statement he confessed to drowning a man named Mark in
Lake Ponchartrain, and to a hit-and-run accidental killing near Lafayette. App. 1-C.
He also told the nurse at the Santa Rosa County Jail that he had committed many murders, even
awakening once in a room full of blood, not knowing whom he had killed. App. 53.  He told a law
enforcement officer that he killed people between Pensacola and Panama Beach, Florida, and put
the bodies in a hole on the beach.  He said there were over 20 bodies in the hole. App. 47.
    The media attention was intense.(15)  Law enforcement officers
___________________
defense, see SXX, infra.
    15"A drifter who allegedly threatened to "do" to a Florida family "the way he had done some people over in Louisiana" was being questioned by authorities Thursday for as many as six murders in three states. Santa Rosa County Sheriff Maurice Coffman said John Francis Wills, 21, a transient, was "under investigation for as many as six homicides" and claimed the suspect confessed to all but one. Wills, who was being held in the Santa Rosa County Jail without bond, moved into the Milton area in June. He was arrested Tuesday on first-degree arson and burglary charges after he allegedly "attempted to burn a family up in a house" in Milton earlier this week, Coffman said ....Investigators began questioning Wills about the murders because the suspect reportedly told the Milton family "he was going to do these people over here the way he had done some people over in Louisiana," Coffman
said. Coffman said the investigation "kept progressing" and Wills "confessed to a number of them." Coffman said one of the slayings occurred in Santa Rosa County,  'approximately four" were in Louisiana and "possibly one" was in Texas, and "we don't know how many more."  Asked if he thought it possible the suspect was trying to get publicity, Coffman said,  "I don't think so in this case."  He said Wills knew a number of details from the Louisiana cases.  Coffman said the Santa Rosa County murder occurred "three or four weeks ago" on Interstate 10, where a Mobile, Ala., man was found dead along the highway.  Coffman said it had been investigated as a hit-and-run.  He said charges in that case would likely be filed Friday.  "He'll be charged here," said Coffman, but "I'm sure we'll place a hold on him" for Louisiana.  Coffman said the murders in Louisiana and Texas occurred "sometime I guess in the early part of this year."  He said several were in LaPlace, La.  One involved a 70-year-old woman beaten to death after she allegedly accused the suspect of stealing from her.  Coffman said her house was burned down.  Coffman said that the other LaPlace cases involved from Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and from the FBI came to Milton to interview John Wills.
John began recanting almost immediately, saying that he had not killed anyone, that he was "just
telling you a bunch of shit to get you all of my ass and it didn't work." App. 1-D,E.  John Wille
explicitly denied being in Louisiana in June, and denied that he had anything to do with the death
of Nichole Lopatta. App. 1-D,E.(16)  John said that he had not killed anyone, and the authorities
were just trying to make a big deal about his arrest. App. E.
    From August 9th through August 19th John Wills denied his murder confessions and made no
further statements.  In that time he asked continuously about Judy Walters, and was told he could
not see her.  He was moved to Escambia County jail in Pensacola so that he would not be
housed in the same jail she was. App.16.  And he was told repeatedly that she was making
extensive statements implicating him in several murders. App. 19, G,H.  Hewas also told that his
sister Anna, whom he had tried to protect all his life, was being forced to take time off work at
the St. John's Sheriff's Office. App. 39,40.  He was given Librium and Thorazine, and complained
of the way it made him feel to his family. App. 39.  On August 15 he was arrested and charged
with the murder of Frank Powe, the Alabama man found dead on 1-10, on the basis of his
confession and the statements of Judy Walters.  On August 18 he was admitted to the Escambia
jail infirmary as a suicide risk. App. 19.
    On August 20 John Wills again confessed to the murder of Frank Powe. This statement was
very different from the one he
_______________________

a man who was found in a bayou, a man who was "mutilated and buried," and a woman.  Coffman said another
case in Lafayette, La., involved a traffic-type death.  Coffman claimed Wills confessed to all except the girl," but
no charges had been filed in those cases by late Thursday.  He said Louisiana authorities were still questioning
Wills.  United Press International, August 8, 1985.

    16 There are references to Wille's alleged responsibility for the death of Nichole in the newspapers, see n. 7, and
Larry Bryant, the Santa Rosa County deputy refers to questioning by Louisiana law enforcement on August 7 in
App. 1-B.  No record has ever been disclosed to petitioner of this August 7th interview by Louisiana authorities.


made on August 8th, but much more like the statements made by Judy Walters on the previous
day.  Compare 1-B and 1-F with 2-L.  On August 27, 1985 John was interrogated for several
hours by FBI agents, Chief Fields of Jefferson Parish, and Sheriff Lloyd Johnson of St. John
Parish.  He initially told them that he had lied to investigators when telling them about murders.
He said that he liked to "bullshit" law officers and had never really killed anyone. App. 1-G.
He is told by the FBI that Judy has told them he committed the murders.  John eventually
admitted to killing Nichole Lopatta after he and Billy Phillips had raped and kidnapped her. He also
confessed to killing Phillips after this iviolence.  He said that he committed horrendous acts of
great savagery.  When he was done confessing, he said "I think I just put my ass in the electric
chair."  App. 1-xx

                                The Murder Confessions - Judy Walters

    Judy woke up in the Santa Rosa County Hospital intensive care unit on August 7th with no
memory of how she had gotten there. App. 20.  She was hooked up to a heart monitor, a
telemetry unit, she was being fed through two intravenous tubes, and was restrained.
App. 20, 34.  She was told that she had been admitted because she had tried to kill herself with
an overdose of Elavil, that she would have to see the psychiatric staff.  She was also told that if
she had made a "real" suicide attempt she could be committed.  She asked about John Wille and
no one could tell her why he was not there and had not been there for more than 24 hours; she
then asked who was taking care of her 11 yearold son, and no one knew. App. 34.
    In this condition she met Santa Rosa County Deputy Larry Bryant for the first time. He came
into her hospital room and talked to her "at length" as the nursing notes report. App. 20. He was
with two deputies from St. John the Baptist Parish in Louisiana. App. 2-A.  He told her that John
was under arrest for an arson she was involved in. Id.  She signed a waiver of rights..
form, and she made a statement. App. 18.
    Judy told the police that John, speaking angrily of the Wells, had said "if everybody thought he was playing around with them, they were wrong.
Because they didn't know who they were messing with and he'd watch them burn too."  He was
referring to an incident he had told her about some time before.  According to this statement, John
had told Judy that he had been angry with a woman for "getting him in trouble" and had set fire
to her house, but that everybody thought it was hit by lightning. App. 2-A.
Judy did not know the woman's name, did not know the nature of the "trouble" that she had
caused John, and did not know how John got into the house. She thought he said he started the
fire with gasoline in a utility shed. Id.
    Judy Walters cannot today remember giving this statement.  App. 34.   She remembers being
very afraid for her son, Billy, who, with his mother in the hospital and John in jail, was alone in
Milton.  She remembers being afraid that if they knew she had tried to kill herself she would be
committed and unable to care for Billy. App. 34.  She was only an hour or so out of a
life-threatening coma, and still very sick. App. 20.  She was confronted with three powerful men
who were asking her to make a statement implicating John, and she did as they asked.17
    The hospital records indicate that Judy was released early the next day because of her concern
for her son.  A Santa Rosa County deputy arrived to "transport" her.  She was "nervous, tearful,
shaky, according to the nurse. App. 20.  She was told she had to go the Sheriff's office to pick
up her car, which John Wille had driven there the day before.  When she arrived at the station
she was told that Larry Bryant wanted to see her.  He asked that she fill out some "forms" to
have her car released, and she complied. What she signed wae a waiver of rights form.  App.
18.  Bryant then asked her to make another statement, which she agreed to do.  (The police
report lists a statement, which was not recorded or is not included in the disclosed statements

17We know that Judy's recorded statement was preceded by an unrecorded interrogation because St. John
Deputy Robert Hay says to her "Prior to this statement you mentioned something about a can of gasoline .... "
App. 2-A.  No notes or account of this prior interview have ever been disclosed to petitioner.


of Judy Walters.  App. 18.)  Judy Walters was then arrested for arson.  App. 18.
        That is when the nightmare began. Larry Bryant began to talk about our having committed murders.  I didn't know what he was talking about. At first it seemed like a joke or a bad dream.  But he kept accusing John of having killed a woman in Louisiana.  He said that John had confessed to it.  I knew this wasn't true.
    I also knew that John made stuff up all the time.  It was his way of appearing macho and manly.  Everyone knew John was a big story teller.  It was just his personality.  I thought that the police would check into how Mrs. Boudreaux really died and would let us go.
           The first night I was in jail Larry Bryant came and got me and took me to a room in the basement. He  hit me and he asked me questions all night long.  At first this did not bother me much--I have been hit and degraded by men my entire life.  But then he began to threaten my children.  He told me that "bad things"
    can happen to little girls.  I remember him saying that Billy rode his bike near a pond that was deep enough to drown in, that Billy could get hurt, because "Accidents happen to kids."  I honestly think I laughed at him for the last time. I said  "You can't do anything to my son. " He kept on asking me questions, accusing me of murdering a man on the highway with John. I couldn't believe it.
          The next afternoon or night I remember getting a polygraph, and they told me I failed it.  That was the night  I saw Billy.  They let him come to see me in the jail, and when I saw him Larry Bryant had brought him in.
    Billy had a red mark on his face and a little bit of blood on his shirt.  I could see that his mouth had bled just a little.  I think I wanted to die right there.  I had been through this terrible week and this terrible night the night before, but I thought that Billy was safe.  I cried and cried, and told Billy to get away.  I just feel like I gave up
    something right then.  App. 32.
    Judy's son Billy confirms this.  He remembers being picked up by two policemen, one of whom
was Larry Bryant.  He wanted to know where his mother was; she had been taken to the
hospital several days earlier.  The policemen wouldn't tell him. When he showed them a badge
that John had given him to play with, they became very excited and angry.  Larry Bryant made
him put his hands behind his back and then put him in handcuffs.  Outside the station, Bryant
slapped him once or twice.  He was 11 years old.  App. 43.

            I cannot remember everything clearly that happened in the next weeks.   I was given drugs every day,  including Elavil, Lorcet Plus, Placidyl, Inderal, Valium, Phenobarbital and Demerol.  I was also given cup after cup of coffee for hours on end and was interrogated for as long as 12 hours at a time.  The coffee was very bitter, and made me feel strange.  One of the other inmates told me they put things in it.  I was kept from sleeping for long periods of time.

Sometimes Larry Bryant would give me injections in my hand.  I was kept isolated in a cell and was
            not allowed to see anyone except Harry Bryant.  Only he could come and get me, or bring me out of my cell.  It was like he took complete control of my life.  Sometimes he would take all  my clothes away and I was left with only a mattress;  the toilet and sink would have all the water taken out and I would stay there, thirsty and naked, until he came to gat me.
                    I was being taken from my cell at all times of the day and night.  I was questioned by many police officers and FBI, always with Larry Bryant, and Bryant questioned me alone night and day. He gave me drugs, so many pills and shots I did not know where I was sometimes.  Sometimes he would came for me in my cell and tell me  "Judy, we're going up in an airplane again.  The sky is blue.  The next thing I knew I would he back in my cell, and not know how I got there.  I was always tired, and always terribly afraid.  I think the very worst of it were the pictures.  He showed me so many pictures of the little girl who was killed in Louisiana that I wanted to die.  He said that they couldn, t bury her until I confessed everything.  He said I just forgot what we had done because I had to block it out, it wes so bad, and once I told them it would be better.
                    I ended up giving many, many confessions to several murders after I had been threatened, hit, drugged, assaulted, hypnotized and brutalized.  Larry Bryant told me over and over what John and I were supposed to have done.  Then he would tell me details of what John and I were supposed to have done and I would start to see it happening in my mind.  I knew John and I hadn' t done any of these things, but after awhile, I began to wonder if I was crazy--if it could be true that we had done these horrible things and did not remember it, just like Larry Bryant said.

App. 34.  Judy Walters gave statements that were recorded or memorialized and which claimed
that she had witnessed John Wille murdering Frank Powe (the man killed on 1-10), Nichole
Loparts, Billy Phillips.  She also implicated Wille in the murders of Ida Boudreaux and Michael
Faulk, although she only claimed to have seen Faulk's murdered body. App. 2-A,R. She says she
gave many more statements that have not been disclosed to petitioner. She says that none of the
statements she gave were true; she told a mental health worker and others that she began to
doubt whether or not the confessions were true only a few weeks after she was incarcerated.
App. 56, 32.
        One of the "confessions" that Larry Bryant manufactured involved the unsolved murder of
Faulk.  According to a Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department report, on September 6, 1985
Judy told Bryant that John killed Faulk after picking him up in a bar and after having sex with
him.  The report is a detailed summary of the what Judy states, including a description of the bar, the place where Faulk was killed, how the body was bound, where the body was placed, etc.  The report also discusses Bryant taking Judy to locations allegedly involved in the crime. App. 18.
    However, the crime remained unsolved until 1987.  It appears that the State Attorney for the First
Judicial Circuit of Florida knew that Judy had falsely confessed to this and other murders; he refused to
charge her with the crime, despite a detailed statement describing features that only the murderer
would know, or perhaps Bryant.
    Brook Sanderson of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office explains that even though Judy's
"descriptions...matched to a tee," something was wrong.

             Q:     Do you have any knowledge as to how this Judith -- Judy Walters would have
                          been able to have independently learned that this body was found in garbage bags
                          and that it was found in Alabama and the general location that she led you to?
                 A:     It was brought to my attention at that time by Curtis Golden [State Attorney for the
                          First Judicial Circuit] that he felt as if the information had been furnished to
                          Judy Walters.  Now, the information as far as the case; the location of the body,
                          how the body was bound, the color of the bags, things like that, that information
                          was fed to her.
                                And his suspicion was that it was fed to her bv Investigator Bryant with the
                          Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department.

State v. Stanaway,  No 87-1404,  First Judicial Circuit Court, Escambia County, Florida, Deposition of
Brook Sanderson, June 1, 1987 at 35-36, App. 32.  Not only was Golden concerned with the Faulk
case but he had doubts about other murders Judy confessed to.

It was also brought to my attention Curtis Golden, through his dealings with her [Judy],
apparently, there were some other -- a couple of other stories that had come up that she
had -- you know killings -- body being dumped over a bridge at a certain location.  They were
unfounded.  You know, no bodies were found, nothing at all to back up that story.  Things like
that.  That also concerned it as far as her statement and the truthfulness, I guess, of
her statements.

Id. at 42-43.

        Bryant's superior officers knew this too.  Former Chief  Deputy Larry Pearson, the man who
hired Bryant remembers his tactics well.

                         Bryant was a zealous investigator, however, he would often times cut corners.  It was
            characteristic of Bryant to spend a few hours with a suspect alone,and then call in others to
            observe a taped statement being made.  I knew that one of Bryant's technioues was to tell
             individuals details of a crime prior to that person giving a detailed statement.  I know for a fact
             that Bryant coerced some individuals into giving statements and believe that at times these
             statements were not totally a product of the individual's independent recall.
App. 47.
         At John Wille's trial, Special Agent Vic Harvey testified that her confessions
"corroborated" his. She did not testify; she turned down a plea bargain for 15 years in her own
case because she would have been required to give testimony consistent with the confessions, and
she could not do that. App. 45, 34.  She was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, for
Nichole Lopatta and Billy Phillips, and is serving two life sentences at Louisiana Correctional
Institute for Women.

Sheila Walters MurderConfession

        Sheila Walters had her 14th birthday on June 8, 1985.  In August when her mother was
arrested she was living with her grandmother in Laurel, Mississippi.  She had in effect left
her mother because of Judy's drinking, and she had a lot of remorse and conflict about choosing
the stability and comfort of life with her grandmother instead of staying with her mother. App. 6.
She gave two statements to the FBI, although she and her grandmother, Barbara Hurst, believe
that she was interviewed three times. App. 3-A, 3-B; App. 44, 45.

                      At some point the FBI came to interrogate me.  I had just turned fourteen at the time.  I think they came three different times;  twice I remember for sure. The first time they came to my grandmother's house, and they sat at the kitchen table.  We were real nice to them, and they seemed nice too.  It was the same man and lady who came every time:  Vic Harvey, and her name was Patty.  That first time I was still kind of mad about how things had been in Florida, living in that trailer and everything, and I might have said mean things about John or Mama but they weren't true.  I never saw John hurt anybody, and John never once hit me.  I know I told them we hadn't been to Louisiana after May, when we moved to Florida.  That first visit they showed me the picture of a little girl, I guess it must have been Nichole Lopatta. It was a normal picture of her, not like the ones they showed me in September.  I told them i didn't recognze her.
            I think the FBI people went through my bedroom at Grandma's that day or the next time they came, and they wanted to look in my "special box" of
                        pictures and things.   Grandma said it was all right.

When the FBI came the last time it was different.  We went downtown to the Laurel police
station, in the afternoon.  I remember seeing Vic Harvey getting out of the car in the parking lot.
He saw me and started yelling,  "You lied!  You lied to me"  I went with my grandmother to see
them in a big courtroom, but somehow they got her out of the room and I was alone with them.
There were a lot of them, all big men except Patty, who was there, and maybe one other woman.
They interrogated me for hours, and my grandmother wasn't there.  They kept telling me over and
over what happened when the people were killed. I kept saying, "No, that's not what happened,"
but they kept saying, "Yes, it did."

They would go through step by step, telling me we did this and then this. They tried to say
I was involved, that I had lured the little girl into the car.  I kept telling them that I had never seen
the little girl and that I was never involved in hurting her, but they wouldn't listen. They also
started showing me the worst pictures I have ever seen.  There were pictures of body parts all cut
up, and the little girl dead with worms crawling all over her.  They kept saying I should tell them
about it.  They would say "You did this" and  "Your mama did this", even after I told them "No" a
lot of times.  After awhile I thought I was going a little crazy.  I started thinking to myself,  "Well,
maybe we did do what they said, but why don't I remember it?"  Then they started telling me "If
you tell a lie, your Mama won't fry."  I remember Vic Harvey saying that as clearly today as I did
that day.  They said that if  I would just say what they told me to, the (sic) would let me go and my
mother wouldn't go to the electric chair.  They said if  I didn't tell them what they wanted, that my
mother would go to the electric chair and die, and that I would go to prison for the rest of my life.
I was really scared, and I Just wanted to get it over with.   Finally I said I would.

There were at least three tape recorders there: one was big,  like a half a suitcase. Another
was an old-fashioned one, like we had at school.  Then there was a little tiny one, the first
mini-cassette I ever saw.  They would tell me what to say and then turn on the tape. Then if I
got something wrong, they would stop the tape and tell me how they wanted me to say it.  I knew
that what I was saying wasn't the truth, and so did they.  If I said something that was wrong,
Vic Harvey or one of them would say  "You know that wasn't right"  and I would do it again. I did
it because I wanted to help my mother, because they told me she would be killed if I didn't do it.
Everything I said on the tapes was untrue.  I just wanted to help my mother and wanted to go home.

After we got done in the courtroom, they brought me into a little room.  Finally my
grandmother wast here.  They played part of the tape, and they made me say the things again in
front of my grandmother.  I thought I was helping my mother.  I really expected them to let her go
that day or the next day, because I had done what they wanted me to do.  Sometime when they
were done they made me put my initials right on the tapes they had made.  There were 2 regular-size
cassette tapes, and I think 4 or 5 small ones. They took a Polaroid of me too, and made me sign
the back.  When we left it was almost dark.

Affidavit of Sheila Walters Prior, App. 44.

            Sheila recanted her statement within a few days, after her counsellor, Dr. Dickerson, advised
her grandmother that he thought Sheila was not telling the truth. App. 35, 45.  At John Wille's trial,
Special Agent Vic Harvey testified that Sheila's confession  "completely corroborated"  his. T. 2143.
Sheila took the stand at John's penalty phase, but asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege on the advice
of her lawyer. App. 36.  At her mother's trial, a tape of her confession18 was played for the jury; they
were never told that Sheila denied the truth of the statement, nor of  the conditions of her interrogation.

                            Introduction To The Psychology Of False Confessions

            Petitioner asserts that he, his girlfriend Judy Walters, and her daughter Sheila Walters gave
false confessions to the murder of  Nichole Lopatta and Billy Phillips.  Mr. Wille claims that he is
innocent of  the crimes he confessed to; all three individuals have recanted their confessions, and deny
that they witnessed or participated in any way in the death of the Lopatta child or of Phillips. App. 34,
44.  Petitioner has retained psychological and psychiatric experts to assist the court in evaluating this
claim. App. 4, 6, 8.  An evidentiary hearing is required so that petitioner may present proof of the
factual bases for this argument, outlined infra.
            At an evidentiary hearing the expert assistance sought and received by petitioner can further
aid the court in understanding the psychological bases for this claim, and be tested by adversarial
examination.  The volume of material required to evaluate these false confessions cannot be shortcut:
the following short summary is introductory only.
            The most widely publiehed expert psychologist in the field
_________________

                 18Despite Sheila's memory of a number of tapes and taperecorders, only one tape has been disclosed
 to petitioner.    No record or account of the hours of questioning preceding the taping has been disclosed.


of  false confessions and the psychology of interrogative techniques is Dr. Gisli Gudjonsson, a former
police detective who specializes, with his colleague and collaborator Dr. James MacKeith, in
researching and analyzing confessions. Drs. MacKeith and Gudjonsson were able to evaluate the three
individuals who confessed in this case; their interim reports19 are appended as app. 4 and
app. 6. A partial listing of Dr.  GudJonsson's and their joint publications is given in theircurriculi vitae,
app. 5 and 7.  Drs. Gudjonsson and MacKeith live and work primarily in England; the American
forensic psychologist most active in this area is Dr. Richard Ofshe.  His curriculum vitae is attached as
App. 9, and his preliminary report20 is at App. 8.
        "Why do people confess to crimes they have not committed, which is clearly against their
self-interest?  The reason is typically a combination of factors which are associated with the
circumstances and nature of the custodial interrogation and the accused's psychological
vulnerabilities."  Gudjonsson, The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony, 204
(Wiley & Sons, 1992). After an extensive review of cases and literature on false confession, Dr.
Gudjonsson concluded:

            False confessions, which most commonly result from psychological coercion during police interrogation,
            are known to be the cause of wrongful conviction in a sizeable proportion of all cases where miscarriages
            of justice have occurred.. . Once a confession has been obtained, the likelihood of conviction is
            greatly enhanced.

Id. 232.

         The experts in the psychology of interrogation generally
_________________________

            19As explained more fully in their reports, in order to complete their evaluations Drs. Gudjonsson and
MacKeith require additional evidence, including questioning of the law enforcement officers who conducted the
interrogations, and reports or transcripts of all the additional statements not in petitioner's possession. These
examples are illustrative only; some of the material that can only be provided by an evidentiary hearing, and by
successful resolution of petitioner's efforts to obtain further documents by subpoena and litigation.

            20Petitioner was only recently able to secure Dr. Orshe's participation.  He requires additional time to
evaluate the confessions, as well as all the materials referred to by Drs. MacKeith and GudJonsson in their
reports. See n. xx, supra. 


agree on the terminology used to describe the three basic "types" of false confession. Dr.
Oudjonsson believes that the three types may overlap in certain individual cases more often
than is usually thought. The three types are:
        1. Voluntary False Confessions "These are offered without any external pressure from the
police. Commonly these people go voluntarily to the police station and inform the police that they
have committed the crime in question. They may have read about the crime in the newspaper or
seen it reported on television."  These are given by people most likely to be frankly disturbed,
(such as the 200 or more people who confessed to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.)
        The four main reasons why people give false voluntary confessions are a morbid or
pathological desire for notoriety, an unconscious need to expiate guilt, including guilt which may be
related to an imaginary bad act, an inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, and a
desire to protect or assist the real culprit.
Id. 226-27.

        2. Coerced Compliant False Confessions  The subject confesses to relieve intolerable
pressure of interrogation, or to obtain promised short-term gain.  The suspect does not confess
voluntarily, "but comes to give in to the the demands and pressures of the interrogators for some
immediate instrumental gain."  Those short-term gains frequently include a promise that the suspect
can go home after confessing, that the interview will be over, that the suspect will not be arrested,
or prosecuted, that the confession will give the suspect a method of coping with the demands of
the interrogation. "The subject's perceived immediate instrumental gain of confessing has to do with
an escape from a stressful or intolerable situation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[M]aking a false self-incriminating admission or confession is perceived as more desirable in the
short term than the perceived 'punishment' of continued silence or denial." Id. 227-28.
        3. Coerced Internalized False Confession  The subject doubts his own memory and comes to
believe that he did indeed commit the acts described, even though he has no memory of the acts. One condition associated with this type of false confession is where the suspect has no memory at all of the relevant days or times, because of amnesia or alcohol blackout. The second type of "memory distrust syndrome"  concerns suspects who, at the start of police interrogation are quite sure they did not commit the offense, "but because of subtle manipulative influences by the interrogator they gradually begin to distrust their own memories and beliefs. [Dr. Richard]Ofshe conceptualizes this type of coerced internalized false confessionas analogous to 'thought reform'. That is, coercive and manipulative interrogation tactics and techniques induce in suspects 'sufficient self-doubt and confusion to cause them to adjust their perceptions of reality.'" Id. 228, quoting Ofshec Coerced Confessions: The
Logic Of Seemingly Irrational Action. 6

                                    Cultic Studies Journal 4-5.
        Dr. Ofshe's work generally discusses the phases of the interrogation process itself, and the
incremental quality of the decision-making process whereby a suspect comes to say "I did it".
Some of these processes are the same for false as for true confessions, some are distinctive.
Ofshe considers the transactional analysis of the process between the two people involved in the
interrogation. He has distinguished two phases of interrogative encounters. Phase one is
persuasion, what most consider the interrogation:  the process of questioning which, if the
interrogator is successful, leads to admission. Phase two is the narrative, which he believes to
be far more important than usually thought. The narrative, rich with convincing detail, is what
makes the confession plausible to a court and a jury. See generally works by Ofshe, cited in
Gudjonsson, listed in app. 9.
        One of the most significant contributions to this field made by Drs. Gudjonsson and
MacKeith is their extensive research into the definition and occurrence of enduring psychological
qualities which, apart from any pre-existing mental or physiological problems, contribute to the
likelihood that a person will confess to crimes they did not commit. These vulnerabilities include:
        1.  Suggestibility, defined as the uncritical acceptance of information during questioning. It is
the subject's tendency, in a closed social interaction, to accept messages that affect subsequent
behavior.  To test this factor Dr. Gudjonsson has formulated two instruments, the Gudjonsson
Suggestibility Scale, GSS-1 and GSS-2.  The subject is read a Story, memory is tested at intervals,
then asked misleading questions to test "yield" in responses.  Then the subject is given negative
feedback, questions are asked again, and the difference in responses measures "shift". The test,
when combined with a battery of other tests usually given a research subject, also provides
significant comparative information about the individual's memory capacity.  Another category
discussed and researched by Dr. Gudjonsson is
        2.  Compliance, defined as the uncritical conformance to the demands of authority. Typically
this quality is connected to a tendency to cope by avoidance of conflict rather than confrontation.
Tests used to measure this factor include self-reporting on a self-esteem scale, the individual's entire
psychological, medical, and social history, and clinical evaluation.
        The testing and evaluation performed by Drs. Gudjonsson and MacKeith also provides
empirical information about an individual's memory, the trust or reliance the person places on his
or her ability to recall events, and the subject's tendency to confabulate.
        To summarize, answering the question  "Is this a falseconfession?"  may require extensive
information and analysis by experts and investigators, in two main areas:  the conditions of
interrogation, and the psychology of the confessor, both before and during the custodial
interrogation.  The relevant psychological factors may be analyzed using the Gudjonsson/MacKeith
testing and evaluation of the individual who confessed, as well as the Ofshe close analysis of the
dialogue between confessor and interrogator.  The following section demonstrates that this sort of analysis of the confessions in petitioner's case compels the conclusion that the confessions were not reliable or voluntary.  The items suggested for the court's examination are exemplary only; this is not a definitive listing of problems or inconsistencies or psychological factors relevant to this inquiry.
An evidentiary hearing is required to prove the facts alleged about the coercive tactics of the law
enforcement officers in this case, and additional discovery must be had before petitioner can
demonstrate all the proof of his claim that his confessions were false.

Psychological Evaluation of the Confessions

        A.    Evaluation of the Individuals Who Confessed

                            1. John Francis Wille

        A  review of the summary above and the facts known about JohnWille's childhood and early
adult years strongly suggest that John voluntarily made false confessions to a number of murders.21
Voluntary false confessions are characterized by a confession which occurs in the absence of
coercive interrogative pressure.  Although John was initially pressured by Santa Rosa County
deputies and the St. John deputies to confess to the "murder" of Ida Boudreaux, this confession and
interrogation session has not been provided to petitioner. See n. 6 {search Boudreaux}, supra.
Therefore the first report in the documents of a confession by John Wille is the voluntary mention to
Larry Bryant that he had killed a man on the highway (Powe).  App. 18.
        There are additional voluntary confessions. The nurse who examined John Wille when he first
came into the Santa Rosa County jail remembers. him talking to her.
______________________

            21 It is likely that both John Wille and Judy Walters exhibit overlapping characteristics of two
types of  false confessors. A final evaluation of each of the individuals involved awaits further
information about the facts of the crimes alleged and the hoped-for addition of more recorded
statements. App. 4, 6, 8.  Until evaluations are complete no comment about the results can be
conclusive, nor can petitioner hope to list all the relevant facts in support of his claim that these
confessions were false and unreliable.


  John Wills was held in "D" pod.  When I went to do his intake, he told me  "I murdered a bunch of
people -I was high on alcohol and drugs.,  He would talk to me a lot, especially in the evenings.

John was never mean or angry in the way he acted.  In fact he seemed very sweet.  It always
struck me that he was so matter-of-fact in his descriptions of these horrible murders. He told me that he had killed his landlord and set the house on fire.  He also told me that he used to pimp for Judy, but then he would get jealous.  He would murder the men she slept with, and then sodomize them.  He would tell me these awfulthings as if he really had no idea there was anything wrong with what he had done. He didn,t seem like a cold-blooded vicious killer.

I remember one night he told me that he had awakened once in a room and was surrounded
by blood, even the walls were covered in blood.  He said he had no idea who he had killed.

App. 53.  Similarly, former Chief Deputy Larry Pearson remembers John volunteering
information in the course of conversations that were not formal interrogations.  His description,
like the account above by Nurse Hoff, also illustrates John's tendency to ¯tell fantastic tales as
if they were true.

I used to talk to John Wille in my office.  These were just conversations, not interrogations.
Sometimes inmates would request to see certain officers.  John seemed to feel comfortable talking to me and  would talk about his family life and his childhood.  He showed me a picture of himself in a
football uniform and told me that he played on a championship high school team.  He seemed to have a very difficult and unhappy childhood.  There was a lot of pain about the way his father treated him.
He would get very sad talking about these things and would sometimes cry.  It was clear to me that
he was in a lot of pain.

John got close to me, he felt he could confide in me about these personal things.  He would
just drift, get emotionally up and then down.  Things would surface, and then he would go off onto
something else.  We actually had several pleasant conversations.  We had personal or general
discussions more often than we talked about his alleged crimes.  He semed to be desperate for
friendship and attention.  I got the impression that his self-esteem was very low and that he sought
recognition;  he wanted to be hooked up to something or someone.   He wanted to be somebody
that he wasn't.

Even though I was not formally a part of the investigations, I kept a close watch out for
things and information that may be of help to the other officers.  There were times that I could get
John to say anything;  all I would have to do is suggest certain information to him and he would
repeat it as if it were true.22
_______________________

         22Lt. Tom Perry of the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department found the same thing.  "He's not
 volunteering a lot but if you tell him something about a crime then he'll tell you about it."  Pensacola News
Journal, August 9, 1985, p. 1A.


My first memory of John Wille is of watching him in the Escambia county Sheriff's office
through a one-way mirror talking about a fire in Louisiana that killed a woman.  He was initially
asked  about an arson in a trailer in Florida.

John Wille talked about the murders he claimed to have committed sometimes, although
we seldom if ever talked about the Louisiana case concerning the Lopatta girl.  John told me
"I killed some people between Panama City and Pensacola.  I looked into a hole on the beach
and saw all the bodies."  I remember him telling me that there were over 20 bodies in the hole
and me feeling that he had been or was hallucinating.

Another murder he told me about was a girl he killed on the way back from Panama City.
He said he went in the Bay and washed off the blood.  John also told me he killed someone and
threw the body in a ravine in Louisiana.

There were so many things thrown at John that even I would have gotten confused. They
were asking him about so many murders;  they were shooting questions at him from 40 different
angles.  Anyone who knew how could have set John Wille up to confess.  He would have said
something untrue if you gave him reason to or led him along.  According to John, there was a whole
herd of people he had killed between Tallahassee and Milton - only trouble was, there were no missing people or dead bodies.

App. 47.
         Dr. Gudjonsson summarizes the four main reasons why people give false voluntary
confessions:  (1) a pathological desire fornotoriety, (2) an unconscious need to expiate guilt,
including guilt which may related to an imaginary bad act,  (3) an inability to distinguish fact
from fantasy, and (4) a desire to protect or assist the real culprit. Gudjonsson, 227.
Throughout the confessions themselves and the collateral material on John Wille are examples
of self-aggrandizing statements about how tough or how strong he is. "I had one aggravated
assault on there already and almost killed a guy and I quit using my fists against anybody."
App. 1-A.  Talking of the death of "Mark", John tells the police investigators he didn't want
to hit him because "as hard as I hit, if I'd hit him in the head it probably would have killed
him". App. 1-C.  He claims that Powe "got a good blow at the gut in but it takes a lot more
than that to bring me down"

App. 1-F.  On the day he gives the confession that convicted him the FBI report notes he
"spent a great amount of time advising SA Scott and Chief Fields of the numerous fights that he
has been in and the fact that he liked physical violence." App. 1-H.
        The need for notoriety and attention was certainly satisfied by the public reaction to the
confessions: the television and newspapers were full of John Wille for some time. There was
even a book recently written about the case, Specific Intent, by O'Neil DeNoux.23 The
confession of the murder of Ida Boudreaux illustrates the need to expiate quilt: John tells them
he felt bad because he took money from her. App. 1-C. Dr. Gudjonsson noted that the quilt
may be real or imagined; John's upbringing as the detested "scapegoat" of his family was surely
enough to instill feelings of worthlessness and quilt in him. App. 37, 38,39, 40. Additional
recorded confessions of John's appear to be of mixed types. In an early statement he describes
the drowning murder of "Mark" with almost no questioning or pressure from the interrogator.
App. 1-C. In fact, in that statement he requests to be allowed to continue confessing, but the
interrogator, Phil Bruzzichesi of the Escambia County Sheriff's Department, breaks off the
interview against John's will.  It seems at least with regards to this "confession" the authorities
felt he was lying; why else stop an interrogation when one is "confessing."
However, the confession introduced at trial contains numerous examples of leading questions,
pressure from interrogators, and requests to be relieved of the stress of questioning. App. 1-H,I.
see infra. In fact, prior to the taping of that statement John recants again, telling the FBI that he
was lying to law enforcement officers when he said he was a murderer. 1-G.
        John Wille's history is of obvious relevance to the evaluation of his psychological tendency
to confess falsely.  John had been confessing to things he had not done all his life:
________________________

23The author, a former Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office deputy, bases the book entirely on the confessions
and on the Jefferson Parish investigations.


he did it as a child to protect his siblings from the effects of his parents' anger, and to escape the
stress of his family's urgings to confess. App. 37, 38, 39, 4U.  In high school, a teacher even
referred him to a psychologist who was working at the school.  This psychologist identified John's
inability to separate truth from fantasy. App. 31.  John also had been making grandiose or absurdly
untrue statements all his life.  Everyone who knew him said he had a real problem separating fact
from fantasy. App. 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 53, 54.  Even a cursory reading of the statements
themselves reveals fantastic exaggerations and untruths.  He refers to Judy Walters as "my future
wife - we're to be married in a couple of weeks", App. 1-I, even though Judy was still married to
Vondell at the time.
        The fourth factor cited in the literature that motivates a voluntary false confessor is the need or
desire to protect someone else. John tells the State Attorney, Curtis Golden, he will talk to him if
Judy is not prosecuted, and Golden so promises.  In fact, although John Wille pled guilty to the
murder of  Frank Powe and received a 25 to life sentence, Judy Walters was never charged. At
the evaluation by Drs. MacKeith and Gudjonsson, John gave this as his reason for confessing.

        Mr. Wille denies having had anything to do with any of the murders that he was interviewed about in 1985.  He alleges that in the main he was just agreeing with suggestions offered to him by the interviewing officers, primarily in order to protect Judy.  He claims to have pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr. Powe as a deal that prevented Judy being prosecuted for the offense.

During our interview with Mr. Wille it was evident that he was very pre-occupied, if not obsessed,
with Judy.

App. 4.

        John also believed he was protecting his sister Anna.  He hears from his family that Anna has
taken leave time at her job with the St. John the Baptist Sheriff's Office because of the notoriety
surrounding the case and the attention his confessions have been getting in the press. This is,
critically, before the confession in App. 1-H, I  that was introduced at his trial. App.37, 40, 57.
John then tells his family that he can "save" Anna's job by telling them [law enforcement] what they want to hear".  App. 37, 57. As he had done so many times before, kneeling on the kitchen floor, he confessed to something he had not done in the belief that he was protecting his sister.

        The interim reports of the evaluation conductedby Drs. Gudjonsson and MacKeith support
the claim that the confessions which convicted John Wille were unreliable and false.
Dr. Gudjonsson finds:

                This is a very exceptional case. Mr.Wille possesses some extreme psychological vulnerabilities, which make him susceptible to giving erroneous accounts of events during interrogation, especially if he is subjected to lenghty interviews and interrogative pressure.  It is highly likely that Mr. Wille's vulnerabilities existed at the time of his interrogation in 1985.  Indeed, from the information I have seen so far, I have serious reservations about the reliability of the confessions he made in 1985 to the murders of Mr. Phillips, Ms. Lopatta, and Mr. Powe.

App- 4. Additionally, after administering special instruments designed to measure a subject's
ability to withstand interrogative pressures of various sorts, Dr. Gudjonsson finds.Mr. Wille's
increased susceptibility to confabulation after negative feedback was extremely high and one of
the most marked that I have ever seen." App. 4.
        Similarly, Dr. MacKeith finds grave cause for concern. App. 6.  In preparation for his
report he reviewed the pre-existing psychological evaluations, the family history, the medical and
jail records, and conducted a clinical evaluation of John Wille.

He concludes:

                        While it is inappropriate for me to directly address the issue of John Wille's guilt or
                innocence of the murders for which he had been convicted, I do advise that even on the
                inadequate information currently provided, it is evident that there are very serious grounds
                for concern regarding the voluntariness and reliability of his self-incriminating statements.
                In the case of a person so vulnerable to giving a misleading account of himself, scrupulous
                care was required in the investigation if his statements were to be given credence.
App. 6.
            John Wills recanted his confessions almost immediately; then confessed again, recanted
again, confessed again. The subsequent confessions were often almost entirely unlike the first
ones. He said he killed Powe by accident, "clipping" him because he thought he was the man who had robbed him.  App. 1-B.  Then he said it was deliberate.  App. 1-F.  He said he killed Powe alone, that Judy was not with him.  App.l-C.  He said he killed Powe because he "grabbed" for Judy.  App.  1-F.  Between his statement of August 8th and his statement of August 20th he denies any crimes except shoplifting and smoking marijuana.  App. 1-D.  On that date he says he's been "shooting a lot of shit about all of this . . . I lied about this and I lied about that, knowing that I didn't do it, just to get everybody off my ass and that's all it was, just telling you a bunch of shit to get you all off my ass and it didn't work."  App. 1-D.
        But John Wille is "not simply a liar. " App. 6.  His "marked tendency towards confabulation,
does indicate that his elaboration of untrue stories especially when questioned, is likely to be largely
determined in an unconscious way."  Id.
        Reading the recorded statements of John Francis Wille, it's not surprising that experts have
grave doubts about the reliability of his confessions.  It is surprising that seasoned law enforcement
officers believed anything he said.
 

                                2. Judy Walters

        Gudjonsson, citing the work of Ofshe, reports that persons who have given coerced
internalized false confessions may be

         . . .victims of the unconscious use of the sort ofinterrogation tactics commonly practiced
            throughout the United States.  [They] display substantial belief change and, for varying
            periods of time, become convinced that they had committed the crimes of which they were
            accused.  They ... came to believe in their guilt and act on this belief by confessing.  They
            confessed despite having no memory of the crime that they had supposedly committed.

Gudjonsson, The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony, 231.

This describes Judy Walters.  She clearly came to believe that she had witnessed and participated
in the horrible events she describes.  On September 5, she calls for the nurse in the Santa Rosa
County jail.  The nurse notes "Inmate crying states she cannot continue to hear all the dead people
cries and screaming - wants to talk to Larry Bryant or FBI for 2 days now." App. 17.
She is desperate to talk to her interrogator, to relieve herself of the guilt she feels for "all
the dead people" she imagines she has seen. Yet, only one day earlier, she told a mental health
worker that she "wish[es] they'd give me that truth serum so I could just find out" whether or
not she has really been involved in murder. App. 56.
        As early as her statement of August 9, Judy Walters is asked after giving her statement
"Do you feel relieved now?"  She says "I don't want to think about it.  I still don't understand
how I could forget something and ..."  Larry Bryant doesn't want anymore of this independent
thinking on tape; interrupting her in mid-sentence, he says "This concludes this statement."
App. 2-B.  She describes now how she used to get information from the interrogators,
particularly from Bryant, and would get confused about describing crimes she cannot remember.

Larry Bryant told me over and over what John and I were supposed to have done. Then he
would tell me details of what John and I were supposed to have done and I would start to see it happening in my mind.  I knew John and I hadn't done any of these things, but after a while,
I began to wonder if  I was crazy--if it could be true that we had done these horrible things and
did not remember it, just like Larry Bryant said.

After Larry Bryant told me what we were supposed to have done, and had me repeat it back to him, he would have read me things from a large notebook.  I did this over and over.  Many times,
Larry Bryant would come back and tell me that I had gotten it wrong and that we had to do it over
again.  Once he told me  John and I had killed a man by cutting off his arm.  I thought that what he
meant was that we cut his entire arm off at the shoulder, so that is what I said in the confession.
But he came back later and said it was wrong.  I was confused.  I didn't know what he meant.
Then he said that I knew that what we had done was cutit off between the elbow and the shoulder,
so that is what I said next.  He left again and when he returned he was furious. I had it wrong again.
It ended up that I confessed to our cutting the arm off between the elbow and the wrist.

Larry Bryant said we killed a man and put his body in Alabama.  He took me to a school house
out in the country.  He took me into the school through a window.  I cut my arm on the glass on the
way in.  When we were inside he told me what had happened;  how we had committed the murder.24
______________________________

             24This was the murder of Michael Faulk. Judy confessed to being with John Wille immediately before
and after John killed Faulk.  App. 18.  An arrest warrant was issued for John, but the


Sometimes I would try to prove to Larry Bryant that I had not committed these horrible
murders.  Once I remembered that we couldn' t have possibly killed someone on the day
Larry Bryant said we did because on that day we were at the emergency room with my daughter
for her bronchitis.  I told Larry Bryant to look in the glove compartment of my car for the receipt
from the hospital.  When he learned I was right, he became furious again and hit me.  More and
more I felt like I was losing my mind.  No matter  what I did, I couldn't escape from being intimid-ated and abused by Larry Bryant.

Larry Bryant started telling me how John and I had killed a man and a little girl in Louisiana.
This was the most horrible part of the entire ordeal.  Larry Bryant said John and I raped and
murdered  a 9-year old girl and a man.  He said we had done terrible, sexual things to both of them
and then killed them.  He kept telling me that the little girl could not be buried until we confessed
and that it was not right for us to leave her like this.  I kept telling him that John and I had not killed
anyone, but he woulchn' t listen. Larry Bryant had told me over and over details of how we were
supposed to have killed her, hurt her, raped and strangled her. I started to hear her voice, hear
her screams.  I had horrible nightmares about her where she was begging me to let her be buried.  I
couldn' t get her out of my mind.  I thought I was going crazy.  Once I woke up and thought I saw
blood all over my body.  I don't know if that was due to all the drugs Larry Bryant was giving me,
or the coffee or the fact that I had so little sleep, but things that were unreal started to appear real.
It got to a point where I couldn' t tell what was real and what wasn't anymore.
App. 34.

The very day that Judy gives a 6-hour taped statement confessing to the murder of Billy
Phillips and Nichole Loparia, the notes from an interview with a mental health worker reveal
her distress and confusion. Ms. Lightfoot, the counsellor, notes "there is a discrepancy between
what she 'knows' and what she 'believes' about the killings. Angered and confused - what she
'tells investigators is disregarded. Nightmares are from information she has been given in
interrogations. Thinks she did not participate in or witness these events."  App. 56.
        Judy's well-documented history of sexual victimization and abuse made her a target for the
abusive and coercive techniques practiced on her in Santa Rosa County jail.  The dissociative
states associated with the sexual abuse by her stepfather and
___________________________

state attorney's office was uncomfortable with the prosecution because it was felt that Judy's confession was
unreliable and the eyewitness identifications were tainted by the amount of publicity, and they refused to
proceed.  App. 30, 31.


husband Vondell as well as with her history of alcoholism made it highly likely that she would
experience what Dr. Ofshe calls "memory-distrust syndrome".  App. 10.  Her fellow inmate reports
that  "Judy said she always knew in her heart that she hadn't done those things but they got her so
messed up that she would think maybe she had".  Eventually Judy would say to me, "Maybe I did do
it.  Do you think I did it?"  then a minute later Judy would say, "I know I didn't do that.'" App. 49.
        Dr. OudJonsson found that Judy Walters was exceptionally vulnerable to pressure. "As far as
suggestibility is concerned, there is one main finding.  That is, Mrs. Walters does not copewell with
interrogative pressure and has a strong tendency to shift her answers when she is subjected to
pressure during an interrogation."  App. 4.
        In evaluating the reliability of Ms. Walters's confessions, Dr. Gudjonsson notes as especially
significant the number of inconsistencies between her statements and the known forensic and medical
evidence, and the fact that at least one confession was proven false. His conclusion is as follows:

                        On the basis of the documented evidence I have seen so far (e.g., medical reports,
official records of interviews, informants' account), in conjunction with my own psychological
assessment, I am in no doubt that at the time of her police detention in 1985, Mrs. Walters was
psychologically vulnerable and I have reservations about her fitness to have been able to give
voluntary and reliable statements to the police during her lengthy detention.  In addition, the
serious inconsistencies and contradictions contained within her statements to the police, as well
as at least one documented false confession (i.e., Mr. Faulk's murder), cast further serious doubts
about the reliability of her confessions to the murders of Mr. Phillips and Ms. Lopatta.

App. 4.

        Dr. MacKeith also evaluated Judy Walters for the purpose of assessing the medical and
psychiatric aspects of the case, and to comment on the reliability and voluntariness of Judy's
confessions.  To that end he consulted with Dr. Mary Ann Dutton, a clinical psychologist who
specializes in the study of psychological trauma following victimization.  App. 11.  Dr. MacKeith
reviews at length the specifics of Judy Walters' case in order to evaluate the reliability of her confession in the context of the theoretical framework he and Dr. Gudjonsson have erected in their research and writing. His findings are:

Judy's developmental history of emotional deprivation, damaging sexual abuse and
inconstant parenting were likely to have a significant effect.  Information has been uncovered
suggesting that  "defensive" psychological mechanisms including dissociation are reported
by her as a reaction todistressing childhood experiences such as sexual assaults.  Later in life,
when dominated and subjected to an abusive relationship with her husband, she resorted to
substance abuse with alcohol, cannabis and at least occasionally cocaine.  Apart from how her
physiological processes were likely to have affected her mental health at Eecambia County Jail,
(sic) her enduring vulnerable psychological qualities were likely to render her unduly compliant
in the potential oppressive setting of the jail and especially during police interrogation. Even if
her allegations of specific abusive treatment are not all substantiated, the circumstances described
in the documents already available give a strong indication that she would have been likely to "decompensate" and so be unable to handle her responsibilities and the need to protect her own interests during interviews.

The extracts quoted above make clear some featuresof the dilemmas she experienced.
Judy herself recently described factors important to her.  These included being unconvinced
that her son Billy's safety could be assured and being so distressed at the sight of photographs
of the murder victims that she was willing to do anything to escape them as well as the details
of the homicides that were being discussed.

She claims that she was removed from her cell and was in the company of Larry Bryant
for many hours at a time, questioned at length and unable to stop her interrogator questioning
her very persistently in spite of her denials.  (No independent corroborations of these interviews
is of course available until the tape recordings or interview records not so far disclosed can be
studied.)  She clearly describes nowadays how she became temporarily persuaded that she might
even have committed the offenses and or witnessed them.  Then and now she reports having
experienced very distressing nightmares and visual images concerning the homicides of Lopatta
and Phillips.  She claims that she admitted to being party to further homicides other thanFaulk.
It would be helpful to have further documentation of any further false confessions known to the
investigating police officers.

Dr. Gudjonsson's psychological assessment draws attention to findings which have a
bearing onvulnerable qualities which Judy would have had in 1985.  However, in my judgment,
the psychiatric assessment report made only a few months before her arrest and the observations
made by Mental Health Professionals while she was in the jail are also of particular significance,
describing her state of mind at the time.

Judy states that all the apparently incriminating information disclosed by her in the interviews presented by the prosecution had been made known to her by various means.
Nothing in relation to the offenses came from her own personal direct knowledge of them since she claims to have played no part in any of the three homicides nor been a witness to them. She
explains that the material was often directly given or suggested to her.  However,
she also sometimes overheard conversations between police officers, was shown
photographs relating to the offenses, glanced at papers and newspapers left lying
around and tried to respond to cues given during interviews by he rinterrogators.
Her aim was to modify and to embellish her account so that she gave responses that
seemed to be required of her and fit the scenario which the police officers appeared
to want from her, she says.
             At this interim stage, I recommend that it would be sensible to give due attention
to the diagnostic formulations made at the time.  I draw attention to John Magee's
diagnostic impression recorded on the 14th August 1985  "Diagnostic impression:
 Axis 1:     alcohol abuse episodes, post traumatic stress syndrome (chronic or delayed)
 Axis 2:     histrionic personality disorder
 Axis 3:     bladder infection, migraine headaches. " In a later note he wrote that Judy
suffered from, extreme anxiety and depression, and the guilt she experiences over the
murder she believes she may have been involved with is  "nearly delusional."
 

 . . . having gained some knowledge of Judy Walter's background history, evidence
of psychological dysfunction described by Mental Health Professionals before her arrest
and augmented by studies recently undertaken, I am satisfied that she did have vulnerable
qualities of relevance.  I note that among situational factors likely to have influenced her at
the time are her concerns for her son's welfare, her desperation to resume contact with John
Wills and the particular pressures she was under during the police interviews.  Among other
influences to be considered are the extent to which she was isolated, the quality of her
environment and the support available to her.  I also note the relevance of another important
influence on her mental health and capacity to cope, namely the prescribed medication.

         I understand that the police and prosecution authorities are aware that Judy Walters
is known to have made factually false confessions during the period.  While a person in theory
could give false confessions at one point and truthful and accurate confession at another, the
production of false confessions must necessarily raise special concerns which warrant careful study.

Inconsistencies in Judy's statements in themselves obviously raises concerns about
reliability. Whilethere can be other explanations for suchinconsistencies besides the individual's
inability to give a dependable account, unless some satisfactory explanation can be found for the
phenomenon, it must otherwise be very damaging to the evidential value of her statements.
Inconsistencies maybe divided into three classes.  First, there are internal inconsistencies within
the content of her statements.   Secondly, there are inconsistencies between her statements and
those of her co-defendant.  Thirdly, there are inconsistencies between her statements and the facts
otherwise determined, for example forensic evidence. .
 

App. 6.  In conclusion Dr. MacKeith writes "I advise that there are serious grounds for concern
about the voluntariness and reliability of the self incriminating statements made by Mrs.Walters in
respect of the two homicide charges which led to her convictions in 1986." Id.
        The evaluation by Dr. Dutton presents a consistent picture of a woman victimized first by
her family and husband, then by her boyfriend John Wille, then, worst of all, by a law
enforcement officer, Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Deputy Larry Bryant.  Dr. Dutton finds
features of Dependent PersonalityDisorder, which, taken with Drs. GudJonsson and MacKeith's
findings about Judy and John's relationship has significance for the strategy utilized
by their interrogators, namely, separating them and denying them communication.' Even more
convincing are Dr. Dutton's conclusions concerning Judy's condition after interrogation. "Based
on results of the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Interviews, Judy meets full criteria for diagnosis
of PTSD related to the reported interrogation while incarcerated in a Florida jail." App. 10.
Dr. Dutton's report analyzes at length the psychological evidence that strongly suggests Judy
Walters was traumatized by her interrogation.  Taken with the findings above, the conclusion is
inescapable: these confessionsare false.

                        3. Sheila Walters (Prior)
        Sheila Walters was 14 years old when the FBI came and separated her from her guardian
and grandmother by use of a subterfuge, questioned her for hours, threatened her with prison
and told her that if she refused to make a statement her mother would die in the electric chair.
She made a statement admitting her participation in the gruesome rape and murder of another
child, and the mutilation and death of a young man.  Her statement was at odds at many points
with the facts, and with the confessions given by John and Judy.

Dr. Gudjonsson summarized his interview with Sheila:
Mrs. Prior told us that she had not witnessed or participated in the
murders of Nichole Lapotta and Billy Phillips.  She alleges that prior to the meeting with the police on the 3rd September, 1985, she had no knowledge of the details of the murders and
that the information she gave during the formal tape recorded interview between
6.09 and 7.36 pm came from the police during a long session earlier that afternoon.
At that time she had been interviewed in the absence of her grandmother and alleges
that the police showed her distressing photographs depicting the bodies of the two
victims and in various ways pressured her to give a false confession to having observed
and participated in the two murders.  In particular, she claims that she had been threatened
that if she did not confess her mother could be electrocuted.  She alleges that she was
told by FBI Agent Harvey that the only way she could help her mother  was to confess,
even if it meant lying.  She told us that she had become very confused after the police
repeatedly rejected her persistent denialsandafter a while she began to wonder if any
of  these things had really happened, even though she had no memory of it happening.

That same evening, at the request of her grandmother Barbara Hurst, Mrs. Prior spoke to
a local pastor, Dr. Carl Dickerson, about what she had told the FBI, believing at the time
that perhaps it had happened.  Shortly after this visit, Mrs. Prior spoketo Dr. Dickerson again
and retracted her previously made confession, claiming that FBI agent Harvey had told her
to say these things in order to help her mother.  By this time she had a clear memory that she
had not witnessed or participated in any way in the murders.

App. 4.  After testing, Dr. Gudjonsson's analysis concentrated on the absence of a familiar adult, the
subject's age, and the effect on her developing personality of the emotional turmoil and difficulties of
her childhood and adolescence.

It is known from our research studies that juveniles are particularly susceptible to
interrogative pressure and require social support by a familiar person during interrogation.
I think it was very unfortunate that she was interviewed informally at length in the absence
of a familiar adult, like her grandmother, prior to her formal tape recorded interview. It is very
important to establish, as far as is possible, what exactly took place during the interview
where her grandmother was absent (any tape recording or notes of what took place might
provevaluable).

Mrs. Prior's present tendency to give in to interrogative pressure would very probably
have been very much higher in 1985, because of her low chronological age and psychological
vulnerability related to poor self-esteem and emotional problems.  The likelihood of very poor
self-esteem in 1985 is supported by a psychological assessment carried out at Riverside
Hospital in 1984, which indicated negative self-image, depression, poor social judgment, and having
problems with people in authority.  Her low self-esteem and emotional problems at the time
would undoubtedly have exacerbated her difficulty in coping with a long and persistent police
interrogation.

In view ofher likely psychological vulnerabilities in 1985,  I am in no-doubt that if Mrs. Prior was pressured by the FBI and other officers priorto the formal tape recorded interview on the 3rd September;  then this must cast serious doubt onthe reliabilityandvoluntariness of her self-incriminating admissions.

App. 4.  Similarly, Dr. MacKeith notes the effect on Sheila of her troubled upbringing and
emotional deprivation. Sheila was caught between her father Vondell, who was emotionally and
physically abusive to her mother, and Judy whose drinking and resultant neglect cause
chaos as well.  Sheila felt torn between her grandmother and her mother. App. 6.  These
factors, plus her age and the inherent coerciveness of: the police questioning she describes,
give both Drs. MacKeith and Gudjonsson cause for concern about the reliability and
voluntariness of the confession 'she made.
                One point emphasized by all three experts, Drs. Ofshe,MacKeith, and Gudjonsson,
is the need for more information.  Sheila was interviewed for several hours before the tape
recording which survives was made. App. 44, 45. No report or recording has been delivered
to the defense of that lengthy interview session. At least three, possibly four jurisdictions were
represented by law enforcement officers, yet none have produced an account. It is not possible
to conclude the analysis without more information.  An evidentiary hearing is required so that
evidence could be adduced and discovery had in support of the claim that Sheila's confession
was coerced and false.
                B. Analysis of The Confessions
                1. INTRODUCTION
                John Francis Wills and Judith Walters were repeatedly interrogated regarding the
Lopatta/Phillips murders. Some of these interrogation sessions are documented, while others are
inadvertently referenced in the documented interrogation sessions. Many of the documented
sessions are simply summarized in FBI reports and a few were tape recorded.  The taped
sessions reveal the alarming extent to which interrogators had to lead, suggest, and even supply
information to get the confessions they sought. Over time, both John and Judy added information to their prior statemeuts. Neither of them, however, managed to tell the same story twice and even more outrageous, in light of Vic Harvey's hearsay testimony about Judy and Sheila's "completely corroborating" confessions, not one of John Francis Wille's statements is consistent with even one of Judy Walters statements on significant facts.  Further, both are markedly different from the story told by Sheila Walters in her September 3, 1985 statement, the only documented interrogation of Sheila.  All of the confessions differ on central points including everything from who travelled from Florida to
Louisiana and when they travelled to who participated in the murders and how the victims were
killed.  In addition, all of them provided information that was contradicted by known facts.
Unfortunately, rather than being told of the extent of these inconsistencies and contradictions, the
jury instead heard John Francis Wille's 8/27/85 taped statement and were misled by Vic Harvey
when hetestified that the confessions of Judy Walters and Sheila Walters corroborated this
statement.  Nothing could have been further from the truth. The following is not an exhaustive
list of the various inconsistencies but rather highlights the more notable ones..

2. LEADING QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTION DURING THE INTERROGATIONS
            "A number of psychological experiments have shown that leading questions produce
distorted responses during interviewing."  Gudjonnson at 13.  Such questions have an impact on
memory recall and can influence the out come of the interview because they indicate the
response the interviewer wants.  When combined with other coercive and manipulative tactics,
they can "induce in suspects 'sufficient self-doubt and confusion to cause them to adjust their
perceptions of reality.'"  Gudjonnson at 228.  Leading questions can provide information
previously not known.  A confused and vulnerable person can than incorporate this information
into their "memory" and ultimately adopt the

information as their own. The interrogations of John Wille, Judy Walters and
Sheila Walters are replete with examples of leading questions and Suggestion.
The detail which each of them ultimately supplied in their confessions can
only be analyzed after consideration of this and other coercive interrogation
tactics, combined with the type of psychological evaluation that was
discussed above. The following examples of leading questions and suggestion
employed in this case are illustrative and are by no means an exhaustive list.
            a. John Francis Wille
8/27/85 7:13pm:
        JOHNSON  "John, let me say something right here, you keep saying Judy
if she said this, she is lying. John we are not trying to get Judy. Judy, like,
the FBI had told you has already gave a full statement, you're not helping
yourself by trying to protect anybody at this point. There are no plans for
anything that I know of for Judy at this present time."

        SCOTT   "That is true, I know you love her and you care about her and
you want to try and protect her, but she told us ...

        WILLE   "That's the only thing anybody can do to me is fuck over me
and put her in prison, and I'll grant you there isn't a prison in this world
going to hold me down if I ever find out she's going to prison"
App. 1-H.

8/27/85 7:13pm:   SCOTT    "Remember I told you what he was covered with on this
piece of paper, it's still there.  What did you put[Phillips] in or cover him with?  App. 1-H.
8/27/85 7:13pm:  SCOTT    "John did you show Billy's hand to Judy in one of those
sacks before you threw it away?" App. 1-H.
8/27/85 7:13pm: SCOTT    "Like I told you before, I talked to Judy, did you at any
time have any sexual contact with that little girl Nicole?. App. 1-H.
8/27/85 7:13pm:  HAY      "Let's rephrase the question John, did you at anytime
this night, Sunday, the 2nd of June have any sexual intercourse whatsoever
with Nicole Lopatta?" App. 1-H.
8/27/8S 7:13pm:  HAY      "Some of the things just aren't fitting into place, John."  App. 1-H.
8/27/85 7:13pm:   JOHNSON:   "Now John, let's don't get all, we are trying to get a true
statement, don't get off on any tantrum.  The more that you tell us the less people will have to
be on that stand, on the witness stand.  Like we talked about earlier."
App. 1-H.
8/27/85 7:13pm:    After John stated that he had blocked a lot of it out, or at least had tried to,
Sheriff Johnson responded:

We would all like to block.    Judy is talking very freely to the Officers, and the only other key to this puzzle is going to be Sheila.   I know that you don't want to see that happen, because she would have to be on the  stand.  The more that you can tell right now and get the truth out in the open, protect, like you said awhile ago, if anything ever happened to you and Judy, you would want to marry Sheila, that's your own little, I know, that's a family joke, but you must have a lot feelings for her, you don't want to see her badgered on the stand by some attorneys.  So the only person that can keep this from happening is you.  Now let's go back to the little girl dying in the car and these type things and let's talk about these things and take your time and do some thinking .... how
did she die?
App. 1-H.   John responds that he doesn't know.

8/27/85 7:13pm:     JOHNSON:    "Remember Sheila and Judy is seeing everything that is taken
place in the car at this present time to. App. 1-H.
8/27/85 7:13pm:       JOHNSON:    "Your not fabricating anything to cover or help or keep the
blame off of anybody else?"
JOHN:    "No, I'm not, but if I take Judy's blame, Sheila's blame." App.1-I.
FBI 302 8/27/85       After his 7:13 pm taped statement (where John denied sexual contact with
Nichole 3 times), "Wille was told by SA SCOTT that WALTERS was making a full statement
and had stated that WILLE was involved in NICOLE LOPATTA's sexual assaults and death.
At this point Sheriff JOHNSON told WILLE that he was going to depart the interview room,
so that WILLE could feel free to talk to the remaining investigators." App. 1-G.
FBI 302 8/27/85       Also, after his 7:13pm taped statement,

SA SCOTT asked Detective HAYS to take LOPATTA's large color photograph and place
it on the table in front of WILLE.  After Detective HAYS had done so, Detective HAYS asked
WILLE to place his right hand on LOPATTA's photograph and WILLE voluntarily did so.
 
 
 

WILLE was asked to give a full and true account of the abduction, sexual assault
and death of LOPATTA.  WILLE appeared to be thinking and was silent.  SA SCOTT
produced a large color photograph of LOPATTA's body as it appeared on an autopsy
table in the Orleans Parish Coroner Autopsy Room.  Additionally  Chief  FIELDS produced
a second large color autopsy photograph depicting LOPATTA's lower torso; including her
vagina and rectum.
After some thought and consideration WILLE stated that he had not told the entire
truth but his role in the little girl's abduction, rape and death.  WILLE stated that he was
now ready to provide a completely truthful tape recorded statement.

App 1-G.

8/27/88 9:37pm:   SCOTT:   "I know this is hard, John, tell us what happened, who did what,
when, who was where, fill in all the details for us please.  Will you do that for me?" App. 1-I.
8/27/85 9:37pm:   HAY:      "Did he have his penis in little Nicole's mouth while you were
having your penis in her vagina, was that going on at the same time?" App. 1-I.
8/27/85 9:37pm:   SCOTT:   "You're right, she was beaten an awful lot, you're right that did
happen to her. Do you remember what you told us before in your previous statement, how she
died.  What did you tell us then?" App. 1-I.
8/27/85 9:37pm:   SCOTT:   "Before you got to Popeye's Chicken, did you or Judy stop and
change any kind of clothes or wash up or clean up or anything, did any of those things
happen?" App. 1-I.
8/27/85 9:37pm:   WILLE:   "Yea. If I could remember a little bit better, I could tell you alot
more, but I don't remember.
HAY:      "No, John, you're doing a wonderful job, I know this is hard on
you, it's hard on everybody, alright, you're doing fine, okay." App. 1-I.

        b.    Judy Walters
8/10/85 11:00pm:   LB-"Ok, do you remember the VA Hospital I believe in the statement earlier,
you, you woke back up and you were in New Orleans?"  JW-"Oh."  App. 2-G.
8/10/85 11:pm:
        LB-"Do you know what day it was?"

        JW-"Uh, that's I guess it was that Saturday." ...

LB-"One second, let's, let's try to trace the time ok, like we did before. You said you left on
a Friday, remember that now, and you drove through the night cause you remember waking
up, right?  Then it's the next morning and bright and early and sunny and what do, and what
happens that morning?"
               JW-"Ok, he picked up the guy hitchhiking."
               LB-"Right. Ok, so that's Saturday, Now Saturday."
               JW-"So it had to be Sunday because that night was when they went..."
               LB-"That's right ... which would have been"
               JW-"The second of June"

App. 2-G.
8/10/85 11pm:   LB-"Tell us what you told us earlier Judy, I know this is difficult but"
                      JW-"It just that all run-its running together. It"  App. 2'G.
8/10/85 11pm: LARRY BRYANT-"He came and he set on the ground there by you, this is
some, I'm relaying this to field notes that I took when we were talking earlier and if I'm
incorrect on some of it, you let me know. It says he came back and he set down on the ground
I asked him where was the little girl and the man and he got mad." App. 2-G.
8/10/85 11pm: LB-"Excuse me Judith, just before you got in the car, I believe you made a
statement earlier that he made to you and if I'm correct and See if this refreshes your memory.
don't have to worry about screwing him again."  Was he in reference to the hitchhiker, did he
make that statement?" App2-G.
8/10/85 11pm:  LB-"Was there something missing from him?"
                      JW-"Everything. There was nothing. It was just a lot of blood."
                      LB-"How about his extremities? You told us earlier that, you saidsomething,"
                      JW-"um, he's"
                      LB-"Was any part of the man missing?"

App. 2-G.

8/10/85 11pm:
LB-"What did he make you do there, what did he make you do Judith there
    while you were beside this mans body?"
    JW-"Uh, I'don't remember, I can't think, my mind is-is just I'm stuck."
    LB-"Did he make you uh, did he have sex with you there beside the body
    body?"
    JW-"Uh, there, we yes."

2-G.
8/10/85 11pm:  JW-" ... do I have to do this again?"
            LB-"This is the last time sug, this is the last time and you don't
have to talk about it any more, I know it's bad but you don't have to talk
about it any more." App. 2-G.
8/10/85 11pm:   LB-"Judy, you said since your return to Milton area you've had
several conversations with John about this, the abduction of the girl and the
uh, and the event that happened between the girl and the man. I know it's
painful but what did he tell you about the little girl?"  App. 2-G.
8/10/85 11pm:  LB-"Ok, you told me one other thing earlier ... He used to
            threaten to do something to you all the time, what was that?"
            JW-"I don't know."
            LB-"Take your time, we talked about it before. He reached down
            and he asked you if you wanted him to show you something. And he
            did something to you, what did he do?"
            JW-"I can't think."
            LB-"Ok, take your time now."
            JW-.Uh.
            LB-"Remember you were sitting down and he kinda bent down and"
            JW-"I swear my mind, it's it's quit."
App. 2-G.
8/28/85 11:50am:  VH-"0kay, on June 1, 1985, did you take Sheila to the hospital?"
... "About what time did you go to the hospitaI sweetie?"  App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:  VH-"Okay, yesterday you told Agent Hummel and myself that this
liquor store was on 1-10 in Pensacola near a Temple. What do you mean by a
Temple honey?"  App. 2-Q.

8/28/85 11:50am:         VH,.Okay, what's, what's happening when he says this sweetie?. App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:        VH-.0kay, ah you've done this before but just for this record I'm showing you
a black and-white photograph of a caucasian male this is the police department in Hammond,
Louisiana have you seen this man before?"  Judy identifies this photograph as Billie, the hitchhiker
they picked up in Slidell.
                                 VH-"I appreciate it kid." App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:           VH-"You told us yesterday while you were driving around you passed a fire
station is that true?....
                                 VH-"Is there ia canal back there?"
                                 JW-"I believe so ....
                                 VH-"Alright, is therea power line right there?"
                                 JW-"Yes.... App. 2-Q.
8/28/8S 11:50am:        VH-"Okay honey let me back up you told us somethings yesterday I think we need to to ah get you to see if you recall yesterday you told you told Joe and I, Agent Hummel and I that when you asked, you know when you asked John if that was Missy what did he say?.
App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:         VH-"Okay. Judy, I...I...I know, and I think it's, maybe because we're taping
this, but yesterday you told us some things in here.  It just. That ah, the guy pushed...The...The
hitchhiker pushed the little girl's shirt up around her head."  App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:             VH-"You told us earlier that..that you threw a Southern Comfort bottle into that water.. App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:          VH-"You're avoiding it Judy.  He's in the backseat.  John's got his dick in the little girl's mouth, the hitchhiker is screwing her, and he can reach over and grab you and all of this.
He can do all of this?" App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:             BH-"What was it like . What type of statement was it?"
                                  VH-.I can tell you what you told us yesterday, that you can remember. You
asked John what happened to Sheila, okay. What did the hitchhiker say?  What did Willie get all
upset for?"
                                   BH-"Come on Judy I know 'this is hard to. (unintelligible) you came a long way." App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:     VH-"Excellent. That's that's what you told me. Alright. You
got back in the car." App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:     VH-"JUDY, having any problem, ah problems since those threats
made against you while we been changing these tapes?" App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:     VH-"Let me ask you this. That's when you got back, or since
you've been back, has JOHN or you done anything to the car, to (pause), to ah,
ah (pause) to make gathering evidence via us or anybody else hard." App. 2-Q.
8/28/85 11:50am:     VH-"At what time to refresh your memory, and if I'm saying
anything you don't remember correct me... But through one of our prior
interviews, you said that after your return to Milton some- sometime
subsequent to this event (pause) JOHN was trying to get you to have anal sex
with him. Is that correct?"  App. 2-Q.

     c. Sheila Walter;

9/3/85:                 VH-"Now I described some apartments to you that ah flag
polls [sic] around it ... Or in the front ... Alright and I also described a children's ah playground
with a fence on it, does that match what you recollect about the apartment complex"
            SW-"Un-huh. App. 3-B.
9/3/85 6:09pm:
                         VH: "Okay you're there right, tell me, John's having sex with her
                         and strangling her, is is Billy Phillips still have his penis in the little
                         girls mouth."
                        SW: "No he's in the back with John having sex with John
                        VH: "Afterwards, now I want you to tell me whathappened, you're
                        looking in the back seat, John'shaving sex with the little girl right, is that correct"
            SW: "Uh-huh"
            VH: "Yes or no"
                        SW: "Yes"
                        VH: "She is facing face up and Billy Phillips has his penis in the little girls mouth"
                        SW: "Un-huh"

VH: "You and your mother were there, you have to know,John's choking her
                     is that right"
App. 3-B9

9/3/85:

                    VH: "When you got to Popeyes, was the body still in the back seat"
                    SW: "Un-huh"
                    VH: "Are you sure, it's okay if you're not sure, if you're not sure you're not sure"
                    SW: "I don't remember if it was or not ..."

App. 3-B.

9/3/85:

                     VH: "Okay did you go to school the next day"
                     SW: "Yes sir"
                     VH: "Let me refresh your memory, our records show that you didn't go
                      to school for a couple of days, now think about it, our records show that
                     when you got back toMelton, you and your mother that day, you didn't go
                      to school but went to Melton Association"
                     SW:"Yes we went and got some food"
                     VH:"Well you couldn't have done both, did you go to school that day
                     SW: "No"

App. 3-B.

              3.     INCONSISTENCIES WITH KNOWN FACTS

              The confessions of John, Judy and Sheila all containin consistencies with known facts.
That is, they contain information that is known to be false.  Many of these discrepancies are related
to significant facts surrounding the crimes as reported by John, Judy and Sheila.

                      a.    Billy PhilliPs Body

                             i. The penis

                In his first statement John made no mention of trying to cut off Billy Phillips penis. In his
next statement, John stated that with his first stab he "tried cutting his nuts off because of what he had
done."  App. 1-L.  In his third and final statement, John reported that he tried to "cut his prodicals
off." App. 1-I.

According to Judy, John cut Billy's penis off and then pushed Judy's head into the groin area.
In her 8/10/85 statement, Judy stated that "he didn't have any sex organs left.  There was nothing
there."  App. 2-D.  On 8/l8/85 Jusy stated that "at that point he rased his knife and severed what she
thought was the hitchhiker,s penis and started laughing .... Wille then took the bloody penis flesh
tissue and threw it in her face ....and then forced her face into the hitchhiker's bloody crotch and
rubbed her face into this area."  App. 2-K.  Judy described how John severed Billy's penis in her
taped statementon 8/28/85.

                 He ah, he reached down with his left hand and just when he reached down
                 I kind a bent forward and he grabbed the guy real hard by his dick and JOHN
                 had jarred, brought his right hand back and he come real fast with this hand
                 with the knife across and he cut it off it.  He had it holding it in his hands and
                 he just sat there for a minute or so, a few seconds.

App. 2-Q.

            From both the crime scene photos and the autopsy report, is clear that Billy Phillips penis is
intact. In fact, the autopsy report notes that "the penis is circumcised. " App. 22.

                        2.     The stab wounds

            In his first statement, John stated that "Billy tame at him and WILLE lunged forward stabbing
BILLY in the 'gut' or mid-chest area.  He stated that immediately a lot of blood squirted out of
BILLY."  App. 1-G.
            Judy described how John "struck the hitchhiker in the stomach or chest area and instantly
blood squirted all over the place."  App. 2-K.  She later stated that John "produced a knife and
stabbed the hitchhiker some where in the stomach or chest area.  She stated blood instantly squirted
out all over the place, and some of this blood even landed on her."  App. 2-N.  Finally, in her
8/28/85 taped statement Judy stated that "he came back and when he hit the guy in the stomach
blood went everywhere and when John hit him it knocked him down."  App. 2-Q.
            The autopsy report does not note any stab wounds to the stomach, abdomen or chest area.
In fact, during the internal examination, the report notes that "there are no injuries in the abdomen."  App. 22.  Curiously, there are no defensive wounds noted.25

                3.  The mustache and tattoo

        During her September 3, 1985 statement,Sheila Walters is asked what Billy Phillips
        was wearing.
        Agent Harvey:  Do you remember hats, shoes, do you remember
                     if he had beard or mustache¯ any tattoos?
        Sheila Walters:  I remember he had a mustache.
        Agent Harvey:  Did he have any tattoos on him?
        Sheila Walters: No.
App. 3-B  It is important to remember the context: Sheila Walters is claiming
that she rode in the back seat of the car with Billy Phillips, watched him and
John rape and murder Nichole in the back seat of the vehicle from a vantage
point of just a few feet (she was in the back on the driver's side
floorboard), and had sex with Billy on two separate occasions during the
course of the evening.
        Billy Phillips did not have a mustache according to photographs. In
addition, Billy Phillips actuatly had a tattoo that was hard to miss. As noted
in the Autopsy Protocol, on the left arm laterally, is a distinct tattoo, 11 x 6 cm., with a central skull and crossbones wearing aMarine cap and resting on a black S-ball.  Above this figure is black printing - BILLY with a red fillin on the B.   Below this figure is U.S.M.C. in black with red shading. The figure itself has red, yellow and green in the spaces between the black lines forming the figure.
App. 22.
             b.    Billy Phillips's Shoes
        In her 8/28/85 statement, Judy stated that Billy had a dark looking
pair of tennis shoes. She described them as really dirty and noted that they
did not have any shoe strings.  App. 2-Q.  Later she described them in more
detail. "It was ah dark colored pair of tennis shoes.  They had a silver like
ah, wasn't a design and it wasn't a stripe it was kind a wide like on the side
of the
________________

25Dr. Robert Kirschnet, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner of Cook County, is preparing a report not yet completed.
It will besupplied to the court and opposing counsel as soon as it is received.


shoe that came and like curled kinda like at the end . . And I noticed that they didn't tie, they
just kin, they backed over with that..." When Vic Harvey asked if she meant "velcroft" [sic] she
said "yeah". App. 2-Q.
        According to a Police Report, a white tennis shoe with three black stripes on the sides is
found in the water near where Billy Phillips body is found.  Billy's sister identified this shoe as
the one she had recently bought for him. App. 26.
        In a photograph of this shoe, both the stripes and the shoe lace are clearly visible.

                    C.    The Sleeping Bag

        Judy described how John and Judy had sex on a sleeping bag that John got out of the car.
She also described how Billy Phillips laid the body of Nichols Lopatta on the sleeping bag next
to Judy and had sex with the body.  After Billy was repeated stabbed and killed, Judy stated
that they zipped the sleeping bag around Billy's body and put it in the car.  After dumping the
body, they returned the sleeping bag to the trunk, where it remained until it was washed. App. 2
-Q.
        Sheila described how she and Billy had sex (twice) on the sleeping bag while John and
Judy also had sex on the same bag right next to them.  After Billy was killed, Sheila saw Judy
and John bring his body to the car inside the sleeping bag. App. 3-B.
        Despite all of this activity, according to the lab reports, there is no indication that any
blood or bodily fluid was detected that would substantiate either Judy or Sheila's version of
events. App. 13, 18.

                    D.   The Car

        Judy stated that first Billy hit Nichole, causing her mouth to bleed.  John and Billy raped
Nichole vaginally, orally and anally.  While raping her, John hit Nichole hard in the face and
blood gushed from her mouth.  This all allegedly happened in the back seat of the car while
Judy was on the passenger side floorboard and Sheila was in the front seat sleeping or passed out.  App. 2-K.  In another statement, Judy said that Nichole was "covered with blood" and that
Billy Phillips had "blood all over his face and hands".  App. 2-P  Judy also stated that John climaxed
all over Judy and Nichole's faces in the back seat of the car.  After John hit Nichole in the mouth,
blood poured out of her mouth.  WALTERS recalled that the seat was covered with blood at this
time and that she, WALTERS, was also covered with blood."  App. 2-P.  When Judy tried to get
up off the floor, she slid because there was so much blood.  "But when I raised up and I put my arm
... my hand on the seat, I slid on the seat because there was blood all over the seat .... Blood was
dripping down on the seat, and it was ... it was gettin' on me because I was up on the seat ..."
App. 2-Q.  Judy described Nichole in her 8/28/85 statement as "black and blue all over, there is
blood all over her, her hair is matted and her face doesn't look like a face because you can see to the
bone."  App. 2-Q.  In addition, both bodies were carried around in the car until they were dumped
and the sleeping bag was kept in the car until it was washed.
        Despite all of this, according to the lab reports, no blood was found in the car to support any of
these alleged activities.  Thus, there was no direct, physical evidence to corroborate details of these
confessions that no doubt had tremendous impact
on the jury.

                e.     Popeye's

        In both of his recorded statements on August 27, John stated that he was waited on by a
"white girl."  It was around closing time.  He stated that Judy ordered chicken and he asked for two
to three bags.  He made two trips to the garbage to get rid of the knife, the dismantled hacksaw, and
Billy Phillips' hand.  Judy probably looked in the bag at the hand and got sick. App. l-H,  I.
        According to Judy, when they went to Popeye's, it was ready to close.  John forced Judy to go
into Popeye's with him.  John got two bags and threw a blood saturated bag away inside.  John put
the penis in a bag to play a joke on Judy.  He told her it was chicken.
She opened the bag and what she first thought was the penis rolled on her lap.
She described it as skin and then said it looked like fingers but no hand.  John threw the bag away inside.
Because they were closing, the girl working had to let him in so she had to see this.  John wiped his
hands and got back in the car.  App.2-Q.
        According to the Police Report, Debra Davis, a black woman, waited onJ ohn and Judy
at 8:00pm or shortly thereafter.  In addition, Davis said that John ordered the chicken and asked
for only one bag.  She also said that John made only one trip to the garbage and thatJ udy was in the
store when the bag was thrown away. <MARK>>>

                f.     Description of Nichole Lopatta
        In her taped statement on 8/10/85, Judy was asked to describe Nichole Lopatta's hair.  Judy
said it "was dark and ah it was ah kind of messed up. App.2-G. According to the Autopsy Report,
Nichole Lopatta's hair was 'darkblonde'. App. 21.

                g.     Nichole Lopatta's Body
        In his first statement regarding the Lopatta/Phillips murders, John stated that when he looked at
Nichole Lopatta's dead body,"she was mutilated around her groin and face." App1-G.  In both of
his taped statements on 8/27/85, John said that Billy stabbed Nichole. App.l-L,I.
According to the Autopsy Report, there is no evidence that Nichole Lopatta was mutilated around
her groin and face or that she was stabbed.  App.21.

                h.     Southern Comfort Bottle
        According to her 8/18/85 statement, "after a little while she stated she quit drinking and threw
the bottle of Southern Comfort Whiskey into the water."  (App.2, _ p.2)  Again, on 8/28/85, Judy
stated that shet hrew the bottle of Southern Comfort into the pond near the power plant. (App.2, _
p.74, p.77)
 

  This bottle was never found. At Judy's trial, Agent Scott reported that the 'major
discrepancy, in Judy's statement (perhaps a bit of an overstatement given the inconsistencies
pointed out thus far) was that Judy said she threw a Southern Comfort bottle in the pond by
the power plant. They dredged the pond and found no bottle. (cite)

                i.     Nichole Lopatta's Clothing

        In her 8/27/85 statement, Judy "stated that when she looked into the car she saw
NICOLE LOPATTA lying on the back seat with her shorts pulled off and that PHILLIPS was
rubbing his hands al1over the child's body .... WALTERS continued that during this period,
PHILLIPS had pushed the little girl's shirt up around her head and continued to rub the child's
nearly nude body.' (App.2, _ p. 6-7) There is no mention of a swimsuit in any of the
statements.
        Jodee Lopatta, in an interview, stated that Nichole had her swimming suit under her shirt
and skirt when she left her at 4:30pm. (App. _, p. 16 of transcript of interview, in DA's file)

                 J.     Pornography

        Judy stated that John placed a Penthouse magazine and some pornographic literature near
Lopatta's body. App. 2-G. The fingerprints found on the literature and magazine do not match
John Wille or Judy Walters. App. 18, 24.

        4.     INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES

a. Inconsistencies Internal to the Confessions of  John Wille
        From the time he was arrested on August 6, 1985, John Francis Wille denied involvement
in the Lopatta/Phillips murders.  He continued to do so for almost three weeks even though he
was interrogated on numerous occasions and had implicated himself in other crimes. Finally, on
August 27, 1985, John provided his only confessions to these murders.  Despite being provided
within hours of each other, these confessions contain gross inconsistencies and contradictions.
        In a statement given prior to the taped confessions, John not only denies any knowledge of the LoPatta/Phillips murders but also recants his previous statements about murdering other people.  John acknowledges that he likes to "bullshit" law enforcement officers and states that he really has not killed anyone at all.   In response, John is informed that Judy Walters has already implicated him and while there is, as yet, no physical evidence against him, he and Judy have been positively identified.  The report then notes that "Wills furnished the following information" but fails to describe what exactly transpired to move John from denial of any knowledge of the murders to implicating himself and Judy Walters in them. App. 1-G.
Following this, John provided two taped statements implicating himself, Judy Walters, and ultimately
Sheila Walters as well.
        In his first statement, John explains that he and Judy took Judy's daughter, Sheila Walters, to
the hospital on the evening of June 1, 1985.  Sheila was treated and released. John and Judy then
dropped Sheila off at their neighbor's, Jane Wells, and proceeded to Louisiana. App. 1-G. Shortly
thereafter, in his first taped statement, John states that after Sheila was released from the hospital,
they put her in the back seat, went to Pensacola and then decided to go to New Orleans. App. 1-H
He is not even asked why he failed to include Sheila in his first statement.
        John makes no mention of any sexual assault of Nichole Lopatta during his first statement. App.
1-G  Then, in his first taped statement, John describes how Billy Phillips tried to rape both Sheila
Walters and Nichole Lopatta in the back seat of the car while John was driving and finally raped
Nichole Lopatta when they stopped the car.  Three times John denied sexual contact with Nichole.
App. 1-H  At the conclusion of this tape, in an interrogation that is conveniently not recorded, John
is informed that Judy has made a full statement implicating John in both the sexual assault and murder
of Nichole Lopatta.  He is also shown enlarged color photographs of Nichole Lopatta;
  including a photograph depicting her on the autopsy table and a photograph of her lower torso
(including her vagina and rectum)t App. 1-G  Thereafter, in his second taped statement and at
the prompting of his interrogators, John indicates that he, along with Billy Phillips, raped Nichole
Lopatta in the woods. App. 1-I  A conveniently unrecorded addendum to this second taped
statement alleges that Johm expanded on his account of his participation in the rape of Nichole
Lopatta. (App. 1- )  John's recounting of the murder of Nichole Lopatta is equally inconsistent.
In his first statement, John describes how Billy Phillips took Nichole Lopatta into the woods, he
heard some screams, and 10 to 15 minutes later Billy returned dragging Nichole by the leg.
Nichole was dead.  While John did not witness the murder, when he looked at Nichole's body,
She was mutilated around the groin and face. App. 1-G  Shortly thereafter, in his first taped
statement, John first says that Billy killed Nichole by raping her.  After being told that raping
does not kill, he reports that Billy "stabbed her because she kept yelling., App. 1-H  After this
statement is concluded, but before the next one begins, John is interrogated. After being told that
Judy is making a full statement implicating John in Nichole's death, John is shown "large color"
photographs of Nichole Lopatta; including one depicting Nichole's body as it appeared on the
autopsy table and one depicting Nichole's lower torso, including her vagina and rectum. Despite
this, John is even less certain of how Nichole died in his second taped statement. First John
states that he is not too sure about how Nichole Lopatta died, says he did not cause her death
but that maybe he could have and not remembered. When asked how he thinks Nichole died,
John tells them that Billy "cut her, stabbed her, I don"t know."  Finally, John says he "smothered
her to get her out of her misery. and that he smothered her until she passed out and then
choked her. App. 1-I.
        In his first account of the murder of Billy Phillips, John states that both he and Billy had
knives, though John's was six inches longer than Billy's.  John "pulled out his kitchen knife
and was throwing his knife back and forth in each of his hands in a "rumble, fighting fashion."
When Billy came at John, John stabbed him in the gut and a lot of blood squirted out.  John stabbed Billy repeatedly then went to look for his hacksaw, which he used to cut one of Billy's hands off; he is not sure which one. John threw Billy's hand into some water he believed to be Lake Pontchartrain and subsequently threw his body into the samebody of water.  App. 1-G.  John's next account is in his first taped statement.  Both John and Billy had knives and when Billy went for John, John stabbed him. With his first stab, John "tried cutting his nuts off because of what he had done.
App.1-H.  Then, John kept stabbing Billy. When John went to get his hacksaw, Judy stabbed
Billy for "fucking with Sheila."  John cut Billy's hand off, though he is not certain if he cut
the whole hand off or parts of it and they may have done something to the other hand
but he is not sure.  John says he threw Billy's hand in the backseat on a bunch of paper,
not in Lake Pontchartrain.  In his final account, in his second taped statement, John makes no
mention of Billy having a knife.  John knocked Billy on the ground, sat on him, and just kept
stabbing.  Then John tried to"cut his prodicals off."  They were sliced but were not cut off all the
way.  John got his hacksaw from the trunk and cut Billy's hand off.  He wrapped Billy's hand in some
newspaper and then put it in the car on the back floorboard.  App. 1-I.  In both taped statements,
John reported disposing of the hand at Popeye's, not Lake Pontchartrain.
        John initially stated that he left Nichole's body where Billy had killed her; off Frenier Road near
Lake Pontchartrain.  He also stated that he threw Billy Phillips body into what he believed to be
Lake Pontchartrain.  App. 1-G.  When told that was not where the bodies were found,  John
"admitted" this was where they were killed but they were actually dumped in wooded areas between
Highway 51 and I-55.  There is no mention of how the bodies were moved or of dumping Billy's
body in water. App. 1-G.

Next, in his first taped statement, John states that he put both bodies in the car. He put one in
the trunk and one in the back seat but is not sure which one went where. Judy helped carry
Billy,s body (though he first denied this because he was "muscular to do it" himself) and it was
not covered or placed in anything.  App. 1-O.  Judy and John dumped Billy's body off of a
bridge. John then dumped Nichole's body in a wooded area near Billy's body so she would be
found.  App. 1-H.  John provided more detail in his final statement. He and Judy put Billy's
body in the trunk (though he again expresses some uncertainty about this) and John put
Nichole's body in the back seat. John got on1-55 and stopped a few times to find a place to
dump Billy's body. They stopped on the left side and John dumped his body over the edge and
into the water. John got back on 51 and headed toward LaPlace. He pulled over and carried
Nichole's body into the woods. He put her face down with her hands crossed in front.  John
and Judy had sex there. App. 1-I.
        John makes no mention of what happens to any of Nichole or Billy's clothing in his first
statement. Then, in his first taped statement, John says that Judy threw Billy and Nichole's
clothes out on the side of the road because John told her to.  He thinks she did this on 51.
App. 1-H.  In his final statement, however, John states that he, and not Judy, threw some
clothes out of the car and he is not sure if he did it near where they left Nichole's body or
later. App. 1-I.
        John's first statement concludes after reporting what he did with the bodies. In his first
taped statement, John says that after dumping the bodies, they rode around New Orleans a
while and then stopped at Popeye's.  Judy went in and ordered and then John went in and got
some bags. John was waited on by a "white girl".26  John dismantled the hacksaw and put it
and the knife ina bag. He also put Billy's hand in a bag. Judy may have picked this bag up and
looked at it. John then threw these bags away.
______________________

26Debra Davis, the Popeye's employee who testified at trial, is African American.


When they left Popeye's, it was around closing time (between10:30 and 12:30) and they then drove
back to Florida. App. 1-G.  In his second taped statement, John stated that after dumping the
bodies, they stopped at the Ecol gas station at 51 & 1-10, where John and Judy changed clothes
and washed up.  After this, they went to Popeye's, near 1-10.  While Judy went in and ordered,
John got all the evidence together. John then went in, was waited on by a young white girl, and got
some bags.  John put the knife, the hacksaw and the hand in the bags and threw them away outside.
App. 1-I.  They then returned to Florida. After returning to Florida, according to his first taped
statement, John took the rug out of the car and cleaned the car up. It had a lot of blood in it. He did
not remember any blood on the back seat. John scrubbed the car out and then put it back together.
(App. 1-G.  This is not mentioned in either of his otherstatements.

                b.     Inconsistencies Internal to the Confessions of Judith Walters

        Judy Walters made numerous statements regarding the Lopatta/Phillips murders.  In at least six
statements made from August 10, 1985 through August 26, 1985, Judy consistently said that she
and John left Florida on May 31, 1985.  App. 2 - E to O.  It was not until August 26, 1985, that
Chief Fields of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office reported that their investigation revealed that on
the evening of Saturday, June 1, :1985, Judy had taken her daughter Sheila to the hospital in Milton,
Florida.  In response and ,after much thought", Judy said "she remembered this and that Sheila had
bronchitis.  She further "stated that she is confused as she cannot include this event with the same
weekend they went to New Orleans, Louisiana." App.c2-0  It was not until August 27th that Judy
was able to include this information with confessing to the Lopatta/Phillips murders. On both August
27 and August 28, Judy stated that on June 1, she and John Wille took her daughter, Sheila, to the
hospital in Milton, Florida.  Sheila was treated and released at about 9:30 or 10:00pm.27
They left the hospital, went to Pensacola and then to New Orleans. App. 2-P,
Q.  This eliminated more than 30 hours of activity reported in Judy's previous confessions,
which had been provided over the course of two weeks and had remained consistent as to
when they departed Milton, Florida. This was never seriously explored or explained. In addition,
for the first time, Sheila was present throughout.

        During interrogation on August 15, 1985, a photographic lineup is displayed and Judy is
asked to identify the hitchhiker she and John picked up in Slidell. Judy, "after carefully viewing
each photograph" was unable to make a positive identification.  Instead, Judy picked out two
photographs and said both of them resembled the hitchhiker.  After further questioning and
examination, Judy said that the man in photo # 5 most closely resembled the hitchhiker and the
man in photo # 1 was the next closest.  App. 2-I.  On August 27, 1985, it is reported that
Judy identified the hitchhiker "through photographic display as one Billy Phillips".  It is not clear
whether this is a photo lineup or simply a photo of Billy.  App.2-P.  Then, on August 28,
1985, Judy is shown only a picture of Billy Phillips and states that he is indeed the hitchhiker.
App.2-Q.
        From August 10 through August 15, Judy Walters gave at least three statements in which
John Wille left her on the side of the road on Highway 51, near LaPlace and drove off with
Billy Phillips and Nichole Lopatta.  He was gone for about an hour and a half and returned
alone.  John then took Judy to the body of Billy Phillips after which he took her to the body
of Nichole Lopatta.  According to these statements, she did not witness the rape of Nichole
Lopatta or the murders of Nichole Lopatta and Billy Phillips. App. 2-F, G, I.
        Beginning on August 18, 1985, after being told she failed a polygraph, Judy began to give
statements indicating that she, in
________________

27 According to the hospital records documenting thisTreatment, Sheila, in fact, was not released until 11:08 p.m.


fact, witnessed the rape and murder of Nichole Lopatta and the murder of Billy PhilliPs.  In addition,
she said she also stabbed Billy Phillips after John stabbed him numerous times.  App. 2-K.  Judy began
giving statements which, in essence, said that the information previously provided for a certain portion
of the statement is still basically true and correct but she has recalled something additional. Judy
provides this recalled information and then says everything after that is still true and correct. None of
these statements were recorded. On August 18, 1985,

                    Walters stated that information she had provided, regarding John Francis Wille
                    and herself to SA's of the FBI, Olen Victor Harvey and Joseph S. Hummel on
                    August 12, 1985, is basically true and correct. Walters stated that she did omit a
                    certain amount of direct information regarding the abduction, rape and murder of
                    Nichole Michelle Lopatta and the murder of the hitchhiker know to her now as
                    Billy Aden Phillips.  Walters furnished the following information which she had
                    omitted in her previous interview with the FBI on August 12, 1985:

App. 2-K.   After Judy embellishes earlier statements the record notes "Walters state that the rest of
the information that she had provided to Agents on August 12, 1985, is basically true andcorrect to the
best of her knowledge." App. 2-K. In Judy's August 21, 1985 statement, this pattern is repeated
several times. Again, this statement is not recorded.
        On August 26, 1985, Judy provides yet another statement stating that

                    everything she provided in her last statement to the FBI and investigators on
                    August 21, 1985, is still basically true and correct. WALTERS stated that she has
                    been thinking about this matter, and more memories have returned to her.  WALTERS
                    furnished the following additional information:

App. 2-0.  Again, this statement is not recorded and it simply reports the "additional information" that
Judy provided.
        On 8/28/85 Judy finally provides a tape recorded statement.  This statement is nearly six hours
long.  App. 2-Q.  As discussed above, it is replete with leading questions.
        In her early statements, Judy describes drinking and passing out for a significant portion of the
time she is discussing. On 8/28/85, when Judy begins to describe the rape of Nichole Lopatta
by Billy Phillips, she is asked whether anyone has been drinking.  Judy states that both she and
John are sober while this is going on.  App. 2-O.

        5.     INCONSISTENCIES AMONG THE CONFESSIONS

        Examples of inconsistent details among the statements of John Wille, Judy Walters, and
Sheila, conclusively illustrate that the law enforcement officers who participated in several
interrogations must have been aware that the subjects were not telling the same story.  A list,
though far from exhaustive, would include the following.
        Judy did not consistently confess to any one version of events and, in fact, in her first three
statements, she denied witnessing any sexual assault of Nichole Lopatta. However, when Judy
included the rape in her confession she alleged that Nichole was raped in the back of the car and
not in the woods as John stated.
        According to Sheila, Billy was driving (she is the only one to ever report that Billy drove the
car at any time) when John began to hit Nichole on her face and elsewhere because she was
crying and wanted to go home.
        John provided varying accounts of how Nichole Lopatta died.  He first says Billy killed her
and, though he didn't see it, when he looked at the body, she was mutilated around the groin and
face. App. 1-H.  In his next statement, John says that Billy stabbed Nichole because she kept
yelling.  App. 1-I.  Finally, in his third and final statement, he says he is not sure how Nichole
died and he could have done it and not remembered but he thinks Billy stabbed her. Then he says
Billy smothered her, hit her and kicked her. Finally, he says "I smothered her to get her out of her
misery."  He smothered her until she passed out and then choked her. This was done outside of
the car, in the woods, where she was raped.
        Judy stated that first Billy hit Nichole, causing her mouth to bleed.  Then, John hit Nichole
hard in the face and blood gushed from her mouth.  John then choked Nichole with his right hand, until her arm twitched and her eyes opened.  This all happened in the back seat of the car while Judy was on the passenger side floorboard and Sheila was in the front seat sleeping or passed out. App. 2-Q.
        According to Sheila, John strangled Nichole while he was having sex with her and Billy was
having sex with him.  This happened in the back seat of the car while Sheila was on the
passenger side floorboard and Judy was on the driver side floorboard. Nichole was bruised but she
was not bleeding.  (App.3 )
        Even after prompting and leading questions, John makes no mention of a sleeping bag in any
of his statements.  App. 1  When Judy mentions the sleeping bag for the first time she says John
laid a sleeping bag on the ground and he and Judy began to make love. App. 2-N. Billy walks up,
goes back to the car and returns with Nichole's body. Billy lays Nichole's body on the sleeping
bag next to Judy and begins to have sex with the body.  John watches and then lights a
cigarette.  From the light of the cigarette lighter, Judy sees that the sleeping bag is covered with
blood.
        Only Sheila states that after killing Nichole they drive to a bar in Manchac.  She says that
she and Billy walk off on the pier and Billy talks her into having sex with him. They then drive
down a dark road and John puts out a sleeping bag.  Billy and Sheila, not Nichole, have sex on
the sleeping bag next to John and Judy.  Sheila and Billy have sex twice more. App. 3-B.
        In his first statement, John stated that when Billy came at John with a knife, John stabbed
him in the gut.  John cut one of Billy's hands off with a hacksaw (he is not sure which) and
threw it into Lake Pontchartrain.  He did not mention Billy's penis and he made no mention of
Judy or Sheila stabbing Billy.  App. 1-H.  In his second statement, John said that after killing
Nichole, Billy "went at" Judy and Sheila.  John had a knife as did Billy. With his first stab, John
"tried cutting his nuts off because of what he had done."
Judy stabbed Billy several times. John did not force her to do this. John used
the hacksaw to cut one of :Billy's hands off, though he is not certain if he cut off all or part of
the hand and he may have done something to the other hand as well. Sheila was in the car
crying. In his final account, John makes no mention of Billy having a knife. John first knocked
Billy to the ground and then stabbed him. Judy also stabbed Billy. App. i - I.
        In her first three statements Judy was not present during the murder of Billy Phillips and
therefore could not have stabbed 'him. On August 18, Judy stated that John struck Billy in the
chest area with a knife and blood squirted all over the place.  John severed Billy's penis. John also
forced Judy to stab Billy.  App. 2-K.  On August 28, Judy stated that after having sex on the
sleeping bag, Billy took Nichole's body back to the car. When hereturned, John and Judy were
arguing. Billy came up, possibly to hit John, and John took something out of his pocket. He hit
Billy in the stomach and blood squirted everywhere. John had along knife. Billy fell to the ground
and John kept stabbing him.  Billy tried to fight back but then stopped and John still kept stabbing
him. John cut Billy's penis off and then pushed Judy's head into the groin area. After Judy picked
up the knife, John forced her to stab Billy. John picked up a saw and cut Billy's hand off. Sheila
was in the car while this happened and, thus, in no way participated. App. 2-M. Nowhere does
Judy mention Billy ever having a knife.

According to Sheila, after she and Billy have sex on the sleeping bag, Billy said he wanted to
have sex with Judy. John and Billy began fighting because of this. John had the knife that he
always carried with him, a folding buck knife. Billy did not have a knife. John stabbed Billy
repeatedly. When Billy fell on the ground, John sat on him & kept stabbing. John handed Judy the
knife and she stabbed him. John then looked at Sheila so she stabbed him too, for what he did to
Nichole and for making her have sex with him. She probably stabbed him more than ten times.
  Billy was dead when John got through with him. Sheila makes no mention of Billy's hand or penis
being cut off or mutilated.  John had sex with Billy's dead body. App. 3-B.
        In his first statement, John initially indicated that he left Nichole's body where she was
murdered and he threw Billy's body into what he believed to be Lake Pontchartrain. He then said
he dumped them both between 51 and 1-55 but provided no further detail. App. 1-H. In his next
two statements, he and Judy carried Billy's body to the car. They did not put it in anything or
cover it with anything. They either put Billy's body in the trunk or the backseat, John is not
completely sure which.  Nichole's body was in the back seat or in the trunk. They went over the
bridge on 1-55 towards Hammond. John stopped a few times, looking for a spot that wasn't too
shallow. He stopped on the left side of the highway and dumped the body over the bridge.  He
dumped the body over the bridge and into the water by himself.  John then got back on 51 south
toward LaPlace and found a "reasonable spot" to leave Nichole. He carried her into the woods
and Judy followed him. John put Nichole face down with her hands crossed in front. He did not
put anything over the body.  In his final statement, but not previously, John stated that John and
Judy had sex there and then left. App. 1-I. Sheila remained in the car.
        In her first three statements, Judy said that she was not present during the murders and John
simply showed her the bodies, so there is no detail on disposing of them. (App. 2 - ) On August
18, 1985 Judy reported hearing a splash and then there is no further mention of Billy's body. App.
2- K.  On August 21,1985, Judy stated that Billy was killed on the sleeping bag and they zipped it
up around him. App. 2-L. On August 28, Judy added to this and stated that no part of his body
was sticking out. Even FBI agent Vic Harvey commented that was a "pretty good trick."  Judy
and John carried his body to the car and placed it in the back seat on top of Nichole's body.
They drove on 55 toward Manchac. John stopped three times. The last time he pulled
off to the right. Judy and John pulled Billy's body out of the car, crossed the highway and rested
the body on the bridge. They unzipped the sleeping bag and dumped Billy's body over the left side
of the bridge into the water. They put the sleeping bag in the trunk of the car. Then, they got on
to 51 South.  John pulled over and got Nichole's body out, while Judy talked to Sheila to distract
her.  John came back and dragged Judy by the hair to the body. He told Sheila to stay in the
car.  Judy tripped and fell on Nichole's body.  John took his clothes off, raped the body, and
pulled Judy across Nichole's body.  They got 'dressed, went back to the car and Sheila was
smoking.  Judy told Sheila they had taken Nichole home. (App. 2 - )
        Sheila said that Judy and John carried the sleeping bag back to the car with Billy's body in
it. They put Billy in the backseat.  A little ways down the road, John got out of the car and took
Nichole's body out of the trunk.  John and Judy walked away and Sheila followed them.  John
had sex with Nichole and made Judy have sex with Nichole too.  John did not make Sheila do
anything.  Sheila went back to the car.  Judy and John came back to the car about fifteen
minutes later but Sheila thinks they left the body there. Sheila is not sure what happened to Billy's
body. She remembers it being in the back seat but knows it was gone before they got back
because she moved to the back seat some where between Alabama and Mississippi and the body
was not there. App. 3-B.
        In his first statement, John makes no mention of Popeye's.  In his third statement, John said
they went to Popeye's in the Metairie or Kenner area. It was around closing time. Judy went in,
Sheila stayed in the car, and John began getting "the evidence together." John went in and got two
to three bags. He was waited on by a young white girl. John put the knife, the hacksaw and the
hand in the bags. Judy may have looked in one of the bags and seen the hand because she got
sick later. John did not show the bag to her. John threw the bags away outside.

According to Judy they went to Popeye's on Williams Boulevard, it was ready to close. John forced Judy to go into Popeye's with him. She does not remember who waited on them but then says it was a black female. John got two bags and threw a blood saturated bag away inside.  John put the penis in a bag to play a joke on Judy. He told  her it was chicken. She opened the bag and what she thought was the penis rolled on her lap. It  was skin and what looked like fingers but no hand. sheila saw the bag but stayed quiet. John  threw the bag away inside. Because they were closing, the girl working had to let him in so she  had to see this.  John wiped his hands and got back in the car.
        Sheila fell asleep after Judy and John put Billy's body in the car. She woke up at some
Popeye's, but doesn't know where it was, it was kind of in the city. She does not know if Billy's
body was still in the back seat. John went into Popeye's and came back with some bags. He
handed Judy something in a bag and Judy screamed. John was laughing. Sheila looked in the bag
and saw something bloody. Sheila states that they did not stop anywhere before they got to
Popeye's to change clothes or cleanup. Sheila had blood on her hands but wiped it off. Judy had
blood on her shirt but did not change it. Sheila does not know what happened to the sleeping bag
or knife.

        6.     EVIDENCE OF "LOST" STATEMENTS/CONFESSIONS

        The reports of Drs. Gudjonnson and MacKeith, discussed in section above, explain why it is
essential to have documentation on every interrogation. In this case, there are numerous references
to interrogations for which no documentation has been made available. Absence of such
documentation hinders any attempt to evaluate the reliability of the confessions provided by John
Wille, Judy Walters and Sheila Walters. The following list is illustrative of the references to "lost"
statements but is by no means exhaustive.
                a. John Francis Wille
1.    8/27/85 FBI 302 After the interrogation is completed (pre-tapes), the report notes that
       Bobby Hay and Lloyd Johnson interrogated John. No documentation of this interrogation has been made available. App. 1-G.

2.  8/27/85 FBI 302:   After Hay and Johnson (1 above) concluded their interview, Scott and
     Fields joined them and they continued to interview John. No documentation of this
     interrogation has been made available. Upon its completion, John Francis allegedly offered
     to give a taped statement.  App. 1-G.

                    b.     Judith C. Walters

1.     8/10/85 11:00pm:   LARRY BRYANT-"Judith, we have talked with you about this prior
        to this statement and we'll just go back over it in the detail as you told us earlier and I
        guess the best place to start is where you were at ..."App. 2-G.  This is the first state-
        ment we have on the Lopatta/Phillips murders.

2.     8/10/85 11:00pm:     LARRY BRYANT-"He came and he set on the ground there by you,
        this is some, I'm relaying this to field notes that I took when we were talking earlier and if
        I'm incorrect on some of it, you let me know.  It says he came back and he set down on
        the ground I asked him where was the little girl and the man and he got mad."  App. 2-G

3.     8/18/85 FBI 302:    WALTERS stated that information she had provided, regarding John
        Francis Wille and herself to SA's of the FBI, Olen Victor Harvey and Joseph S. Hummel
        on August 12, 1985, is basically true and correct .... Walters furnished the following
         information which she had omitted in her previous interview with the FBI on August 12,
        1985.
 
 

4.      8/28/85 11:50am:   VH-"Ah, what I'm a show you right now Judy is a photograph that
         I have previously shown you as a matter of fact I showed it to you on ah eight eleven
         of 85 here in Milton, Florida .... is this his little girl that got in the back seat of the car?"
         The 8/11 report has not been made available, App. 2-Q.

                    c.     Sheila Walters

1.        9/3/85 6:09pm:  VH-"Okay let me, let me address that on tape it's a good point. We have
        questioned the persons present, have questioned Sheila as a witness in this matter and it is
        not the Federal Bureau of Investigations intent to prosecute.  Sheila in this matter, to treat
        her as a witness to the crimes we're a fixing to talk about, that is also my understanding from
        the Parishes represented here which are St. John the Baptist, is that correct Detective Hay"
        RH-"That'scorrect"  VH-"And ah Detective Woods is that correct for Jefferson Parish?"
        BW-"That's correct. Right now we are interviewing Sheila as a possible witness based on
        information that was given to us through her, her mother and that's why we're here now and
        that's why we have been talking with Sheila." (p.5)  No documentation of this previous
        interrogation of Sheila Walters has been made available. App. 3-B.

2.     9/3/85 6:09pm:   VH-"Okay Sheila we especially want you to forget everybody is in this
        room and talk to me and Patty like we did before alright, okay Saturday June 2nd 1985,
        you'd been absent from school in Melton Florida for a coupleof days, is that correct." (p.6)
        No documentation of this previous interrogation has been made available. App. 3-B.

                    C.     Evaluationof the Conditions of Custodial Interrogation

        The preceding analysis is an attempt to summarize and highlight a voluminous amount of
information, the various theoretical models for evaluating the reliability and voluntariness of specific
confessions. The work of Drs. Gudjonsson and MacKeith, supplemented by the consultation with Dr.
Dutton and the investigation into the individuals' family and personal histories, focuses on the people
who confessed. They look to describe, verify, and test any pre-existing vulnerable qualities which may
affect the likelihood that a suspect will give a false confession. Dr. Ofshe's theoretical model shifts the focus somewhat, to a  concentration on the interaction between the interrogator and the suspect. The analysis in section B, above, gives examples of data within the taped or reported statements that is useful to a determination of the truthfulness or falsity of the confession.
        Among the types of interrogation techniques that appear to increase the likelihood of
coerced-internalized false confessions, according to Dr. Ofshe, are the following:
        lengthy interrogation and considerable emotional intensity;
        the suspect is isolated from people who would contradict
        the interrogators premise of guilt;
        the interrogator repeatedly states his belief in the suspect's guilt;
Ofshe, supra, quoted in Gudjonsson.
        What follows in this section are illustrative examples of some of the conditions of
interrogation that might have impacted the reliability and voluntariness of the confessions given by
Judy Walters and John Wille.28  Descriptions of the coercive conditions of custody can be found
in App. 32, 33, 34.  The examples listed below are just that: examples only. An evidentiary hearing
is required to substantiate and discover additional circumstances of their incarceration and
interrogation.
        1.  Drugs.  Both Judy Walters and John Wille were given mood-altering and mind-affecting
drugs while they were being questioned and pressured to confess. 28 John was given daily

        28This section will deal only with Mr. Wille and Ms. Walters, since the third person, Sheila Walters,
was not incustody when she was interrogated. The description of theinterrogative conditions which applied
to her is fully given inher App. 44 and confirmed in App. 45. Of course, as Drs. MacKeith and Gudjonsson both
point out, her age at the time ofthe confession - only 14 years old - and the absence of areliable adult during her
lengthy questioning are the two mostsignificant facts relevant to the external conditions of herinterrogation.

        29There is more evidence of Judy's medication than John'sbecause John Wille was incarcerated in Escambia
County Jail fromAugust 13, 1985 until he was moved to Lake Butler Prison. App. 16.   Many of the Escambia
County jail records have yet to be


  doses of Librium and Thorazine; he was also prescribed Elavil and Atarax, although the records are
incomplete as to how often and how much.  The Thorazine was a daily dosage of 100 mg.; sometimes
he got 100mg from Escambia jail medical personnel and another 75 mg. from Santa Rosa County jail.
See records for 8/30/85,  App.16, 19.  John stated he felt much better when he stopped taking the
drugs.  App. 19, 16, 33.  Thorazine, a powerful anti-psychotic medication widely used for the treatment
of schizophrenia; it is an indefensible proposition for the authorities to argue that he was suicidal and
psychotic but his bizarre confessions are perfectly trustworthy accounts.
        Judy had been treated in-patient for substance abuse that year. App. 34. She received so much
medication in the jail that a mental health worker, Susan Lightfoot, became concerned and asked that
the jail doctor, Dr. Thames, consider reducing her medication.  App. 56.  The prescriptions written for
her included Inderal, Placidyl, Loracet Plus, Elavil, Thorazine, Macrodantin, Phenergan, and Benadryl.
The synergistic effects of the confirmed medication prescribed for Judy Walters will be discussed in
Dr. Ferrare's report.  App. 12.  The jail doctor, Dr. Thames, was well known for freely prescribing
pain and anti-anxiety medication.  App. 49, 48, 52, 53.  Judy reports that she
was given injections as well.  App. 6, 34.  She also wrote that the coffee she was drinking in
interrogations tasted very bitter to her, and she seemed to feel odd when she drank it. Her friend
and fellow-inmate warned her that something was wrong.  App. 34,49.  Dr. MacKeith says it is likely
that she was suffering after-effects of the Elavil overdose, as well as withdrawal from alcohol. App.
6.  All of these factors, alone and most certainlyt in combination, would have affected her memory, her
judgment, her sense of reality, her trust in her own beliefs, and her ability to withstand interrogative
pressure.
        2.     Depression and suicide.  John's prescriptions were ostensibly given to him as
anti-depressants; but while taking them he hung himself and very nearly succeeded in dying. John Wille tried to kill himself on September 5, 1985; he is referred to as a suicide risk by the jail medical personnel on 8/8, 8/18, when he is admitted to the infirmary for suicide watch, and 8/23.  App. 19.  Despite this obvious mental instability, he is interrogated at length on 8/8, 8/11, 8/12, 8/20, and 8/27. App. 1-B-F, H, I.
        Judy Walters came to Santa Rosa County jail a scant 48 hoursafter a serious suicide
attempt. App. 20. Every single contemporaneous description of her in jail remarks on her
depression and sadness.

                            I also talked to Judy Walters while she was incarcerated. She seemed to have a
very tough time and would get very emotional attimes, particularly in the evenings.
She was traumatized, I guess by the things she had witnessed. While she was in jail,
she deteriorated mentally.  She would often call for someone to talk to her. She would
sometimes describe the child they had killed, and would cry and be despairing. She
was beside herself, unable to cope with what they had done. She would beg me for
help, she asked someone to help her get rid of her thoughts. I would say she was
crying or very withdrawn and depressed-looking most of the time I saw her.

App. 53. See also App. 48, 49, and numerous references to Judy crying in App. 17. Depression is
listed as a relevant factor in Gudjonsson, passim.
        3.     Isolation and separation from each other. It cannot be disputed that John Wille and
Judy Walters had a mutually dependent relationship.  App. 34, 39, In fact, Drs. OudJonsson and
MacKeith both remark on the difficulty of turning John's attention to the task at hand when he
wished to talk about Judy.  App. 4, 6.  Dr. Dutton speaks of Judy's dependence, probably greater
when she was arrested than now.  App. 11.  The nurses at the Santa Rosa County jail
remembered John and Judy for their constant questioning about each other. App. 52, 48.

John and Judy were very concerned about each other. They would always ask
about the other one.  Ido not remember one single time that I talked to John Wille
that he failed to ask me about Judy Walters, how she was doing and so on. The
walkway to the courthouse passed by the outer door near the women's cells, and
if John was taken to court he would call to her and she
would answer back.  App. 53.
        John wrote to Judy on August 12, a love letter with no reference to their case. App. 33. On
August 13 he was moved to Escambia County jail, explicitly to keep him from communication with
Judy. App. 16, 17, 18. There followed a period of time in which they make constant requests to
be allowed to talk to each other and see each other. App. 16, 17. Through another inmate in
Santa Rosa Judy begins to smuggle letters to John, but not until the confessions are made. App.
49. Their letters are ful1of references to their bewilderment at being suddenly separated.  After
literally dozens of mutual requests to be allowed to see each other, they are granted a 15 minute
meeting with Larry Bryant's "permission,, the day after John signs the Plea agreement in the Powe
murder case.  App. 16.  It is hard to escape the conclusion that it is offered as a reward.
        Rather it seems to be a variation on the standard law enforcement technique of playing one
co-defendant off against the other. In this case Larry Bryant realized that John,s excessive concern
for Judy would give him a way to get to John. Bryants aid as much in a September interview in
which he talks about the techniques he uses to "solve" cases.

                        Bryant said that he was able to get informationfrom Wille because they had
                        established a rapport between them.  "He was willing to talk to me," said Bryant.
                        "We built a rapport for then, but not now.  It lasted until I started talking to her
                        (Walters). She told me more than he did.

                        Asked how he was able to get close to Wille, Bryant replied that "you have to
                        believe that they are a person themself.

                        This is one of the worst cases I've handled because of the eight-year-old, but you
                        have to show them some respect.

I let them think they are somebody even though they have (allegedly) committed a
crime.  I have taken traits from Sheriff (Mauriece) Coffman, and some techniques are
my own.

I like to let that person (being investigated) talk for a while.  Every person has a weak-
ness, and if you let a person talk for a while, you'll find that weakness.

(emphasis supplied) Santa Rosa Press GaZette, 9/19/85.
        3. Sleep deprivation, excessively long interview sessions. Both John
Wills and Judy Walters were interviewed for many hours during the days they
were held in Florida.  Larry Pearson, zformer Chief Deputy, says

                                    I sat in many of the formal interviews of John Wills. Several times I saw
                                    Larry Bryant interviewing John Wills alone.  I also saw him interview
                                    Judy Walters alone. I remember one interrogation in particular in which
                                    Curtis Golden, the State Attorney,and an assistant state attorney were there.
                                    Larry Bryant was questioning John about a murder. There was something
                                    about a candle, and someone being hit with a hammer and killed in a trailer.
                                    Larry Bryant was asking purely leading questions, like "Didn't it happen like
                                    this?  Didn't you do it this way?" He obtained a statement from John, but
                                    afterwards Curtis Golden told Larry Bryant  "We don't have anything here.
                                    We can't use this." It was my firm impression that Mr. Golden said that because
                                    all the facts in the confession had been suggested to John Wills by Larry Bryant.

                                    Bryant wasa zealous investigator, however, he would often times cut corners.
                                    It was characteristic of Bryant to spend a few hours with a suspect alone,and
                                    then call in others to observe a taped statement being made. I knew that one
                                    of Bryant's techniques was to tell individuals details of a crime prior to that
                                    person giving a detailed statement. I know for a fact that Bryant coerced some
                                    individuals into giving statements, and believe that at times these statements
                                    were not totally a product of the individual's independent recall.

App 47. The hours recorded in John Wille's taped statements alone reveal
extensive questioning:  on August 8, he gives astatement in the morning
beginning at 9:50 am; his last statementof the day is recorded at 10:37 pm.
App. 1-C.
        Every description of Judy refers to her tiredness. Jon Swartzfager,
her daughter's lawyer, says she looked like a "zombie". App. 36.

                                        I remember Judy Walters only from seeing her in the halls on the way to
                                        Investigations.  She was a basketcase - it seemed like it was all she could
                                        do to stand up.  She walked very slowly and had a pallor.  It seemed like
                                        she was on her last legs.  You could tell she had been through something
                                        terrible.  Inparticular, I remember one time she was being questioned and
                                        she looked exhausted and worn out; she was begging Bryant for a rest,
                                        stating, "Please let me sleep."
App. 47.
        4. Photographs. The law enforcement officers repeatedly showed John
Wills and Judy Walters the dreadful forensic photographs of Nichole Lopatta's dead, partially decomposed body; they showed them the pictures of Billy Phillips, who had been in the swamp water so long his hair had sloughed off and his body had bloated grotesquely.  App. 34, 4, 6, 49,24.  They showed these pictures to Sheila Walters on September 3, when Sheila was, only 14 years old. App. 44.
        Judy Walters remembers the photographs as perhaps the worst part. "I think the very worst
of it were the pictures. He showed me so many pictures of the little girl who was killed in
Louisiana that I wanted to die. He said that they couldn't bury her until I confessed everything.
He said I just forgot what we had done because I had to block it out, it was so bad, and once I
told them it would be better." App. 34.
        John Wille is actually made to touch the photograph, a version of some sort of medieval test
of guilt.

                        SA SCOTT asked Detective HAYS to take LOPATTA's large color photograph and place
                        it on the table in front of WILLE. After Detective HAYS had done so, Detective HAYS
                        asked WILLE to place his right hand on LOPATTA's photograph and WILLE voluntarily
                        did so.
                        WILLE was asked to give a full and true account of the abduction, sexual assault and death
                        of LOPATTA.  WILLE appeared to be thinking and was silent. SA SCOTT produced a large
                        color photograph of LOPATTA's body a sit appeared on an autopsy table in the Orleans
                        Parish Coroner Autopsy Room.  Additionally Chief FIELDS produced a second large color
                        autopsy photograph depicting LOPATTO's lower torso; including her vagina and rectum.
                        After some thought and consideration WILLE stated that he had not told the entire truth
                        but (sic) his role in the little girl's abduction, rape and death.  WILLE stated that he was now
                        ready to provide acompletely truthful tape recorded statement.

app. 1-G.

                  5. Physical abuse.  Judy Walters and John Wille allege they were struck and beaten by
Larry Bryant. App. 32, 34, 4, 6.  Billy Walters, Judy's son, says that he was struck once or twice
by Larry Bryant, and that he was handcuffed even though he was only 11 years old and not
suspected or charged with any crime.  Billy saw bruises on his mother, and remembers her face
being reddened and her eyes swollen.  App. 43.  Jon Swartzfager, an experienced attorney from
Mississippi, visited Judy Walters in the course of representing her daughter Sheila.  He remembers
her
                                                         ( Page 93 missing )


affecting the jail and law enforcement personnel who had custody of John Wille and Judy Walters.

        The relevance is this:  Walters and Wille allege serious misconduct by police officers charged
to uphold the law, not abuse it, to coerce false confessions and glorify themselves.
Those charges of misconduct must be heard more seriously when,only a few short years after
they are made, similar acts of malfeasance are charged and proven against the same officers.
        Connie Stokes, 17 years old when arrested by the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Department
and questioned in a murder, alleged that her confession was involuntarily obtained after coercive
questioning, some of it by none other than Larry Bryant.  App. 60.  Her conviction was reversed
on the grounds that the confession should have been suppressed. Stokes v Florida, 541 So.2d 642
(Fla. App. 1989).  The decision specifically notes that
inculpatory information was elicited by Larry Bryant while he was transporting Stokes somewhere,
as he "elicited" from John Wille the confession to murdering Powe while transporting him to
Escambia. App. 18.
        The sexual misconduct in Santa Rosa County jail does not require an affidavit from Connie
Stokes for verification. Four deputies were fired for engaging in sex with an underage inmateor
for covering up sex between inmates and guards.

                    There was also a problem in 1985 when it was discovered that some of the correction
              officers had been having sex with inmates. I personally witnessed a male and a female
              correction officer emerging from a closed bathroom, and the rumor was that they were
              having sex at the jail.  It seemed that what would happen after one of these scandals is
              that a few officers would be "sacrificed", even though everybody knew about what was
              going on.
                    Katie Burton and June Marshall usually spent their days in the office.  I was out of the
              office on myshift, with the inmates and the corrections officers. There was a real lack of
              self-respect among many of the officers in those days, because of the lax way things were run.

App. 53.

        According to Stokes, Bryant told her father to take her to the Santa Rosa County Hospital,
where she is given an injection of Halcyon. (Judy was first interrogated in the same hospital;
  she too was interrogated after injection'with mood-altering substances.)
Stokes was questioned at length by many deputies,with Larry Bryant in charge,
as was Judy. She was asked leading questions which contained the answers the
interrogators desired,as was Judy Walters. They told her she could not go to
the bathroom when she wanted; they told her she was not a suspect but she
would have to make a taped statement to be released, which is exactly what
Judy was told the day she thought she was filling out forms to get her car, the
day she was arrested. App. 14.
        Stokes also substantiated Bryant's refusal to allow a suspect a
lawyer, and his unorthodox willingness to interview female suspects alone.
She verifies Dr. Thames' readiness to prescribe drugs, and states that for
many months in the Santa Rosa County jail she was very heavily drugged and
unaware of much that was happening. Compare this to the following description
of Walters:

                                I remember one time seeing Judy Walters in the examining room with
                    Dr. Thames.  Larry Bryant was questioning her there. She was talking about
                    one of the murders. Her head was hanging down, and she was answering
                    questions so softly I could barely hear her.  She was also crying. This was only
                    a day or two aftershe was arrested.

App. 52. The jail medical staff permit a female suspect to be questioned by a
male deputy while she is obviously distressed and actually in the examining
room. The evidence that this was a corrupt and degenerate atmosphere, in which
law enforcement officers were permitted or even encouraged to do wrong
themselves, surely bears on the determination of the reliability of the
confessions obtained by the use of these officers'dubious methods.
 

                                 SECTION 4
                            CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

        The following claims are evidenced by any and all facts alleged in
this petition and found in the appendices; they are fully incorporated herein.
Each claim will be proven at an evidentiary hearing. However, because Mr.
Wille has yet to be provided with public documents pertaining to him, his conviction, and numerous other investigations of which he may or may not have been a target, he respectfully
reserves his right to supplement and amend this Petition when such discovery has been
accomplished. Moreover, Mr. Wille reserves the right to present additional evidence in support of
his claims for relief at the evidentiary hearing.

                                  CLAIM l

                        MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL BY THE STATE'S KNOWING USE
                        OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE THAT CREATED A FALSE IMPRESSION IN
                        VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMEND-
                        MENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I SECTIONS
                        2, 5, 13,16, 17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                                  CLAIM 2

                        MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED A FAIR TRIAL BY THE STATE SACTION OF HIDING
                        AND MANUFACTURING EVIDENCE AND FAILING TO REVEAL EXCULPATORY,
                        HELPFUL, AND IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND HIS JUDGMENT OF
                        CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF DEATH IS UNRELIABLE BECAUSE IT WAS
                        RENDERED BY FACT FINDERS WHO WERE DECEIVED OF THE TRUE FACTS IN THIS
                        CASE IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH
                        AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I SECTIONS
                        2, 5, 13, 16, 17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

        Civil trials are fully adversarial in nature; each side attempts to gain an advantage over the
other with the single and foremost goal of victory. In criminal trials, however, because the
government is seeking to take away a citizen's life or liberty, the prosecution's goal, and duty, is
different: he or she must seek justice. This requirement, found in all of the codes of conduct
applicable to the prosecution, stems from the fact that a prosecutor is the representative of a
sovereignty" whose interest ...in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that
justice shall be done .... [i.e.,] guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer." Beroer, 295 U.S. 78, 88
(1935).  Towards that end, and with full recognition of the sometimes competing interests of a
sovereign's advocate, the Court has established the core principles governing the prosecution's
obligation and duties respecting the introduction of false evidence and the suppression of evidence
that is favorable to a defendant. The administration of criminal justice demands that these duties
are honored in order that finders of fact arrive at just and accurate outcomes.

        In the 30 years after Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) (per curiam), the Court
identified the general framework of an area of due process rights now commonly referred to as
the Brady doctrine. Through this series of cases, the Court has uniformly condemned the
prosecution's deliberate presentation of false evidence or evidence that creates a false impression,
the practice of standing mute when false evidence is introduced, and the suppression of evidence
that is favorable or exculpatory to the defense.
        The Mooney Court recognized that due process violation results when "a state has contrived
a conviction...through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony
known to be perjured." Id. at 112. Less than ten years later, the Court would recognize that not
only may the presentation of false evidence present a due process violation, but also the
prosecution's "suppression...of evidence favorable to" an accused citizen. Pvle v. Kansas, 317
U.S. 213 (1942).
        Mooney and Pyle were remanded to the respective state courts for a review in collateral
proceedings. The identification of those rights found in those two cases would soon become
holdings under the due process clause in Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28(1957) (per curiam),
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1958), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
        In Alcorta, the prosecution suppressed information thatwould have greatly benefitted the
defense, encouraged its key witness to not disclose this information on the stand unless directly
asked, and failed to point out to the court and the defense the misleading nature of the witness's
testimony. The suppressed information not only would have "impeached the witness's credibility,"
but it also "tended to corroborate the petitioner's contention that he found his wife embracing" the
witness. Alcorta, 355 U.S. at 31. The Court held that the prosecution's presentation of evidence
that creates a "false impression. and the suppression of evidence that "corroborates"
  the defendant's theory of defense is a violation of due process under the principles enunciated in
Mooney and Pyle. Id. at 31.  The conviction and death sentence were reversed.
        Napue involved a state's witness false testimony regarding whether the witness had entered
into an agreement with the state for his testimony. Noting no difference between a conviction
obtained by false evidence offered by the state from false evidence that goes uncorrected [by
the state] when it appears,"  Napue, 360 U.S. at 268, the Court extended the ruling of holding
that
                            the principle that a State may.not knowingly use false evidence, including false
                            testimony,...does not cease to apply merely because the false testimony goes
                            only to the credibility of the witness. The jury's estimate of the truthfulness and
                            reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, and
                            it is upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in testifying
                            falsely that a defendant'slife or liberty may depend.
Id. at 269.
        In the landmark case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963), the Court erected a
principle of law using the above cases as a foundation. The state suppressed a requested statement
wherein the co-defendant admitted actually killing the victim, not Brady. At trial, Brady claimed
the co-defendant killed the victim.
        "Society wins," stated the Court, "not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal
trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated
unfairly." Brady, 373 U.S. at 88. Thus, any evidence in possession of the prosecution that is
favorable to the defense or that may "tend to exculpate [the defendant] or reduce the penalty"
must be disclosed upon request. As in Berger, supra, the Court noted the special role a
prosecutor plays in the administration of criminal justice:  an "architect" who must assure that
"justice is done its citizens in the courts." 373U.S. at 87. Brady held
that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence to an accused upon
request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt
or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
373 U.S. at 87. (emphasis added).
        The "Brady doctrine" generally encompasses two situations: The prosecution's offering of
evidence that it knew or should have known to be false and the Prosecution's suppression of
evidence favorable to the defense. Evidence which may be used to impeach a state's witness is
considered favorable to the defense and is covered under the Brady doctrine. United States
v.Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). It is because these types of prosecutorial misconduct perverts and
"corrupt(s)...the truth-seeking function of the trial process,"  United States v. Agura,
427 U.S. 97,104 (1976), the Court has uniformly and adamantly denounced such Practices.
        The rule of Brady is quintessetially truth seeking. The rule seeks to "ensure that a
miscarriage of justice does not occur."  United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 (1986). It
takes into consideration the fact that the prosecution possesses enormous resources with which to
prosecute individuals, Often-times, unknown to the defense, the vast resources of the prosecution
develop evidence that may be helpful in assisting the finders of fact  An arriving at a Just and
accurate verdict. An individual's rights to a fair trial requires that the false or suppressed evidence
be disclosed so that a defendant is assured" of the basic right to have the prosecutor's case
encounter and 'survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.'" Crane v. Kentucky, 476
U.S. 683 (1986) quoting Cronic 466 U.S. 648, 656(1984).
        While Bagley redefined the materiality standards for cases involving requests for information,
the Court approved of the Agurs formulation for the test involving the prosecution's use offalse
evidence and of its first pronouncement in Napue.  Agurs stated the well-established rule that a
conviction obtained by the introduction of evidence that prosecution knows or should know to be
false, "must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false evidence could have
affected the Judgment of the jury."  Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103.

        The Bagley Court affirmed this standard by stating that the Agurs language is "a
materiality standard under which the fact that testimony is perjured is considered material unless
failure to disclose it would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 679
(emphasis added). Accord Kirkpatrick v,Whitley, 992 F.2d 491, 497 (CA5 1993) (Napue
standard is"considerably less onerous' than the test announced in Bagley).  The Court further
observed that the 'standard of review applicable to the knowing use of perjured testimony is
equivalent to the Chapman harmless-error standard." Id. at n.9.
        When an individual raises a claim of prosecutorial misconduct under the Brady doctrine, the
inquiry necessarily takes into consideration the reliability of the verdict. The applicable test seeks to
determine whether confidence in the jury's verdict is undermined. In order to prove the due
process violation, a petitioner must show that the prosecution failed todisclose material evidence
which was favorable or exculpatory to the defense. The test for materiality was first announced in
United States v. Agurs, supra, and was later refined in United States v. Bagley, supra.
        Agurs found that the duty recognized in Brady applied to three situations: when the
prosecution offers perjured testimony, when prosecutors fail to disclose material evidence despite a
specific request, and when prosecutors fail to disclose material evidence despite a general request
or no request at all.  In cases involving the suppression of favorable evidence, the Court
distinguished between situations where the defense made a specific request for the evidence from
situations where a general or no request was made. The Court stated that in specific request
cases, the inquiry for materiality is whether the "suppressed evidence might have affected the
outcome of the trial.. Id. at 104. (emphasis added). In general or no request cases, however, a
narrower definition of materiality applied whether the undisclosed evidence would have "create[d]
a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist" as to defendant'sguilt. Id. at 112.
        A decade later, the Bagley Court reformulated the Agurs criterion for materiality in light of
Strickland v. Washinaton, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Court characterized Strickland as a case
involving "undisclosed evidence" highlighting the importance of the fact finders' ability to arrive at a
just result based upon all probative evidence. The Agurs distinctions regarding different requests
was discarded. The plurality held:

                    The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that had
                    the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding
                    would have been different.  A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient
                    to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Bagley, at 683.  The inquiry necessarily seeks to determine "whether there is a reasonable
probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting
guilt." Bagley, at 682 n.13 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 695).

The test is not outcome-determinative. An individual

                    need not show that the [error] more likely than not altered the outcome of the case.
                    The result of the proceeding can be rendered unreliable, and hence the proceeding
                    unfair, even if the [suppression of the evidence] cannot be shown by a preponderance
                    of the evidence to have determined the outcome.

Strictland, 466 U.S. at 693-94. The essence of the inquiry considers whether the constitutional
error caused the verdict to be unreliable or the proceedings unfair rather than a "mere outcome
determination." Lockhart v. Fretwell, _ U.S. ,  _ 113, S.Ct. 838 CITE (1993). Thus: a
petitioner must show that the reliability and integrity of the verdict is questionable.
        A reviewing court is required to assess the possibility that the defendant's ability to subject
the state's case to meaningful adversarial testing and to present evidence in his favor may have
been "adversi[ly] effectl[ed]" due to the suppression. Bagley, 473U.S. at 683.  The reviewing
court must also "assess the possibility that [an adverse] effect might have occurred in light of the
totality of circumstances" paying due respect to the "difficulty" of speculating how the trial would
have evolved absent the suppression.  Id.

                                 CLAIM 3

MR. WILLE'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF DEATH VIOLATES HIS RIGHTS UNDER
THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLEI SECTIONS 2,5, 13, 16,17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA
CONSTITUTION BECAUSE HE IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH
HE WAS CONVICTED

                                 CLAIM  4

MR.WILLE'S WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS
VIOLATED AT THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE PHASE OF HIS TRIAL INVIOLATION OF
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE
SECTIONS 2,5,13,16,17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                                  CLAIM   5
 

MR.WILLE'S WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS
VIOLATED AT THE PENALTY PHASE OF HIS TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE SECTIONS
2,5,13,16,17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

        An accused has the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v.Washinaton,
104S.Ct.2052(1984);  United States v.Cronic, 104S.Ct.2039(1984).
        Under Cronic, when the attorney's performance is deficient because of state interference,
a per se violation of the sixth amendment occurs, and thus, no prejudice need be shown.
         In order to prevail, petitioner must first establish that counsel's performance fell below prevailing
standards of practice--"[t]he proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness
underprevailing professional norms. "Id.  at2065." Prevailing norms of practice as reflected in
American Bar Association standards...are guides to determining what is reasonable....Id.

         Second, under Strictland, a petitioner

        must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional
        errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.  A reasonable probability
        sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.30

Strickland v.Washinaton,104S. Ct. at 2068 (emphasis added).

___________________________________

30 This standard is not the "outcome-determinative standard."Under Strickland's standard," a
defendant need not show that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome of
the case." Strickland, at 2068.


When there is a "breakdown in the adversarial process," the "fundamental fairness of the
proceeding" is implicated. Id. at 2069. Confidence in a decision which is the product a
fundamentally unfair process will rarely, if ever, be achieved.
        The trial court deprived Mr. Wille of the effective assistance of counsel by appointing a
lawyer to represent him as punishment for his federal felony conviction and who had virtually no
trial experience, and by appointing another lawyer who was inexperienced due to his relatively
short career as a licensed member of the bar and who had never been involved in a capital case..
        Mr. Wille's rights to the effective assistance of counsel were violated by counsel's deficient
performance in the following respects:
       -failure to secure the attendance at trial of Dr. Rodriguez, an expert who, like the initial
         impression of the coroner would have testified that Billy Phillips was dead a few days
         before Nichole;
        -failure to secure the attendance at trial of Sandy Becker, who would have placed Mr.
        Wille at her home on the afternoon of June 2d;
      - failure to competently challenge the reliability and voluntariness of Mr. Wille, Ms. Walters,
        and SheilaWalters statements;
       -failure to call Chief Deputy Larry Pearson in the penalty phase;
       -failure to uncover police misconduct;
       -failure to interview and present the testimony of Carly Treadway;
       -failure to made an adequate showing on change of venue motion;
       -failure to request an in camera inspection of the grand jury transcripts;
       -failure to adequately voit dire the jurors;
       -failure to properly present the penalty phase;
       -failure to maintain composure during the trial;
 -failure to show the jury the numerous inconsistencies of Mr.Wille's many statements;
       -failure to present any evidence that Mr. Wille falselyconfessed to other crimes;
     -failure to present any evidenceas to the impossibility that the crime in question could have
         occurred as the state's proof suggested;
        -failure to present any evidence detailing the numerous inconsistencies between Ms.
        Walters, Sheila Walters and Mr.Wille's confessions;
        -failure to employ competent mental health professionals;
        -failure to either withdraw a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity or to present evidence
        of insanity;
        -failure to present evidence showing that a change of venue appropriate;
        -failure to divulge the fact that he was a convicted felon to Mr. Wills and to the jury;
        -failure to challenge Mr. Wille's convictions in Florida;
        -failure to properly and timely object to numerous and prejudicia1 hearsay testimony;
        -failure to independently test the state's evidence;
        -failure to subject the state's case to meaningful adversarial testing;
        -failure to properly investigate the case.

These are listed as examples only. The record contains numerous instances of ineffective
performance which will be fully developed at an evidentiary hearing. Other instances of ineffective
assistance of counsel cannot yet be determined based upon the absence disclosure of documents
by the various law enforcement agencies in Louisiana and the FBI reports.  Further,
other instances of ineffective assistance of counsel may be developed at the evidentiary hearing and
through other discovery mechanisms not yet available to Mr. Wille.

                                  CLAIM  6

                    MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OFAPPELLATE
                    COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
                    AND ARTICLE I SECTIONS 2, 5,13, 16, 17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                                  CLAIM  7

                    MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE
                    REMAND HEARING UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
                    CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ISECTIONS 2, 5, 13, 16, 17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA
                    CONSTITUTION

                                  CLAIM 8

                    MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER
                    THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE
                    I SECTIONS 2, 5, 13, 16, 17,AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION DUE TRIAL
                    COUNSEL'S ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

                                  CLAIM 9

                    MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS WHEN THE STATE AT THE GRAND
                    JURY HEARING PRESENTED EVIDENCE IT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN TO BE
                    FALSE AND FOR FAILING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT WAS EXCULPATORY AND
                    FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE

        A prosecution for first degree murder can only be initiated by a grand jury indictment. Art. 1, )
15; La.C.Cr.P. art. 382.  While grand jury proceedings are secret, La.C.Cr.P. art. 434[A), if a witness
before a grand jury gives testimony that is inconsistent with other statements, the prosecution must
disclose the grand jury transcript of that witness' testimony.  State v Peters, 406 So.2d 189 (La.
1981). This is so because a defendant has a constitutional right to any and all information known or
should be know to the prosecution that is favorable to the defendant. Id., citing Brady v. Maryland,
83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963).  Thus, "an accused's constitutional rights cannot be thwarted by state law." Id. at
191.
        A prosecutor may not obtain an indictment on the basis of evidence known to him to be
perjurious.  United States v.Basurto, 497 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1974).
When an indictment is based, even if only in part on false or perjured testimony, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. 1, 15 of the Louisiana Constitution is
violated. Indeed, the United States Department of Justice has recognized this principle and
mandates that its prosecutors assure that when a prosecutor conducting a grand jury inquiry is
personally aware of substantial evidence which directly negates the guilt of a subject of the
investigation, the prosecutor must present or otherwise disclose such evidence to the grand jury
before seeking an indictment against such a person. U.S. Dept. of Justice, United States
Attorneys' Manual, Title 9, ch. 11, at 88 (1988).
        A prosecutor has a special role before the grand jury. He or she operates without the check
of a judge or trained legal adversary, and [is] virtually immune from public scrutiny .... [Therefore,
w]here the potential for abuse is so great, and the consequences of a mistaken indictment so
serious, the ethical responsibilities of the prosecutor, and the obligation of the judiciary to protect
against even the appearance of unfairness, are correspondingly heightened."
United States v. Serubo, 604 F.2f 807, 817 (3d Cir. 1979).
        Here, as shown supra, the prosecution possessed a wealth of evidence exculpating Mr.
Wille. For example, the prosecution knew:
-that Nichole was last seen at the apartment complex a little after 7:00 p.m.,
-that its corroborating circumstantial evidence that Mr. Wille was involved in the crime, the
  testimonyof Debra Davis, placed Mr. Wille at Popeye's shortly after 8:00p.m.,
-that Mr. Wille was in Milton, Florida at about 2:00p.m. on June the 2d,
-that other corroborating evidence, and the statement of Judy Walters, was obtained through a
 series of coercion, and deception.
Moreover, and most importantly, the prosecution knew
-that Mr. Wille had been coerced to give a statement and that he gave numerous false
 confessions. Yet no evidence tending to exculpate Mr. Wille was presented to the grand jury.

                                 CLAIM  10

                MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS TO A RELIABLE

                                     106

SENTENCING VERDICT BECAUSE EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNRELATED
                                HOMICIDE ADMITTED AT HIS PENALTY PHASE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
                                IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH
                                AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I
                                SECTIONS 2, 5, 13, 16, 17,AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                                 CLAIM  11

                                MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS TO A RELIABLE SENTENCING
                                VERDICT BECAUSE ONE OF THE AGGRAVATING FACTORS FOUND BY THE
                                JURY IN PENALTY PHASE, HEINOUS, ATROCIOUS AND CRUEL, ISUNCON-
                                STITUTIONAL IN VIOLATIONOF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE EIGHTH AND
                                FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
                                ARTICLE  I  SECTIONS 2, 5, 13, 16, 17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                                 CLAIM  12

                                MR. WILLE'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION WERE
                                VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT' S ARBITRARY DENIAL OF FUNDS TO
                                CONTINUE THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATION PRETRIAL

                                 CLAIM  13

                                MR. WILLE'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS WERE VIOLATED BY THE FAILURE
                                OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO RECORD NUMEROUS INTERROGATION
                                SESSIONS

                                 CLAIM  14

                                MR. WILLE'S WAS DEPRIVED HIS RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THE
                                TRIAL COURT WAS BIASED AGAINST HIM IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS
                                UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
                                STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I SECTIONS 2, 5, 13, 16, 17, AND 20 OF
                                THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                                 CLAIM  15

                                MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL WHEN THE
                                TRIAL COURT FAILED TO GRANT A RECESS OR MISTRIAL ON THE DAY OF
                                TRIAL AND DURING TRIAL  AFTER HIS LEAD COUNSEL HAD AN EMOTIONAL
                                BREAKDOWN RENDERING HIM INCAPABLE OF CONTINUING THE REPRE-
                                SENTATION IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND
                                FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
                                ARTICLE I SECTIONS 2, 5, 13, 16, 17, AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                                 CLAIM  16

                                THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TRY THIS CASE DUE TO
                                THE FACT THAT THE STATE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH
                                THAT A CRIME TOOK PLACE IN ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH

                                 CLAIM  17

                                MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL BY THE INTRO-
                                DUCTION OF UNRELIABLE AND INVOLUNTARY STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION
                                OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
                                TO THEUNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I SECTIONS 2, 5, 13, I6, 17,
                                AND 20 OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION

                        The admission of Mr. Wille's statements at the trial violated his rights to be free from self-incrimination, to present a defense, and to due process because the confessions were the product of coercion. Equally important, the admission of  evidence regarding Ms. Walters's and Sheila Walters,s alleged confession and were inadmissible because those statements were given to police using deception and extreme coercive tactics and techniques.
        A confession is involuntary, and thus, inadmissible, when it is the product of coercive police
conduct. Colorado v, Connelly, 117,107 S.Ct. 473 (1986).  Police coercion can not only be
physical; but psychologica1.  Mincey v. Arizona, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (1978); Greenwald v.
Wisconsin, 88 S.Ct. 1152 (1968); Beecher v. Alabama, 88 S.Ct. 189 (1967); Davis v. North
Carolina, 86 S.Ct. 1761(1966); Reck v.Pate, 81 S.Ct. 1541 i(1966); Colombe v. Connecticut,
81 S.Ct 1860 (1961); Payne v. Arizona, 78 S.Ct. 844 i(1958); and Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 64
S.Ct. 921 (1944).
        In Miranda v. Arizona, 86 S.Ct.i 1602 (1966), the Supreme Court noted that police
interrogations 'still take place in privacy, [which] results in secrecy and this in turn results in a
gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms." Id. at 1627.

                                 CLAIM  18

                            MR. WILLE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS WHEN THE
                            TRIAL COURT ACTED AS BOTH A WITNESS AND AJ UDGE IN THE REMAND
                            HEARING UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND LOUISIANA

                                 CLAIM  19

                            MR. WILLE WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE
                            STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS BY THE SUBSTANDARD, PREJUDICIAL
                            PERFORMANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL DURING JURY SELECTION

        Under the principles and standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984), and State Ex Re1. Busby v.Butler; 538 So.2d 164 (La. 1988), and other authorities
cited below, Mr. Wille has been denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel in
violation of his rights under the state and federal constitutions.

A.     Incompetent Handling Of Voit Dire

        Trial counsel performed deficiently in voir dire, as developed below.  None of these voit dire
related issues was raised on direct appeal.

                     Failure to Exeratse Peremptory Challenge

                            Juror Russell Anderson

        Counsel deficiently failed twice to exercise a peremptory challenge against Russell Anderson,
even after being overruled twice after challenging this juror for cause.
        Juror Russell Anderson explained that he was the brother-in-law to Madeline Jasmine, an
assistant district attorney involved in the prosecution against Mr. Wille.31  Counsel challenged
Anderson for cause based on the potential conflict of this relationship to the assistant district attorney,
but the trial court denied the challenge, finding that "Mr. Anderson has given correct answers to
everything .... " R. 158.
        Notwithstanding his concern about this conflict of interest, counsel failed to exercise a
peremptory challenge after being denied a challenge of Anderson for cause.
        Counsel further was ineffective for failing to ask Anderson whether the fact that he had a six
year old daughter (and a nine and fourteen year old son),  R. 62,  would affect his ability to be a fair
and impartial juror in this case where the victim was an eight year old girl who was kidnapped, raped
and killed. As neither the judge nor the district attorney asked Anderson this question either, this likely
issue of potential bias was never xplored. Anderson was the first juror seated on Mr.Wille's Jury. R.
162.
_________________________

        31    The relationship of Madeline Jasmine to the following potential Jurors was explored in voir dare in this
case:  Linda A. Samuel, R. 694, excused for cause of this relationship (Jasmine's sister); Whitney Jasmine
(Jasmine's cousin), R. 843; Thelma B. Jarrow  (Jasmine's friend), R. 848; Jo Ann Robiskie (Jasmine's friend), R.
1141; Geraldine J. Melancon (Jasmine's first cousin), R. 1828; Kenneth Wayne Jarrow (Jasmine's cousin),R. 1916.

                Further, Mr. Wille's warrant of execution for April 17,1993, signed by Madeline Jasmine was vacated and
Madeline Jasmine was recused from further involvement in Mr. Wille's case because of  her involvement in Mr.
Wille's original trial.


  Two more panels of four potential jurors each were questioned in voit dire with no one
seated as a juror. Then, after a sequence of events not described in the record, it was "discovered
by the Court since Mr. Anderson was sworn in that he was employed by Sheriff Johnson's
office." R. 368. More specifically, Anderson was a jailer for the Sheriff's Department
at one time. R. 369.
        Defense counsel now had an opportunity based on further grounds to seek a challenge for
cause and if denied, exercise a pre-emptory challenge. But defense counsel did neither, R. 375,
and Anderson remained seated as the first juror in Mr. Wille's case.

                  Failure to Question Panel Members Effectively
                       and Failure to Challenge for Cause

        Counsel deficiently failed to question sufficiently and/orchallenge the following jurors for
cause: Mable Taylor, Frederick M. Mitchell, Herbert Smith, Mack Rogers Hall, Jeannetta Lumar,
Lawrence McGuffy, Francis Daigle, Henry Thomas Bourgeois, Albert Burl, Jr., Lionel L. Bailey,
Charles Rushton, Steven Cambre, Mrs. Judith M. St. Amant, Rose Lafrenier, Carl Joseph
Labranche, and Clarence Dennis Millet.

                    At the beginning of voir dire, an effective defense counsel must ferret out the existence
                    of a potential cause challenge.   Given the important, delicate, and complex nature of death
                    qualification, there can be no substitute for thorough and searching inquiry by the trial court
                    into each individual's attitude concerning the death penalty.

State v. Williams, 550 A.2d at 1182.

                    An important ingredient in this inquiry is the use of open-ended questions, which in our
                    opinion are most likely to provide counsel and the court with insight into jurors opinions
                    and biases.  Id.

               Once sufficient information is gathered, defense counsel should switch to close-ended
questions.  Defense counsel should and must seek to extract information from each juror that they can
and will consider relevant mitigating evidence.

It is not enough simply to allow the defendant to present mitigating evidence to the sentencer.  The sentencer must also be able to consider and give effect to that evidence.
in imposing the sentence.
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, , 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2947, 106L.Ed.2d 256, (1989).
        As will be shown repeatedly below, defense counsel failed to ascertain panel members' views
on their ability to consider and give effect to mitigating evidence, and failed to ascertain the depth
of numerous signs of obvious bias exhibited by panel members in their responses to the court and
the prosecutor. Overall, these failures equalled an ineffective assistance of counsel by George
Oubre and Robert Becnel for their indigent client, John FrancisWille.

                                 Mable Taylor

        Counsel deficiently failed to challenge potential juror Mable Taylor for any of multiple causes.
First, Mable Taylor demonstrated an inability to remain impartial as defined in
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).  Potential juror Taylor unequivocally expressed her
belief that she would be predisposed to vote for the death penalty for Mr. Wille if he were
convicted of first degree murder:

                        The way I feel about it, I tell you the way I feel about things like this, if a person kill
                        and if they really did the crime I think they should be given  the same punishment for
                        what they did, whatever they did. That's the way I feel about it.
 R. 116.
        Ms. Taylor never provided any opinion to the contrary in response to questioning by either
the prosecutor or defense counsel. Thus, had Ms. Taylor been challenged for cause, the trial court
would have been obligated to excuse her because her views would have prevent[ed] or
substantially impair[ed] the performance of [her] duties as a juror in accordance with [her]
instructions and [her] oath." Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424. See, State, State v. Lindsay,
543 So.2d 886, 895-896 (La. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1074 (1990). Nonetheless, counsel
inexcusably failed to challenge Ms. Taylor for cause. R. 162.
        Similarly, Ms. Taylor provided further grounds for a challenge for cause when she revealed
additional bias against Mr. Wille when she was questioned about her feelings about Mr. Wille's right to remain silent, agreeing that "[m]aybe he would have something to hide." R. 117. Ms. Taylor was clearly subject to disqualification. Morgan v. Illinois, 112 S.Ct. 2222 (1992).
Counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a challenge for cause against Taylor on any of these
grounds. By not challenging her for cause, defense unnecessarily squandered a preemptory
challenge on Taylor. R. 162.

                          Juror Frederiak M. Mirahell

        Counsel deficiently failed to challenge Frederick Mitchell for cause, in spite of numerous
comments he made to the district attorney which revealed a bias against Mr. Wille. Instead of
being challenged for cause or excused by peremptory challenge, Mitchell was sworn in as the
second juror in Mr. Wille's case. In fact, defense counsel never even asked Mitchell a single
question during voir dire.
        In response to a question from the prosecutor regarding his general opinion concerning
psychiatric testimony, Mitchell declared that "a lot of guys when they do stuff plead insane and
half of them normally gets away with it." R. 416. Furthermore, Mitchell gave contradictory answers
concerning the effect that a small child victim would have on case, at one point agreeing that this
factor would make the state's burden of proof easier. R. 419-420.
        Also, when asked by the district attorney about alcohol, Mitchell opined that "[i]t can't
provoke you to really kill somebody. You have to be more than that to kill somebody." R.
i417-418. This statement indicated that Mitchell might not be willing to consider the effects of
intoxication as a mitigating circumstance, if the trial continued into a penalty phase.  However,
when given the opportunity to question the panel of jurors including Mitchell, defense counsel failed
to probe this or any other area with Mitchell.  Mitchell was the second juror to be seated on Mr.
Wille's jury. R. 439.

Juror Herbert Smith

        Counsel deficiently questioned Smith, after counsel injected arbitrary issues which diverted the
panel members attention from the true role of the jury as ultimate arbiters of' the sentence in a capital
case.  Smith could have been misled. in this regard thanks to the statements of defense counsel, who,
at the start of the voir dire of this panel, introduced the subject of pardon by the governor by
inaccurately stating that a life sentence in Louisiana precluded the possibility of a pardon.  R. 550-551.
After being corrected on the issue of pardons by the trial court and the district attorney, defense
counsel still felt it necessary to assert  "I understand that the case could be overturned on appeal also."
R. 551. Thus, in an apparent attempt to explain that a life sentence is an option they should consider,
defense counsel ended up infecting jurors with a focus on arbitrary factors which could make it more
likely that they would choose a death sentence.
        By triggering a discussion about parole and adding a comment about appellate court reversals,
defense counsel engaged in conduct which more often is performed by the prosecution.  Such conduct
by prosecutors has been condemned, and found to be reversible error.  The Louisiana Supreme Court
recently held in State v. Jones, __So.2d _, No. 94-KK-0459 (La. 1994), that a statute permitting
jurors to be instructed regarding the governor's power to grant a reprieve, pardon or commutation of
sentence following conviction of a crime was unconstitutional.
        The Court in State v. Jones, noted that discussion of the possibility of pardons
        generated concern because the injection of such factors into the sentencing phase
        of a capital trial diverts the Jurors from their primary responsibility, charges them to
        make decisions not proper within their duty as jurors (by speculating what a present
        of future governor may do) and creates a substantial likelihood that the death penalty
        will be imposed as a product of arbitrary factors.

State v. Jones, at , citing  State v, Lindsey, 404 So.2d 466, 485(La.1981).

After defense counsel themselves injected the issue of pardons into the voir of the panel including
Smith, they then triggered a responsibility to explore what were the views of these four panel members  regarding whether they were infected with an inaccurate understanding as to the factors available upon which they could rely in deciding a sentence if the trial reached that Stage.
        By compounding the error of referring to pardons with the assertion emphasizing that an
appellate court could overturn the sentence voted by the jury, defense counsel further infected this
panel by affirmatively misleading them regarding the role of the jury in the sentencing process so
as to diminish its sense of responsibility for the capital sentencing decision. Caldwell v.
Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 86 L. Ed. 2d 231, 105 S. Ct. 2633(1985) .
        No panel member here, including Smith, was asked their view On how they viewed the
appellate Process vis a vis their sentencing decision, once they had heard defense counsel bring up
the issue of appellate court reversals. Counsel was ineffective for failing to explore these issues
and determine if any panel member here were misled and whether a possible challenge for cause
existed.  Instead, these issues were not explored, and Herbert Smith was sworn in as the third
juror (and subsequently chosen foreperson) in Mr. Wille's case.

                            Juror Mack Rogers Hall

        Counsel deficiently questioned Hall, never questioning him about elements of mitigation. Hall,
who had three children, including a twelve year old and five year old daughter, and a nine year old
son, R. 676, was never asked once by defense counsel whether there were any specific type of
cases, namely the kidnapping, rape and murder of an eight year old girl, for which Hall would feel
obligated to vote death. Hall also explained that his brother was attacked by a man with a knife
and that his brother shot the man with the knife. R. 657-658.
        Regarding his views toward the death penalty, when first asked by the court, Hall stated that
he did not know if he could consider imposing it. R. 664. Then, as the district attorney began
questioning Hall, he went to great pains to ask Hall if there was any circumstance for which he
would consider imposing the death penalty. R. 673-675. Considering that Hall had expressed
ambivalence regarding his ability to about the death penalty, the prosecutor could have fashioned
his questions to attempt to set up a challenge of Hall for cause under Witherspoon.
        But just the opposite occurred, with the district attorney eliciting a response from Hall that he
could consider imposing the death penalty:  "[i]n that respective [sic], I think I can consider it." R.
675. Apparently, other factors made Hall quite attractive to the prosecution, including the fact that
he had a five year old daughter and that his brother was a victim of a violent knife attack. Such a
potentially pro-prosecution juror was worth the district attorney's efforts to .rehabilitate" a potential
Witherspoon excludable venire member.
    Faced with such direct evidence that Hall appeared so desirable to the state, an effective
defense attorney would want to explore Hall's potential biases against the defendant.  However,
defense counsel failed to inquire into Hall's change of heart concerning the death penalty, failed to
inquire whether Hall, as the father of a five year old daughter, could be unbiased in a case
involving the kidnap, rape and slaying of an eight year old girl, and failed to inquire whether the
knife attack on Hall's brother had biased him against John Francis Wille, who was accused of a
violent crime against a child victim. Instead, these issues were not explored, and Hall was sworn
in as the fourth juror in Mr.Wille's case.

                             Juror Jeanetta Lumar

        Counsel deficiently questioned Ms. Lumar on several issues.  For example, Ms. Lumar
replied affirmatively to the prosecutor asking her if she thought defendants faked insanity, "to get
away ,with stuff" R. 686. Defense counsel never explored this issue with Ms. Lumar.
        Further, Ms. Lumar was the sole member in her panel who did not need any prompting by
the prosecutor before she declared unequivocally that she could consider the death penalty. R.
663-665. Neither the prosecutor nor the trial court had asked Ms. Lumar if she could consider the
option of a life sentence.
Thus, it is particularly surprising that defense counsel did not ask Ms. Lumar whether she could consider the option of life. In fact, defense counsel committed a far more grievous error when he asserted without record foundation: "[y]ou would consider life imprisonment." R. 716. Defense counsel also never explored Ms. Lumar's opinions regarding whether there were certain types of murders for which she would always vote for death, such as the kidnapping, rape and slaying of an eight year old girl.
        Instead of probing these issues, to determine the depth of Ms. Lumar's potential willingness to
vote for the death penalty, defense counsel asked questions that revealed that the first part of the
newspaper to which she would go was the crime section: "[o]h, I like to go to the crime section
.... I like to know what's going on and I like to read what's happening. R. 713.
Defense counsel failed to learn what potential biases Ms. Lumar would hold against Mr. Wille,
and instead, failed to challenge her for cause or exercise a peremptory challenge and Ms. Lumar
was sworn as the fifth juror in Mr. Wille's case. R. 722.

                            Juror Lawrenae MuGuffy

Counsel deficiently questioned McGuffy, never investigating potential biases McGuffy may have
held against Mr. Wille.  First, McGuffy explained that he had a young daughter, who was not quite
two years old. R. 732. Neither the trial court nor the prosecution ever asked whether being the
father of a young daughter might bias him against Wille in this case where he was accused of
kidnapping, raping and killing an eight year old child. Defense counsel likewise did not probe this
potential bias.
        Next, McGuffy explained that he was friends with St. John deputy Ken Mitchell, whom
defense counsel knew was involved in the Lopatta investigation, even to the extent of being one
of the first law enforcement officers present in Florida from Louisiana in the LoDatta
investigation and present when Mr. Wille made incriminating statements. Yet defense
counsel failed to probe what McGuffy may have heard about the case from his friend, Deputy
Ken Mitchell.  McGuffy revealed a further potential inside source of information
about the case, when he admitted that he knew Geraldine Taylor, R.737, who was the jailer at
the jail" in St. John the Baptist Parish. R. 1058.  Neither the court nor the prosecution asked
McGuffy if his friendship with Mitchell or Taylor would have provided him with knowledge about
the case, or if McGuffy would have been biased by his friendship with Mitchell and Taylor.
        Defense counsel had ample grounds for pursuing questions about McGuffy's ties to Deputy
Mitchell and jailer Taylor. In a response to a narrowly worded leading question by the court,
McGuffy denied having read anything about the case or having heard anything about the case on
television. R. 734. On the other hand, McGuffy later told the court that he too, "could try" to put
aside the publicity of the case. R. 753. This "could try" response was the same as that given by
McGuffy's fellow panel member, Lionel Comeaux, who admitted that pre-trial publicity had
prejudiced him heavily against Mr. Wille. Comeaux was challenged for cause because of his more
forthright responses. R. 833. The court ignored that reason but did excuse Comeaux for being the
brother of a St. John sheriff deputy. R. 833.
        In contrast, McGuffy's friendship with deputy Ken Mitchell and jailer Geraldine Taylor went
unexplored. Admittedly not being from newspapers or the television, the source of McGuffy's
knowledge about the case, which he said he "could try" to put aside, was likely from conversations
with these two insiders in the Sheriff's Department who were, as he stated, ,friends." R. 794. But
defense counsel never asked McGuffy what the source of his knowledge was about the case.
Defense counsel never asked McGuffy to explain his seeming contradictory answers that he did
not read or watch anything about the case on television, but that he could try" to put aside the
things he knew about the case. Instead of challenging McGuffy's inconsistent responses, counsel
apologized for implying that McGuffy had any prior knowledge of the case:
        OUBRE:     All of you, I think, have stated that you have heard about this case before
                            you came here today.  You haven't, Mr. McGuffy. You're the 0nly one, I'm
                            sorry.  The other three there said they heard about it.

R. 799.
        Thus, defense counsel never established McGuffy's source of knowledge about the case and
the related bias flowing there from.
        On another issue, defense counsel demonstrated that he was unaware of his role or what
constituted an effective defense voir dire. McGuffy repeatedly indicated, once to the trial court,
R.746, and twice to the prosecutor, R. 774-775, that he would have no trouble considering
imposing the death penalty. Still, defense counsel felt it necessary that he himself ask McGuffy
three separate times if he could consider imposing the death penalty. R.828-829.
  Unfortunately, never once did defense counsel, or anyone else, ask McGuffy if he could consider
the option of a life sentence. Similarly, defense counsel was ineffective for never asking McGuffy
any of his views on his ability to consider mitigating evidence, or whether McGuffy believed that a
life sentence was truly for life.
        Instead of exploring McGuffy's potential biases from friendships with two persons connected
with the case at issue, or bias from being the father of a young daughter, defense counsel became
acquainted with where this panel member liked to fish (Lake Pontchartrain) R. 823, and what he
liked to hunt (rabbit) R. 824.  McGuffy was not challenged by defense counsel, and was sworn as
the sixth juror in Mr. Wille's case. R. 834.

                                Francis Daigle

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by not moving to challenge panel member Francis
Daigle for cause, even though Daigle's voir dire responses provided several bases for cause
challenge. Defense counsel eventually chose to exercise their fifth peremptory challenge against
Daigle. R. 940.
        Defense counsel elicited evidence of panel member Daigle's bias when he was asked:

           do you think that I would have to, more or less, try to convince you that he's not guilty because
           of all the publicity and kind of because you think he's guilty already? And I mean not totally, you
           think he maybe guilty. We would have to try and convince you, is that a fair statement?
R-. 928.
Daigle replied,  "Yes, sir."  R. 928.
        Even though Daigle gave varying answers after this point regarding Mr. Wille's right to remain
silent, these statements about his pre-disposed bias from media exposure were never contradicted.
Counsel was deficient in his performance for failing to challenge Daigle for cause of being biased
against Mr. Wille. R. 940.
        On the issue of bias from publicity, defense gathered further evidence of bias. In response to
questions form the court, Daigle admitted having read about the murder in the newspaper when the
story first came out. R. 844-845.  However, the court did not ask what details Daigle remembered.
Later, when the prosecutor asked if Daigle had heard anything about "this case," Daigle denied
anyknowledge. R. 862.
        Thus, defense properly attempted to clarify the issues of media exposure and bias. Defense
counsel asked Daigle, "would the publicity of this case, would it affect you in any opinions you might
have before this trial started?  Daigle responded "No." R. 927.  But the proper question here to
discover bias would have been to discover what those opinions were.  Defense soon discovered that
Daigle's apparent lack of bias from publicity was not accurate,when Daigle alone raised his hand in
response to defense query,  "how many of you think right now that John Wille is guilty?  Do any of you,
how many of you think that he may be guilty?"  R. 927-928
        On the issue of Daigle's ability to consider the option of life imprisonment, defense gained
sufficient evidence to challenge 'Daigle on the ground that he could not consider life or mitigating
circumstances.
        First, Daigle responded to questioning by the court and the prosecutor that he could consider
imposing the death penalty. R. 885, 867.  However, Daigle was never truly asked if he could consider
the option of a life sentence or consider mitigating circumstances. At first glance, it appeared that
defense counsel did ask just that question:

        DEFENSE:     Would you vote death penalty in all Cases where averdict came in guilty
                                for first degree murder or would you consider the mitigating circumstances?
        DAIGLE:     I would consider the circumstances.
R. 919-920.
        But defense counsel then seriously erred when it gave two    mistaken examples of what
mitigating circumstances were (in fact, it appears that defense counsel did not know what the
term "mitigation" meant at a11):
        DEFENSE:    Other than self defense, what type of circumstancesin your mind would
                              you consider as important to youas to whether or not you would vote
                              for death by electrocution as opposed to life imprisonment?
        DAIGLE:       I would say taking somebody's life in their hands.
        DEFENSE:    Would the fact that the victim was a small child, approximately
                               eight years old, a female, would that play a specific part in your
                               mind as to whether ornot you would vote for the death penalty?
        DAIGLE:        I have to listen to all the facts on the case. It would put some
                               bearing on it, I believe.
R. 920. (emphasis added).
        In just a few short comments, defense counsel here managed twice to grievously misstate
the law in regards to the nature of mitigating circumstances. In exchange, Daigle provided no
insights into his ability vel non to consider genuine mitigating circumstances. Luckily, defense
counsel procured some evidence towards the argument that Daigle would not really consider a life
sentence:
        DEFENSE:    Do you feel that life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of
                              parole or probation is a harsh penalty?
        DAIGLE:     No.
R. 922.
        In yet another area of bias, panel member Daigle explained :that he had a seven year old
son. R. 839. Neither the trial court nor the prosecution ever asked whether being the father of a
young child might bias him against Mr. Wille in this case where he was accused of kidnapping,
raping and killing an eight year old child.  Defense counsel did not directly ask if his personal
family situation would bias him, although counsel did elicit a response that an eight year old female
victim "would put some bearing" onhis decision to choose the death Penalty. R. 920.
        Daigle's views that life imprisonment is not a harsh penalty, that he would consider an eight
Year old child victim as one reason to vote for death, that he believed Mr. Wille was guilty
because Of the pre-trial publicity, that this publicity placed a burden upon the defense to prove Mr.
Wille not guilty, and the fact that he was the father of a seven year old child, were numerous
grounds upon which to argue a challenge for cause of being biased against Mr. Wille. By not
challenging him for cause, defense unnecessarily squandered a peremptory challenge on Daigle. R.
940.

                         Juror Henry Thomas Bourgeois

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by not moving to 'challenge panel member and
eventual juror Henry Bourgeois for cause, even though Bourgeois' voir dire responses provided
several bases for cause challenge.
        The serious difficulty in the voir dire examination of Bourgeois came when he appeared to
be prepared to vote automatically for the death penalty as long as the defendant was found guilty
beyond a doubt. After several attempts to get something besides a convoluted answer, the
prosecutor put the issue point-blank:
        STATE:        In other words, you just wouldn't say death automatically
                             before, once you decide he is guilty, you understand what
                             I'm saying?
R. 977.
        But Bourgeois' reply indicated that he just couldn't seem to grasp the point: "[i]f you prove
him guilty beyond any doubt and he is stable then he's guilty. Id.
        The fog of Bourgeois' confusion did not appear to lift even after more attempts of
questioning by the prosecution. At one point, it appeared that Bourgeois understood mitigation and
agreed, regarding "the second phase", "I'm not going into any of it with a locked mind, no." R.
978.  However, later Bourgeois expressed his frustration, when the Court attempted to explain the
bifurcated nature of the trial: "[w]hy isn't it just presented all at onetime?" R. 1028. Thus, even
though Bourgeois stated to defense counsel that he could "possibly could" consider life imprisonment, R. 1013, it is fairly clear that he had
no idea what the penalty phase of a capital trial was about nor what constituted mitigation.
        Defense counsel did not ask direct questions to elicit biases or opinions from Bourgeois or other
members of this panel. This deficient style of defense questioning here can be charitably described as
passive:
        DEFENSE:     . . . if there's anything I may ask one or the other you think that you would
                               like to respond to then I'd like for you to do it rather than me having to ask
                               the same questions over to each of you .... If I have, you think have anything,
                               even if I don't ask you, if you would then please just go ahead and tell me
                               about it. If you want to do that right now, I'll be glad to listen to you.
R. 998-999.
        Defense never asked Bourgeois about any specific mitigating circumstances.  Lacking much
information about Bourgeois beyond the fact that he was thinking of his own kids when he finally
realized that this case was serious business. Defense was deficient in its performance when it did not
get a clearer picture of Bourgeois' views that he appeared to favor death if the defendant were guilty.
At least a challenge could have been raised that this panel member would not be able to follow
instructions, because it was likely he would not understand them.
        Panel member Bourgeois laid the foundation for yet another challenge for cause, when he
testified that he had three children, including a twelve year old son.  R. 943.  Neither the court nor the prosecutor asked Bourgeois if this would bias him against Mr. Wille. Although Bourgeois mentioned that he was thinking of his kids when he realized how this was a serious matter where a child's life had been taken,  R. 1042,  defense counsel also never directly asked if his being the father of a twelve year old child would make it too difficult to be impartial in a case with these particular facts.  Nevertheless, defense counsel raised no challenge for cause and Bourgeois was seated as the seventh juror in Mr.Wille's case.
R. lO42.

Albert Burl, Jr.

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by not moving to challenge panel member Albert Burl,
Jr. for cause, even though Burl's voir dire responses provided several bases for cause challenge.
Burl had three children, including three and eleven year old sons, and a twelve year old daughter.
R. 1045.
        Neither the trial court nor the prosecution ever asked whether being the father of three
young children might bias him against Mr. Wille in this case where he was accused of kidnapping,
raping and killing an eight year old child. Defense counsel likewise did not probe this potential bias.

        Defense counsel did ask Bourgeois (and fellow panel member Ralph Roger) whether his
family circumstances would allow him to still consider a life sentence as an option. R. 1112. In
spite of the fact that Burl had told the prosecutor that he could consider life as an option, R. 1088,
and had told defense counsel that life was a pretty harsh punishment, R. 1109, Burl appeared to
state that death was the appropriate sentence in this case:

        PROSECUTION:    Do you feel, Mr. Roger, that the death and rape of an eight year old girl,
                                            that if there is a conviction of this rape and murder, that you would think
                                            then that life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, suspension
                                            of sentence, would that be a sufficient punishment in that set ofcircumstances?
        BURL:                     No, I couldn't. The fact being, as Mr. Roger stated, if all the evidence proved
                                            that the crime was committed by him, the individual,.and if that, it carries the
                                            mandatory sentence or whatever then, yes, I would say the death penalty.
R. 1112. (emphasis added).
        Defense counsel thus elicited an admission from Burl that he was automatically predisposed
to give death in particular cases, Imost significantly in cases with facts on point with the case at
issue. To bolster this admission, defense counsel next asked if Burl would impose a death penalty
in the case of the killing of a police officer. Id. Burl replied again in the affirmative. R.
1113. And even though Burl later said he would wait "until more evidence was presented before
making a decision, defense counsel

never clarified whether his decision options would include life as well as death. In fact, defense
counsel specifically asked, "would you withhold judgment and wait until more evidence is
presented before making a decision to impose a death penalty?" Burl answered in kind, "I would
wait until more evidence was presented before making a decision." R. 1114.
        Unfortunately, the record is emphatic that the only decision he would make in a case
involving the rape and kidnapping and slaying of an eight year old girl would be death, not life
imprisonment. Id.  Notwithstanding such ready grounds to argue a challenge for cause that in
this particular case Burl would automatically vote for death, defense counsel failed to raise such
a challenge for cause.  Instead, defense counsel exercised (and squandered) their sixth
peremptory exception against Burl. R. 1127.

                             Juror Lionel L. Bailey

        On the third day of voir dire, defense counsel performed deficiently by not moving to
challenge panel member and eventual juror Lionel Bailey for cause, even though Bailey's voir
dire responses provided several bases for cause challenge.
        First, Bailey indicated to the court that he had personal difficulty in accepting that the
defendant is not required to take the stand to testify in his own defense. R. 1303. Although he
finally agreed with the court that he could accept as law that defendants need not testify, he was
not asked if a defendant's silence would prejudice him against the defendant. The prosecutor
neatly side stepped this issue altogether.
        However, under defense questioning, Bailey's comments reinforced the implication that,
despite being able to accept the law on a defendant's right to remain silent, he nevertheless
would be prejudiced against Mr. Wille if he chose to exercise this constitutional right:
        DEFENSE:     I think you did say you would not hold it against
                                 Mr. Wille if he didn't take the stand.
           BAILEY:       No. I didn!t say that.
 

R. 1353.
        Although later still Bailey claimed that Mr. Wille's not taking the stand would not cause him any
problems, id., Bailey was never asked by defense why he did not agree outright that he would not
hold it against Mr. Wille if he chose to remain silent.  Perhaps Mr. Wille's silence at trial caused
Bailey no problem; because he expected to hear the contents of Mr. Wille's previously secured
confession.  Bailey indicated that he had heard that Mr. Wille had confessed and that he had signed
a confession. R. 1350.  What Bailey did not hear before trial or at trial were the details of how all
those confessions were totally unreliable.
        Next, Bailey explained that he had a young daughter, age 11, and an younger son, age 6. R.
1284. Neither the trial court nor the prosecution ever asked whether being the father of these two
young children might bias him against Mr. Wille in this case where, he was accused of kidnapping,
raping and killing an eight year old child.  Defense counsel likewise did not probe this potential bias.
        Furthermore, Bailey indicated to the court that he had "mixed feelings about the death penalty..
R. 1299. But on further questioning, Bailey assured the prosecutor that he "could consider it.. R.
1315. Thus, the district attorney went out of his way to steer Bailey clear of a cause challenge under
Witherspoon, just as he had done earlier for Juror number four, Mack Hall.  Both Hall and Bailey
had young children and both were worth the effort for the state to don the hat normally worn by
defense attorneys.
        Defense counsel engaged in the role reversal too, by asking Bailey if he could consider the
death penalty, R. 1341, but never getting around to asking him if he would consider the option of life
imprisonment. Moreover, defense counsel never probed Bailey to discover just what was the nature
of his purported ambivalence about the death penalty, and if such an ambivalence existed in a case
such as the one at issue.
        Instead of effectively questioning Bailey about his biases against defendants remaining silent,
instead of asking even one, question about Bailey's ability to define and consider even one item of mitigation in a case involving a confession,exploring Bailey's biases stemming from his
role as the parent of young children, defense counsel declined to challenge Bailey for cause and
Lionel Bailey was seated as the eighth juror in Mr. Wille's case. R. 1358.

                            Juror Charles Rushton

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by not asking enough questions of panel member
and eventual juror Charles Rushton for cause, even though Rushton's voir dire responses
provided several bases for exploration for a possible challenge for cause.
        Rushton explained that he had two grandsons, ages three and four. R. 1494. Neither the
trial court nor the prosecution ever asked whether being the grandfather of these two young
boys might bias him against Mr. Wille in this case where he was accused of kidnapping, raping
and killing an eight year old child. Defense counsel likewise did not probe this potential bias.
        Furthermore, although Rushton testified that he would consider both life imprisonment or
death as possible sentences, R. 1534, defense counsel never explained what a mitigating
circumstance was, nor clarified what kind of evidence was referred to when the court made a
single fleeting reference to evidence "about the character of the defendant.. R. 1469.
        Defense counsel's failure to educate panel members at voir dire as to what mitigating
circumstances consisted of, constituted deficient performance. When jurors did not even know in
advance:what mitigating circumstances were, defense counsel prevented itself from even being
able to explore their opinions as to their ability truly to consider mitigation in this case. Defense
counsel deprived itself here of the opportunity to move for a challenge for cause if it was
warranted. Counsel lacked critical information about panel member Rushton as they watched him
be sworn in as the ninth juror in Mr. Wille's case. R. 1553.

                             Juror Steven Cambre

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by not moving to challenge panel member and
eventual juror Steven Cambre for cause, even though Cambre's voir dire responses provided several bases for cause challenge.
        Cambre testified that he had two children, an eight year old daughter and a seventeen
month old boy. R. 1561. The trial court never asked whether being the father of two young
children, one being a daughter the exact same age as the victim in this case, might bias Cambre
against Mr. Wille in this case where he was accused of kidnapping, raping and killing an eight
year old child.
        When the prosecution asked if this fact would affect Cambre's ability to be fair and
impartial, Cambre first repled, "I haven't thought about it really that much."  R. 1603. Although
Cambre next said it depends, the prosecutor did not explore Cambres potential dilemma here,
instead crafting a strongly leading question, effectively telling Cambre what he thought instead of
asking him, after which Cambre reacted affirmatively:
        PROSECUTOR:     In other words, whet your realize is that your daughter is not the victim
                                           of this. It's somebody else and you can be somewhat detached, you realize
                                           that, and you feel like you would be able to listen to the evidence and reserve
                                          your judgment until such time as all the evidence has been presented.
        CAMBRE:               Yeah.
R. 1603.
        Defense counsel however, failed at all to probe the extent of this potential bias. In fact,
defense counsel interrupted himself part way through his voir dire of Cambre because he saw
Cambre folding his arms and did not want to "badger" him. R. 1635. But later when he did
return to Cambre, counsel explicitly detailed the facts of the case and asked "would you be able
to consider life imprisonment or would you think a crime like that would deserve death?"  R.
1640. Cambre's response was for death in this circumstance:
        CAMBRE:    I guess if they can prove it, you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
                                you know, something like that, I would think the death penalty myself.
R. 1641.
        Had defense counsel stopped there, he would have established grounds for a challenge for
case under Witt. But then he continued his questioning, donning the prosecutor's role, and Cambre affirmed that he would consider mitigating circumstances, "depending what it is, I guess." R. 1642
        Unfortunately, since defense counsel had not provided Cambre or any panel member here
with even one example of what a mitigating circumstance was, Cambre's conditional response
actually meant that he had no reason not to vote for death automatically in a case with facts like
these. When defense counsel finished questioning Cambre,R. 1642, it possessed no testimony
from Cambre that he would even consider one piece of mitigation in this particular case.  This
constituted a deficient performance by defense counsel. Counsel could have explored Cambre's
potential biases or inabilities to consider the mitigation in this case, and could have then used this
to develop a basis for a challenge for cause.
        As it turned out, counsel raised no such challenge, and then ended up exercising (and
squandering) a peremptory challenge, R. l644, against Cambre, the father of an eight year old
daughter who first testified could consider nothing but death based on the facts of this case.

                           Juror Judith M. St. Amant

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by not moving to challenge panel member Judith St.
Amant for cause, even though St. Amant's voir dire responses provided several bases for cause
challenge.
        Although St. Amant implied at first that she had only a sketchy knowledge of the facts of
the case, having heard about the murder "[o]nly when it happened., R. 1709, she later revealed
surprising familiarity when questioned by defense counsel:
                    All I remember is that a little girl was supposed to have been abducted from across
                    the river and her body was found in St. John Parish. I didn't read the stories, it's not
                    my type stories .... it was all over the news .... I just remember Judy Walters was from Norco ....
R. 1780.
        Thus, St. Amant, who at first claimed to not be familiar with the case, was the first petit
venire member in over three days of voir dire to give the complete name of Mr. Wille's girl
friend.
 Moreover, St. Amant also revealed that her fellow petit venire members had been discussing
the facts of the case before being examined in voir dire:
                    The jurors when we found out it was this trial I think we were all a little surprised
                    because we all thought that it was maybe a 7-11 robbery, it was a petit jury and we
                    thought it was something petty. And we were surprised. As far as the facts in this,
                    the case, the people we talked to we didn't know too much.
R. 1783-1784.
        Thus, even though St. Amant claimed earlier that she could set aside her knowledge of the
case, R. 1710, defense counsel asked sufficient questions to learn that she knew quite a bit, and that
jurors had been discussing the case with each other while waiting.  However, defense counsel
performance here was ineffective because then he never asked St. Amant if she could actually set
aside this detailed information that she finally admitted possessing.
        Defense counsel displayed a similar deficient pattern of questioning regarding St. Amant's
connection with persons in law enforcement. When the court originally asked panel members if she
had "any friends or relatives employed by ... the State police, the city police, the Sheriff's Office or
any other law enforcement agency", R. 1712, St. Amant did not mention any names. R. 1715.
        Yet, defense counsel personally knew St. Amant well enough to know that four persons related
to St. Amant were currently or previously in law enforcement: her father-in-law currently was a
St. Charles Sheriff Deputy, her husband's uncle Johnny was Sheriff for St. Charles Parish for years,
her husband was St. Charles deputy for three years, and her nephew Kent (son of brother-in-law
Larry) was currently a St. John Deputy. R. 1767-1769.32
        Counsel was ineffective in not asking St. Amant to explain why she never told the court about
these four persons when asked previously. Even though St. Amant later declared that she "would
more or less believe [law enforcement agents] were telling the
_____________________

        32     Judy Walters' husband, Yondell, was a part-time St. Charles Parish Sheriff Office deputy. App. . It is
interesting to note that St. Amant had the most extensive ties to the SCPSO, and was the sole petit venire member
to know and mention Judy Walter's name in three days of voir dire.


truth", R. 1771, but otherwise said that she would not be biased in their favor, she was never
asked to explain why she failed to reveal her extensive relationship to law enforcement when
first asked.
        Defense counsel certainly could not explain his omission by claiming not to have had
sufficient time to explore this area with St. Amant. Counsel spent far more time in this panel
with St. Amant ("[p]lease, not [sir], you know me as George, and I prefer that, I'm a very
informal person, none of this sir stuff", R. 1767) and the two other female panel members,
Lafrenier and Goudia, then with the sole male panel member, Labranche. At one point, defense
counsel explained to other panel members:
        DEFENSE:     I don't want to make any of you feel as though I am slighting you, it's just
                                Miss St. Amant and I got started having this conversation and I'm enjoying it.
R. 1779.
        Instead of enjoying himself so much, defense counsel would have come closer to
representing his client at a constitutionally effective level by working harder at eliciting stronger
evidence of bias. As it was, counsel ended up exercising his last peremptory challenge against his
friend St. Amant. R. 1808.

                             Juror Rose Lafrenier

        In the same panel as St. Amant, defense counsel performed deficiently by not sufficiently
questioning panel member and eventual juror Rose Lafrenier about potential biases against Mr.

Wille.
        When first asked by the court if she could accept Mr. Wille's right to remain silent,
Lafrenier asked, "Can he take the stand if he's got anything to say, though?" R. 1725. Although
Lafrenier next told the court that she could accept as the law that he had a right to remain
silent, R. 1726, neither the court nor the prosecutor asked her if she would hold it against Mr.
Wille if he chose to exercise that right. As with juror Bailey, above, defense counsel never
explored this issue.
        Next, defense counsel himself interjected a seriously
 
 

                                     130

erroneous impression of the law to the members of this panel, as had similarly been done on a
separate issue before to the panel which included juror Herbert Smith.
        In this panel, from which two jurors were seated, defense counsel openly began discussing
his personal religious views and then endorsed the views of panel member Goudia that it was
not only acceptable, but laudatory for jurors to consult with God and await God's answer before
deciding how they would vote on issues of guilt and innocence and penalties:
        DEFENSE:    . . . this is a very serious decision. I would like for you, if you could, this is a rather
                                 in opportune time to do it, but I'd like for, if you could,  I'm goin to be talking to the
                                 other three and maybe if you could right now pray and ask the Lord if it's, if he could
                                 possibly help you make this decisionthis morning.  Because I know you said you could
                                 consider it but you also said you would pray.  And if you could, if it's not asking too
                                 much of you, if you possibly could, just maybe, I know.
 
 

                                 You know there's some people who don't believe that the Lord talks to us, I know I've
                                 talked to him and he's talked to me, so I know how it is and Iappreciate what you're doing
                                 and I appreciate ifyou could continue doing it.  Somewhere during this conversation I'll come
                                 back and we'll talk.
R. 1766-1767. (emphasis added)
        Although panel member Goudia ended up being peremptorily iexcused by the state, jurors
Lafrenier and Labranche heard the notion that basing your decisions as a juror on a response
from a-conversation with God was not only an acceptable but a laudatory option. Neither
Lafrenier nor Labranche were disabused of this gravely erroneous impression that they could
base their deliberations on prayer and not be restricted to the evidence presented in the
courtroom.
        Defense counsel was deficient in his questioning of Lafrenier and personally introduced
misinformation to this juror. Because he had exercised his last peremptory challenge with St.
Amant, defense counsel should have attempted to raise a cause challenge against Lafrenier. But
he failed to do this and Lafrenier was sworn in as the tenth juror in Mr. Wille's case, without
defense counsel
 
 

                                     131

knowing whether she would hold it against Mr. Wille when he did not testify and without clarifying to
her that it was improper to rely on a communication from God to reach a verdict and sentencing
decision. R. 1809.

                          Juror Car1 Joseph Labranthe

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by spending so much time with the female members of
this panel that he got around to asking Carl Labranche but a single question. Labranche offered
several areas ripe for exploration of his bias, but defense counsel did not explore any of these.
        The first area of concern should have been seen like a red flag. Labranche testified that he was
the father of three young boys, ages 9, 5, 4. R. 1706.  But neither the court nor the prosecutor
asked Labranche whether being the father of three young :children might bias him against Mr. Wille
in this case where he was accused of kidnapping, raping and killing an eight year old child.
        Defense counsel likewise did not probe this issue, even after Labranche provided evidence that
he was biased for this reason.  When asked by the prosecutor about his seeming ambivalence about
being able to consider the death penalty, Labranche revealed his actual resolve and affirmed that he
genuinely could consider voting for the death penalty: "if all the facts are there .... [i]f thecourt can
prove to me that he's guilty ... [b]ecause I have kids of  my own."  R. 1758-1759.
        Even with such an obvious showing, defense counsel did not attempt to question the father of
three young children about this bias.  In fact, defense counsel only asked Labranche a single question
about intoxication:
        DEFENSE:      If a person is drunk, would you hold himaccountable for what he does?
           LABRANCHE:     I have went to parties and got really intoxicated... but you still really
                                         mentally, you know what you're doing. You might not have the reflexes
                                         to move around, you might stumble but you're still, you still know what
                                         you, your doing.  I don't feel like going out hurting anybody .... Now as
                                         far as drugs, like any cocaine or something like that, I don't know. I never
                                         fooled with that. I don't know what affect it would have a upon a person's mind.
R. 1795-1796.
        On this sole question, defense counsel did not ask Labranche whether he could treat
intoxication as a mitigating circumstance.  Thus, defense counsel even failed to perform as an
advocate for Mr. Wills on the single question that he asked of Labranche.
        Defense counsel did not raise his ineffective performance to a constitutionally effective level
by use of this "wrap-up" inquiry:
        DEFENSE:         Okay. Is there anything else anyone else would like to tell me
                                    or like to ask me or?
R. 1807.
        Defense counsel knew absolutely nothing about Labranche except that he would "consider"
the death penalty because he has three male children, ages 9, 5, and 4.  Moreover, Labranche
was as equally infected as juror Lafrenier with the misinformation about the propriety of
conferring with God before deciding a jury verdict. Defense counsel, having exhausted his
peremptory challenges with St. Amant, should have raised a challenge for cause that Labranche
was predisposed to vote for death in this case because of his bias stemming from his being the
father of three young children. But counsel was an ineffective advocate and watched as
Labranche was sworn in as the eleventh juror in Mr. Wille's case. R. 1809.

                          Juror Clarence Dennis Millet

        Defense counsel performed deficiently by failing to use open-ended questions to more fully
probe potential biases suggested by Miller's answers to questions from the court and the
prosecutor.
        For example, Millet repeatedly testified that he had read newspapers and heard television
coverage about the case when it first happened, R. 1821, and three days, since Monday, R.
1899-1900. Yet defense counsel never asked Millet just what he facts he thought he knew
about the case.
        On the issue of sentencing, Millet informed both the court, R. 1837, and the prosecution, R. 1863, that he could consider imposing the death penalty. And
although Millet told the prosecutor that he could wait until the penalty phase to decide the
sentence, R. 1864, neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel ever probed Miller's views on the
sentence of life imprisonment.
        Instead of asking open-ended questions to explore Miller's opinions on these and other
subjects, counsel spent part of his time with Millet reminiscing about their growing up together.
R.1885-1888.  Counsel did not probe open-endedly to discover to what extent Millet knew
Trooper Favor and Der. Oubre, R. 1825, from the St. John's Sheriff's Office.  Furthermore,
counsel did not probe open-endedly into Miller's potential bias stemming from his wife being
present during a robbery once at the bank where she is assistant cashier. R. 1867.
        Moreover, defense counsel never explored Miller's inability to consider the mitigating factor
of a defendant being under the influence of intoxication at the time of a crime. This would have
been an appropriate follow up to Miller's emphatic response to the prosecutor's question about
drinking:
        PROSECUTOR:     What do you feel about drinking?  Do you feel like they should --
         MILLET:                   I feel it shouldn't be done.  I don't drink.

R. 1868.
        Defense counsel was deficient in his questioning of Millet.  Because he had exercised his
last peremptory challenge with St. Amant, defense counsel should have attempted to raise a
cause challenge against Millet.  But he failed to do this and Millet was sworn in as the twelfth
juror in Mr. Wille's case, without defense counsel knowing Miller's views on the appropriateness
of a life sentence for crimes like the one at issue, and without having even explored several
other potential areas of bias. R. 1904.

                        Weak Understanding of the Law

        Throughout the voir dire, numerous examples exist showing that defense counsel here were
ill-equipped to handle a capital case, due to poor understanding of the law.  For example, in
almost every instance in which a panel member was challenged for cause under Witherspoon by the
prosecution for their failure to consider the death penalty as a sentencing option, defense counsel
asked if the person could not just sit as a juror in the guilt innocence phase.  This exchange
occurred in the voir dire of the following panel members: Lester J. Dunn, Jr., R. 271: Shirley
M. Johnson, R. 648; Peggy Jean Millet, R. 649; Rickey Davis, R. 649; Claudette Favorite, R.
833; and Claude Isaac Knight, Jr., R. 833.

                                 CLAIM  20

                        MR. WILLE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO
                        EXCUSE FOR CAUSE A PETIT VENIRE MEMBER DUE TO HIS PRO-DEATH PENALTY
                        BIAS

        As detailed below, the trial court erroneously denied Mr. Wille's motions to challenge a
juror for cause due to his pro-death penalty bias.
        Mr. Wills was forced to squander a peremptory challenge on juror Glenn Joseph Becnel.
The following exasperating voir dire passages reveal why there was no reason to deny this
cause challenge and thus prejudice Mr. Wills by compelling him to exercise a peremptory
challenge:
        COURT:     The Court needs to get two matters straight withtwo of the witnesses.
                       Mrs. Hime1, you originally told me that when Iasked if you could consider the
                               death penalty you said yes.  I think Mr. Crum asked you the same question, you
                               said yes.  Now, I would need to know this question, because when the defense
                               asked you this question you stipulated that simply if the man were found guilty
                               of the crime of killing someone that you were an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
                               tooth. And therefore, you thought that because he killed someone he should get
                               the same treatment.  Is that true or would you be willing to keep an open mind, listen
                               to the evidence, and then drawyour, come to a conclusion?
        HIMEL:       I think I'd still go with my first decision.
        COURT:     You could consider the death penalty?
          HIMEL:       Yes.
          COURT:      Okay. Mr. Becnel, you gave the same answer,sir.  So I, you told me you could
                               consider the death penalty, you told Mr. Crum you could,and when Mr. Becnel
                               asked you in reference toan eye for an eye you said that you thought that if the
                               man killed somebody you thought  that he should also receive the death penalty.  Now, the Court would like
                                             to know which one it is.  Could you keep an open mind in the sentencing
                                             phase and consider the death penalty or because, or you would do the other?
        JUROR BECNEL:       Death penalty.
        COURT:                      What was that?
        JUROR BECNEL:       Death penalty.
        COURT:                       In other words, if he were found guilty you would automatically say death penalty?
        JUROR BECNEL:        If he was guilty.
        COURT:                       Or you would listen to the evidence, you would listen to the evidence at the
                                              second hearing and then after hearing that evidence come to a conclusion?
        JUROR BECNEL:        Okay, yeah.
        COURT:                       Now, I want you to be sure now, because it's veryimportant to both this side
                                              and that side.
        STATE:                        Your Honor.
        COURT:                        I want you to be honest.
        STATE:                        Can I ask one thing.?
        COURT:                       Yes.
        STATE:                        If, I think they've never, in Mr. Becnel's hypothet and what you said, too,
                                              they never were given the fact as part of the hypothet that you're going to
                                              direct that they have to listen.
        COURT:                       That's correct. I know that. That's why Idecided to ask the question myself.
                                              In other words, you could consider the death penalty?
        JUROR BECNEL:       Right.
 
 
 
 

        DEFENSE:                   We challenge Mr. Glenn Becnel for cause for the same response that Mrs. Himel
                                              gave, in as much that in a case such as this, a first degree murder of an eight year
                                              old girl, and the circumstances attending to it, JR. 1551] that he would consider
                                              the death penalty and there was nothing that Mr. Oubre,  Mr. Wille, or myself could
                                             do to change his mind. And that is what he said on the record.
        COURT:                      Okay. Mr. Becnel, the Court agrees that that's what the gentleman said.  Gentleman
                                             also told me that he could consider the death penalty. He also told that to Mr. Crum.
                                             That's why I questioned him, specifically asked him the exact same question, could
                                             he consider the death penalty, and he said yes.  Therefore, I'm going to deny your
                                             challenge for cause.
   DEFENSE:    Note the objection, please.
        DEFENSE:    Objection, Your Honor, --
        COURT:        The objection will be noted.
        DEFENSE:    -- as to mitigating circumstances, that was the crux of the whole question.
R. 1544-1546, 1550-1551.
        Throughout this extensive Kafkaesque exchange, the trial court never acknowledged that
panel members Himel and Becnel were not ever willing to consider mitigating circumstances nor
were they ever able to consider imposing a sentence of life imprisonment On Mr. Wille. Instead,
the trial court repeated only that Himel and Becnel "could consider the death penalty." Of
course, for some unexplained reason, the court missed the big picture here:  obviously jurors
Becnel and Himel, who were willing to automatically impose a death sentence upon conviction,
"could consider the death penalty."  At issue was their equally obvious inability to consider the
option of a sentence of life imprisonment for a case with these facts.
        The prosecution's additional suggestion that jurors Himel and Becnel be reminded that they
would be "directed to listen" to the court was insufficient to remedy this error.
        When a juror has indicated that he or she is unable to consider the option of a sentence of
life imprisonment, such a person should be excused for cause. It is insufficient to prevent a
challenge for cause hereby merely eliciting a response from such a juror that he or she will
follow the instructions of the court when the jury is charged before deliberation. State v. Hall,
616So.2d 664 (La. 1993), citing State v. Lee, 559 So.2d 1310, 1316(La. 1990).
        Thus, the trial court erroneously denied defense counsel's motion to challenge juror Becnel
for cause due to his pro-death penalty bias, even though Becnel stated once that he could
follow the court's instructions. R. 1551.
        This error of the court was even more obvious when panel member Himel was brought
back into Court and upon further examination, the trial court was convinced that she would not consider life imprisonment as an
option. The court thus reversed itself and allowed defense its challenge for cause of juror Himel.

R. 1556. The only difference between the responses of panel members Himel and Becnel was
that Becnel one time said that he could follow the judge's instructions, but then continued to
proclaim that he would automatically impose the death penalty.
        In State v. Ross, 623 So.2d 643 (La. 1993), the defendant was tried for first degree
murder but was sentenced to life. "[T]he issue is whether the trial court erred in denying a
defense challenge for cause when a prospective juror expressed a fixed belief that first degree
murder should always be punished by death." Id. at 643. Citing Morgan v. Illinois, a
unanimous court held that "[a] belief that the death penalty should be imposed for any capital
conviction reflects on an individual,s ability to follow the law given by the court.. 623 So.2d
644.
        Significantly, the court reproduced three sets of responses by the Juror concerning his
ability to consider a life sentence.  Initially, the juror responded that death would be "the only
penalty. for first degree murder. id at 643. During the final colloquy the juror again stated "if
you're guilty of murder, my personal opinion is it's, you know, it's the death penalty.. Id. at 644.
However, the juror responded at one point (between the foregoing colloquies) that "I can
consider both. But personally that's my vote., Id. at 644. The Court acknowledged that '[a]trial
judge has broad discretion in ruling on a challenge for cause.' 623 So.2d 644. Citing
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412,105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), the Court
nevertheless held that '[a] prospective juror should be excused for cause if the juror's death
penalty views would substantially impair performance of the juror's duties.' 623 So.2d 644.
        The more substantial issue was whether the error was prejudicial, in as much as the defense
removed the juror with a peremptory challenge. Noting that Ross ultimately exhausted all his
peremptory challenges, the Court found prejudicial error and reversed the conviction.  "A trial court's erroneous ruling which 'deprives a defendant of a peremptory challenge substantially violates that defendant's rights." 623 So.2d at 644 (citations omitted).
        "The juror's fixed belief that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for first degree
murder required that he be dismissed for cause. When a juror holding that opinion is not excused for
cause and the defense exhausts its peremptory challenges, there is reversible trial court error." 623
So.2d at 644.
        Here, defense counsel was forced to exhaust all its peremptory challenges while three more
jurors remained to be sworn in.  Defense counsel was forced to accept three persons as jurors,
including Carl Labranche, a father of three children under age ten, who explained that "because he
had kids," he could vote for the death penalty in this case where the victim was an eight year old girl.
Thus, there is reversible trial court error.
        Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this reversible error issue on appeal.

                                 CLAIM  21

      THE TRIAL COURT ENGAGED IN JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT WHEN IT
  BOLSTERED THE CREDIBILITY OF STATE WITNESSES DURING VOIR DIRE

        At one point during voit dire, defense counsel commented on probable training that FBI expert
witnesses receive to train them how better to testify:

        DEFENSE:      How many of you realize that police officers, particularly F.B.I. agents,
                                testify quite frequently, you know, just come to court every now and then,
                                they do this quite frequently. Do you all realize that? And in fact they even
                                go to class to learn how to testify in court. Did you all know that?

                                 (At this time all the prospective jurors respond in {a negative manner).

                                Didn't know that. Would that make a difference? Would that make a
                                difference one way or the other if in fact you did know that?

        COMEAUX :   It would make a difference to me if his testimony wasn't as clear as I
                                 thought it would be.

DEFENSE:         OK
        COMEAUX:       He'd be stating something and if I got it in the back of my mind
                                        that he was trained to testify then I might be leery of his statements.
        COURT:           Well, the Court's going to barge in here, because I don't think there's
                                       any evidence in this courtroom today that says that F.B.I. attend
                                       classes to teach them how to testify. I think that's Mr.Oubre's opinion
                                       and there's nothing here to validate that.

                                       They may testify clearer than anyone else because of the intelligence
                                       they have but I don't think they go to school to testify.
R. 796-798.
        During this exchange, the court engaged in misconduct by asserting that FBI agents have
higher intelligence than other witnesses and that this reason may account for the quality and
clarity of their testimony.  As testimony by FBI agents played a central role in the presentation
of the state's case, the magnitude of this improper bolstering by the court cannot be
overemphasized.
        Worse still, due to only recently revealed information, there liability and veracity of the FBI
agent testimony is only now in post-conviction being raised as an issue, and thus, the jurors who
were infected by the judge's bolstering did not have any counterpoint to consider at trial. .
        Wherefore for the above reasons, Mr. Wille prays that this; Court order an evidentiary
hearing and vacate his conviction and sentence of death.

                                                          Respectfully submitted,
 

                                                         __________________
                                                          Nicholas J. Trenticosta
                                                               La. Bar #18475
                                                               Denise LeBoeuf
                                                               La. Bar #19005
                                                            Carol A. Kolinchak
                                                               La. Bar #22495
                                                   LOYOLA DEATH PENALTY
                                                         RESOURCE CENTER
                                                            210 Baronne Street
                                                                   Suite 1343
                                                   New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
                                                               (504) 522-0578
 

                          CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 

                                                            end of page 140
 
                Return to John Wille's Homepage
                The CCADP offers free webpages to over 500 Death Row Prisoners
                                               Contact us for more information.
                                                  info@ccadp.org
            The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now
                                                       "The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"

This page was last updated August 6, 2001       Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty
info@ccadp.org          This page is maintained and updated by Dave Parkinson and Tracy Lamourie