by Burl Barer
The position of district judge is an elected office in Texas. Each term is for a period of four years. In order to be eligible to serve as a district judge, a person must meet the following qualifications established by the Texas Constitution: be a citizen of the United States and the state of Texas, be licensed to practice law in Texas and have been a practicing lawyer or judge for four years before the election, and have resided in the district (Travis County) for two years preceding the election.
The 167th District Court has jurisdiction to hear any felony criminal case arising in Travis County, and that covers all manner of cases outlined above. With so many years on the bench, Judge Lynch had heard all manner of delusional nonsense. Part of his job in the trial of Rhonda Glover was keeping delusional nonsense away from the jury of Ms. Glover’s peers.
Representing Ms. Glover were attorneys Joe James Sawyer and Dierdre Darouzzet. Attorneys for the state of Texas were Gail Van Winkle and Bryan Case. It was Case who read the indictment against Rhonda Lee Glover, which in part said that she intentionally and knowingly caused the death of an individual, namely, James Joste, by shooting him with a firearm. It was also
noted that during the commission of this offense, she used and exhibited a deadly weapon. “How does the defendant plead?” “Not guilty, Your Honor,” said Rhonda Glover, and the trial was under way.
15
“Opening statements,” Judge Lynch told the jury, “are not evidence in the case. They are kind of a setup or preview of what the lawyers believe the evidence is going to indicate to you. The idea of opening statements is to give you an overview, and put things in context. At this time for the state, Ms. Van Winkle, you may proceed.”
Well-prepared and professional, Gail Van Winkle confidently outlined the case against Rhonda Lee Glover. She established the background of the Joste/ Glover relationship, their fluctuating living situations, and told jurors of the Barton Creek Incident. “Jimmy Joste took responsibility for that,” said Van Winkle, “and their relationship continued pretty much as it had before.”
The state established that Jimmy worshiped Rhonda and showered her with material possessions. “By late spring or early summer of 2004,” Van Winkle explained, “Jimmy Joste’s financial situation had taken a turn for the worse. He was living in the Austin home he purchased for Rhonda, and she was living in a luxury condominium in Houston.”
In the matter-of-fact tone with which Van Winkle calmly laid the foundation of the Joste/Glover relationship, she also put forth the premise of premeditated homicide. “During that same time period,” said Van Winkle, “Rhonda Glover began planning Jimmy’s murder. ”
The state then detailed Rhonda Glover’s firearms training in both Houston and Austin, and her purchase of the Glock 9mm before getting to the all-important matter of Glover’s conversation with Patti Swenson in the restaurant parking lot. This was the conversation where Glover ranted about her plan to seduce, mutilate and murder Jimmy Joste because he was satanic and a cannibal who was murdering children in pagan rituals with George W. Bush.
The jury of her peers before whom Rhonda Glover appeared never heard about Satan or pagan rituals. Everyone, including Rhonda Glover, agreed that the true nature of things leading up to her pulling the trigger were never made public.
“We didn’t really want to get into all that,” said the prosecution team several years later, stating that Rhonda’s justification for murder was irrelevant. “The simple fact is that she absolutely did not shoot him in self-defense. It was murder, plain and simple. She killed him.”
Joe James Sawyer, Rhonda Glover’s attorney, was determined to convince the jury that it most certainly was self-defense, and that Rhonda Glover had every reason to fear for her life. The jury would have to see Jimmy the way Rhonda saw him—a cruel and evil man with a marked propensity for life-threatening violence. One legal stumbling block to this portrayal was the ruling by Judge Lynch that there could be no elaborate detailing of drug usage by Jimmy Joste, or other negative portrayals of the victim beyond what was a matter of record, such as the Barton Creek Incident. This was because the state had made a motion in limine.
“This is a motion made before the start of a trial,” explained Bryan Case, “asking that the judge rule that certain evidence may not be introduced to the jury in a trial. This is done to keep the jury from hearing possibly inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial evidence. In this case there was a motion granted by Judge Lynch that there would be no mention of bad acts about the victim.”
Sawyer was barely two minutes into his opening statement when he said, “Jimmy Joste loves to drink and do drugs, and as in any relationship where drink and drugs are involved, or too many of them—”
Gail Van Winkle was on her feet in a heartbeat. “May we approach?”
“This was in our motion,” Van Winkle said to Lynch, “any bad act about the victim. There is no evidence of anything in his system on the date of his murder. ”
“There is no evidence of anything yet,” countered Sawyer. “This is an opening statement. I am absolutely allowed to reference that.”
If Sawyer was going to say such things, he better have evidence that was both relevant and admissible. “This is his opening statement,” said the judge to Van Winkle. “He is a lawyer who has practiced for twenty years. You have to proceed in good faith, Mr. Sawyer.”
Sawyer believed his evidence would come in, and be admissible because “they go directly to motive. Ms. Van Winkle suggests that she killed him in cold blood. I need to link that up to why she got a gun and why she got the RV.”
“Because he was using drugs?” Van Winkle was being sarcastic.
“There is a difference,” countered Sawyer, “between reacting in fear and reacting in hate. As for Rhonda Glover always going back to him, it was him coming back to her. ”
Sawyer continued his opening statement in which Jimmy Joste was portrayed as a man of proven violence and abuse, a man who struck fear into the heart of Rhonda Glover, and a man whom Glover shot in self-defense. The evidence, Sawyer told the jury, would speak to them, and it would loudly and clearly say that Rhonda Glover was innocent of murder.
The trial’s first day saw a rapid procession of prosecution witnesses as the state presented their evidence in logical order. One by one the secondary players in this tragedy took the witness stand. The jury heard the story from the beginning, starting with Paul Owen telling about his mother, Janice Van Every, and he going to the Mission Oaks residence to find Rhonda Glover, returning the following day and summoning the police.
When Van Every summoned police to the Mission Oaks home, she feared the dead body inside was that of Rhonda Glover, not Jimmy Joste. Rhonda’s mother even asked if there was a dead child inside as well. The implication being that she and Van Every believed it possible that Jimmy Joste would murder both Rhonda and his own son. The reason they considered that possibility was because of all the horrid things said about Jimmy by Rhonda in the past year or so. Joe James Sawyer did his best to get this fear of Jimmy in front of the jury when Van Every was on the witness stand, but when he raised the question, the state objected on the grounds that it was irrelevant.
“Objection sustained,” said Judge Lynch. Rhonda’s aunt and mother fearing that Jimmy might have killed Rhonda and her son was not relevant to the jury deciding whether or not Rhonda Glover fired the Glock 9mm in self-defense on that date, at that time and under those circumstances.
Glover’s cousin, aunt and mother were not allowed to mention the reason why Van Every and her son were looking for Rhonda Glover because she had run away with her son rather than surrender him to her mother as ordered by the court. The fact that Glover had been on the run for many months, with her whereabouts unknown, was not revealed during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial.
Austin police officers and crime scene personnel testified about finding Jimmy Joste’s body, and jurors were provided numerous visual aids detailing the location of the residence and the layout of
all the rooms. Photographs, including aerial views, Google Earth pictures, and crime scene pictures were all entered as evidence, as were the logs of Rhonda Glover’s visit to Red’s and Top Gun, the contracts for both the auto rental and the RV rental, and every other conceivable receipt or piece of paper relevant to the case. The Glock, shell casings, and the flower-print sundress were all entered into evidence.
Everyone from the taxi driver who brought Glover back to the Barders’ home, to the employee who sold Glover her final box of bullets, told their story in Judge Lynch’s courtroom. The state also called Rocky Navarro and Danny Davis to the stand, eliciting testimony about Jimmy Joste’s personality, character and complete love and dedication to Rhonda Glover.
Rocky Navarro testified that Jimmy Joste was submissive and “worshiped” Rhonda Glover. Rhonda’s attorney, eager to portray Joste as a dangerous man, confronted Navarro on cross-examination.
“You would agree with me that someone who worships a woman,” asked Joe James Sawyer, “certainly would not beat her?”
“That is correct,” agreed Navarro.
“I’m sure you know that on at least one occasion Mr. Joste was hauled off to jail for doing exactly that?”
“No,” replied Navarro, “I didn’t know that. It would be hard for me to believe.”
“Awfully hard,” agreed Sawyer, “because the guy you know was an easygoing, very open, warm human being. You thought he was a pretty submissive guy, and laid-back.”
“Yes, sir.”
“Of course,” concluded Sawyer, “it might stand for the proposition that people wear two faces all the time, the face we present to the public world and the one we wear when we are alone or with our families.”
Joe James Sawyer was bolstering his original concept, put forth in his opening statement, that Jimmy Joste was two-faced, giving the public a persona of gentle kindness, but a drunken, abusive brute in private. He took the same approach with Danny Davis, and Sawyer’s sidebar sparring with Bryan Case provided additional courtroom drama.
“Did Jimmy like to hunt?” asked Case.
“No,” replied Davis.
“Did Jimmy own guns?”
“No, sir. He hated guns.”
“And regarding Jimmy’s personality,” asked Bryan Case, “was he an aggressive or passive person?”
“Passive,” answered Davis.
“Can you say that with complete confidence?”
Sawyer was on his feet. “I don’t care with what confidence he says it. How on earth is that question relevant or probative to this jury? Object.”
“Sustained,” ruled Judge Lynch, and Case rephrased his question.
“Would you describe him as a docile person?”
Sawyer objected, calling out, “Same question with sunglasses on!”
On cross-examination Joe James Sawyer picked up on the entire docile issue, asking Danny Davis, “Docile, decent, good men don’t go around beating the hell out of their wives, do they?”
“I don’t think Jimmy could beat Rhonda up, sir,” responded Davis.
“Then I think it would be an absolute shock to you—”
It was Bryan Case’s turn to voice objection. “I object to any trashing of the victim. There has been no evidence that he did such, except through the mouth of the defendant!”
“The wicked flee who none pursueth,” said Sawyer, paraphrasing Proverbs 28:1. “Your Honor, I’m going to ask a question that is in evidence.”
“I will see if there is evidence.” It wasn’t the judge answering—it was Case.
“Yes, we will,” snapped Sawyer.
Judge Lynch had enough. “Listen, listen, listen, lawyers! Address the court, not each other from your seats. Address the court. You may carry on, Mr. Sawyer. ”
“Now, I suppose it would shock you …” Sawyer picked up exactly where he had left off.
“Your Honor, I object,” proclaimed Case, “to these sidebar remarks, and I think that it is improper—”
Judge Lynch’s aggravation was increasing exponentially. “I’ll see the lawyers at the bench for what I hope is the last time … with this witness, anyway.” Lynch stopped the trial more than once to lecture the attorneys regarding their interpersonal sparring, and the lack of progress in moving the trial forward. It seemed as if no witness could speak more than a few words without the need for another huddle at the bench, or the jury being sent from the courtroom.
The entire trial was an uphill battle for Rhonda Glover’s lawyers, but they did have the Barton Creek Incident on their side—the one indisputable record of Jimmy Joste pleading no contest to a charge of domestic violence against Rhonda. They would need to raise reasonable doubt, and Joe James Sawyer knew it was only a matter of time before Gail Van Winkle would call Patti Swenson to the witness stand. He knew what was coming and he didn’t like it. The prosecution previewed Patti Swenson’s testimony in their opening remarks, asserting that it would establish that Glover planned the murder far in advance. Sawyer strongly objected to the jury hearing only about the threat, not the reason behind it.
“The state’s closing argument in this case,” complained Sawyer to Judge Lynch, “is going to be that she had the intent to kill Jimmy Joste as early as the time that she spoke to Swenson, and that the only thing she changed was the method of execution. They’re going to say, in fact, she was contemplating murder from probably even before the time she spoke to Swenson all the way through July. That would mean that there was continuing intent and plan to kill Jimmy. This is how they’re going to use it. That is going to mislead the jury because they will never have a chance to understand whether this was a statement made out of simple exasperation, whether it was a statement made as a result of the anger of the moment, and whether it constituted any real plan or intent. This is the way in which it is going to mislead the jury. They’re going to say there is no question of self-defense in this case. They are going to say that this woman always planned to kill him, and that she was just determining the method of execution, but when she went in there on July twenty-first, it was finally the culmination of this plan that she had made, this continuing course of conduct that culminated in the murder.”
Sawyer argued that the jury was entitled to hear all the conversations Glover and Swenson had that day in order to put Glover’s scary comments about cutting off Joste’s penis into perspective. “I believe the jury is entitled to hear all the conversations,” said Sawyer, “so that they can sort it out, separate it out, and determine that there wasn’t an ongoing plan. Without it, obviously, the state has the advantage of saying that the only thing she changed was the method in which she executed him.”
Glover, in her conversations with Swenson that day, said many more things other than her idea of cutting off Jimmy’s penis. “I noticed a change,” Swenson said when questioned outside the presence of the jury, “a dramatic change in her behavior and her ideas by the things she was saying to me that day. Rhonda said she was scared because there were things going on in her life regarding Jimmy that she didn’t have any control over, and they were affecting her and her son, and she was concerned for their safety. She told me that she learned that Jimmy was the Devil, and that he was into child pornography, and that he had sexually abused their son. Again she said Jimmy was a demon, and she feared that he was harming young children, and that she had some pictures or something that seemed to validate that.”
“So, basically,” said Joe James Sawyer to Judge Lynch, “Rhonda was telling her that Jimmy was the Devil, that he was into porn, hurting kids, and this other stuff—and that was the reason why she wanted to cut off his penis.”
“There was another conversation I had with Rhonda,” elaborated Swenson, “where she said other things that were strange too. It was when I went to Montgomery County to be supportive of her in custody of her son. She opened the back of her Suburban and showed me some pictures she had taken of the ductwork in the house.”
The photographs of ductwork, Glover told Swenson, show
ed there was possibly the body of a child hidden in it. “Rhonda became increasingly erratic every time I saw her, and by ‘erratic’ I mean that now she was saying stuff like Jimmy was into cannibalism and Satanism. Well, this obviously concerned me. I was concerned for her, for her son and for Jimmy. I mean, it was so strange what she was saying. It didn’t sound at all like the Jimmy I knew. And the whole time Rhonda kept saying how afraid of him she was. How afraid she was of Jimmy because of the cannibalism, Satanism and all that.”
Bryan Case and Gail Van Winkle did not want the jury hearing any of Rhonda Glover’s bizarre statements, other than the one about cutting off Jimmy Joste’s penis. Sawyer wanted the jury to know the entire conversation so they would get a clear idea not only of the conversation in full, but for a clear idea of just how irrational his client actually was.
“Tell me,” said Judge Lynch to Case and Van Winkle, “is there a rational reason why you don’t want the jury to hear the rest of the conversation? Why don’t you want it in?”
The reason was this: In a case of self-defense, there is what is called the “reasonable person standard.”
The questions put forth in the “reasonable person standard” are “What would a reasonable person do in this situation?” and “Would a reasonable person have shot Jimmy Joste at that time, and under those conditions?”
“If her irrational thoughts rise to the level of insanity,” said Van Winkle, “then she should plead insanity, and if they do not, then she is held to the reasonable person standard.”
“Exactly,” agreed Judge Lynch.
“Or,” continued Van Winkle, “if she really believes that he was into child porn and child sexual abuse, that isn’t a defense to kill him.”