Imagine that you represent law enforcement
in Geneva County (Alabama) and you are investigating a murder. You learn
that on the evening the murder likely occurred, your colleagues stopped
a vehicle not far from the murder, but let
the driver go. You discover that although
the driver gave an alias, his name was James Linder and he resides in Florida.
You find that the truck belonged not to him but to a James Fletcher also
in Florida. You go to Florida to interview the two men. The men have already
spoken collaboratively prior to interview. Mr. Linder claims that the murder
was not committed by him but by a William Dave Scott. Mr.Fletcher initially
denies any knowledge of the case but then also
implicates Mr.Scott. Both say the murder
was committed at the behest of a Jesse Richburg. There are no witnesses
to the murder nor physical evidence from the scene implicating anyone.
All you have are the somewhat conflicting stories of Linder and Fletcher
(indeed these stories changed progressively at different stages, apparently
to accommodate the ever-changing needs of the prosecution).
You then find that a stolen car from
Geneva County around the time of the murder bears a fingerprint that matches
Mr.Scott's and think you have found your killer. But when the time comes
to try the case you realize you have a problem. The only real evidence
you have that he was involved in the
killing is the word of two accomplices
to the crime who have saved themselves from the electric chair and you
know that neither is reliable nor legally sufficient.
It is apparent that at this point (whether
intentionally or not), the Geneva County authorities began to cut corners.
Although the murder and the theft were dissimilar in nearly every respect,
they were tried together so that Mr.Scott could be placed in Geneva County.
Although the fingerprint was the
only evidence tying Mr.Scott to the
theft of the car, the state made no effort to establish a chain of custody
to authenticate either the latent or the known prints and thus prove they
were what they were alleged to be. To establish pecuniary gain, the state
introduced evidence that Mr. Scott had been promised a chance at future
murders, although evidence varied completely from the indictment and was
highly inflammatory. To prove burglary, it had its main witness (James
Linder) read parts directly from his police statement to the jury when
it
appeared he was not going to testify
as the prosecution had hoped (It should be noted that the testimony sought
was Mr. Scott's alleged reciting of the events of the murder and Mr. Linder
couldn't remember what he had stated originally).
To tie the whole case together in both
guilt and sentencing phases, the prosecution relied on the testimony of
its investigator, Jimmy Hand (who also happened to be the nephew of the
deceased). The problem with Mr. Hand's
testimony was that it was comprised
entirely of hearsay. Mr. Hand testified at length to remarks allegedly
made by the victim, accomplice Jesse Richburg, and the victim's ex-wife
Rhonda Bohannon, although no showing of availability was made. (Again,
it is important to note that these witnesses were available but apparently
didn't offer information favorable to the prosecution's case) Appellant
was thus unable to cross examine those with the most damaging testimony
against him.
Sad to say, the prosecution appeared
to have very little regard for the rules of evidence in this case. They
illicited voice identification of Mr. Scott without any foundation. They
introduced evidence of weapons found in the victim's home
that had no relevance to the case.
They brought out that Mr. Scott used cocaine to show that he was an immoral
person. When it came right down to it, the state did
not prove its case nor corroborate what the accomplices had to say with
legal evidence. The trial court then compounded the problem when
it refused some of the corroboration
instructions sought by the defense, and allowed a conviction on the stories
of two men who clearly needed to save themselves.
Read the next page : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
| Return To William Dave Scott's Homepage |
