Evidence of Murder

by Samuel Roen

  When the trial began there, for three days the prosecutors and the defense went through the rigors of attempting to seat a jury, but without success.

  They questioned 150 potential jurors, 75 filled out detailed eight-page questionnaires, and 15 of these persons were individually interviewed. Most remembered the case and had strong opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of John Huggins. Many of these prospective jurors said without qualm that they believed that the man on trial was guilty. One said he was a Jehovah’s Witness and could not impose the death penalty.

  It soon became obvious that a jury could not be seated in this county. Osceola County was not far enough from Orange County, and evidently not enough time had passed since the crime.

  Judge Perry stated that he would consider a move to Broward County or Palm Beach County.

  After much deliberation and consideration, as well as negotiating the arrangements for the moving of the Huggins trial, Judge Perry selected Tampa as the site for the retrial. The judge set Monday, July 15, 2002, as the starting date.

  Ada and Jim Larson’s attention was diverted from the Huggins retrial by the news that Danny Rolling, infamous killer who brutally murdered the five college students in Gainesville, among them Sonja Larson, was to appear on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, before the Florida Supreme Court, appealing his five death sentences.

  The Larsons religiously attended all the hearings on Danny Rolling.

  At this hearing Ada and Jim listened attentively to both sides arguing whether the killer should be put to death. Rolling’s attorney included the argument that his five death sentences were recommended by a jury biased by fear.

  The decision by the court would be forthcoming.

  Press coverage of the Huggins retrial continued, with news of two new witnesses for the prosecution scheduled to appear at this second trial. One was Christopher Smithson, a thirty-seven-year-old construction specialist whose company, Electric Construction and Erection Company, was involved at the Coronado Springs Resort site, near Blizzard Beach at Walt Disney World.

  Smithson’s story was that just before lunchtime on that fateful June 10, 1997, he saw Carla Larson, whom he knew, walking to a work trailer. Smithson described her wearing a hard hat and sunglasses.

  Smithson stated that later that day around 2:00 to 2:30 P.M., which was later than the reports other witnesses had given, he saw a man matching the description of John Huggins coming out of the woods and driving a white Ford Explorer, the same kind of vehicle Carla Larson drove, heading east on Osceola Parkway.

  Chris Smithson said he noticed because “the Explorer jumped across the westbound lanes and took a place in the median, before falling in behind my Jeep.”

  In a subsequent interview, Smithson added to his account that “I’m an observant person, and I noticed this shiny white Ford Explorer coming out of the woods. I thought it was someone with a new car showing off.”

  Smithson said that when he heard that Carla Larson was missing, he put two and two together: “Then I saw John Huggins’s photograph on the news.” Smithson said that he tried to call authorities but never reached them, and later, when he saw that John Huggins was convicted of first-degree murder, he didn’t pursue it.

  With assurance Smithson explained, “I wouldn’t be doing this if I were not sure. I am not out for recognition. I am here out of civic duty.”

  The second new witness was a Brevard County resident, Charlotte Green, who came forward in 1999 and claimed that she saw John Huggins driving the white Explorer, badly overpainted black in places, in her area near Eau Gallie.

  On June 27, 2002, Ada and Jim Larson were relieved to hear that Danny Rolling lost his second sentencing appeal in the Florida Supreme Court.

  The High Court of Florida rejected the issues raised by Rolling’s lawyer. His five death sentences stood.

  CHAPTER 32

  Another important element that arose for the judge with the Huggins retrial was a new factor regarding the legality of the death sentence in Florida. The question involved whether a judge had the authority with restrictions to hand down a death sentence.

  Judge Perry was unwilling to wait many months more for a decision from the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether Florida’s death penalty was constitutional before going ahead with the Huggins case.

  While the brouhaha continued over the intricacies of constitutionality and state interpretation of the law, Judge Perry stated, “I can’t rewrite the statute. I’m going to do the best I can to see that Mr. Huggins has his day in court and receives a fair trial.”

  But the judge described the situation as similar to “putting a person in a room with no windows and no lights, and asking him to navigate through the room with no flashlight.”

  A reporter simplified the judge’s position: “Perry will tell the jurors in the trial that starts on Monday, July 15, 2002, in Tampa that they will have the final say on whether John Huggins gets life in prison or death if he is convicted.”

  Huggins, staying abreast of the supreme court situation and vitally interested in avoiding the death penalty, made a request of Judge Perry to remove execution from consideration in his trial, on the basis that Florida’s capital sentencing procedure was now unconstitutional.

  Judge Perry, with no hesitation, denied the request.

  In a strong-voiced objection to the judge’s ruling and decision, public defender Bob Wesley argued that Judge Perry did not have the power to change the statute.

  The press ran stories expressing different opinions from both sides of the Huggins case, commenting and exchanging views on this death penalty issue that captured their full attention, as well as having profound effect in courtrooms throughout the country.

  The defending lawyer Wesley vehemently stated, “I understand the frustration of the judge because this is a complex issue, but philosophically we are at odds. We think that once the Arizona case was decided, that means that Florida’s statute is flawed and a judge can’t save it. That is a job for the legislature.”

  The arguments in the Arizona death penalty statute before the United States Supreme Court raised the issue that in a first-degree murder case in Arizona, the jury heard the evidence in the guilt phase of the trial and rendered a verdict, but they were not allowed to hear the penalty phase. The judge alone heard the penalty phase and rendered the decision.

  In declaring Arizona’s procedure unconstitutional, the United State Supreme Court ruled that the jury must hear and decide the penalty phase as well as the guilt phase. The judge then makes the final decision and imposes sentence.

  In Florida the jury hears the guilt phase and delivers a verdict and then also hears the penalty phase before deciding the sentence.

  But the similarity between Arizona’s death penalty statute and Florida’s caused the Florida Supreme Court on Monday, July 8, 2002, to halt executions until the matter could be resolved.

  Prosecutors and defense offered different opinions, with no clear conclusion. The impact of this unresolved death penalty question flooded the entire judicial system of the nation.

  An organization of state prosecutors made it known that they would do their jobs as if the death-penalty-sentencing guidelines were constitutional.

  The Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association decided to move forward cautiously on death penalty cases. Jerry Blair, president of the association and state attorney for the 3rd Judicial Circuit in Florida’s Panhandle, stated, “We are going to proceed as prosecutors on the assumption that we have a valid death penalty statute.”

  Blair said they would decide on a case-by-case basis, but would seek continuances or stays in as many cases as they could, until the Florida Supreme Court decided whether the state’s death penalty statute was constitutional.

  In the Huggins situation Jeff Ashton said that he would not ask for a continuance and did not anticipate asking Judge Belvin Perry to postpone the sentencing portion of the Huggins trial if Huggins was convicted.

  The argument about the de
ath penalty expanded across the nation involving other states’ laws, defense lawyers, prosecutors, various legal organizations, legislators and the general public.

  On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida announced that he would continue to sign death warrants for condemned inmates.

  Specifying, Bush decreed, “If appeals have been exhausted by death row inmates, I will sign death warrants.” He emphasized, “I have an obligation and duty to do so. And then we’ll let the courts respond.”

  CHAPTER 33

  Judge Belvin Perry selected Tampa for Huggins’s second trial, which was to commence on July 15, 2002.

  Tampa is an old and colorful city situated on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and it covers about sixty-five square miles with inland waterways. Since the 1920s Tampa has been a popular tourist attraction, with appealing hotels and motels. Crowds followed railroad magnate Henry Plant to Tampa, where he built his Tampa Bay Hotel and extended railroad and steamship lines, developing the city as a fashionable winter resort, which it remains today.

  A great pleasure for the American male is the hand-rolled cigars made in Tampa. Vicente Martinez Ybor brought their production to Tampa and he rolled them into high favor throughout the nation. An older section of this town is Ybor City, named for him, where the art of hand-rolled cigars still continues.

  Tampa is also known for its shipbuilding, the Henry Plant Museum on the campus of the University of Tampa, and the Florida Symphony Orchestra. The popular Tampa Bay Buccaneers professional football team finally made it to the Super Bowl XXXVII, in San Diego, on January 26, 2003, beating the Oakland Raiders, by a score of 48–21, to the wildly cheering city’s delight.

  In the quiet of the staid courtroom, on Monday, July 15, 2002, Bob Wesley and Jeff Ashton questioned more than fifty would-be jurors for the trial.

  All went well, and the indication was strong that a jury would be seated by Tuesday afternoon, with the actual trial beginning Wednesday morning.

  Both prosecutors and defense attorneys seemed satisfied with the panel.

  Ashton’s co-counsel was Jim Altman, a fellow in his early fifties, about 5’10”, with thinning gray hair. He migrated from New York City to Florida and was a public defender in Seminole County prior to joining the Orange County/Osceola County State Attorney’s Office.

  In Tampa the two prosecutors shared a suite in the Residence Inn: two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living room and kitchen.

  “This is very nice, a little apartment.” Ashton smiled. “A great place to stay.”

  “Yes, we should be very comfortable,” Altman agreed.

  “And convenient. We’re right next door to the Courtyard Marriott, where we’re putting all of our witnesses, so it’s very handy.”

  Consideration was shown to Judge Perry by providing a newly refurbished courtroom, apparently the best one in the system.

  (One practical problem they discovered was that there were only two working rest rooms available on the floor. Jeff Ashton put it laughingly, “We had a consistent problem when taking a break, trying to find a rest room. The jurors were always lined up at the two on this floor, so we would have to go up or down a couple of floors.”)

  On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, a day that the defendant hoped to avoid, Jeff Ashton and his co-counsel, Jim Altman, sat at the prosecution table, a stack of papers and notes before them, whispering last-minute comments before the start of the retrial of the case against John Huggins.

  In moments Chief Judge Belvin Perry took his place in the courtroom while a bailiff announced authoritatively, “This court is now in session.”

  A sudden blanket of quiet fell over the chamber, then Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton, with a serious demeanor, broke the silence. “Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I thank you for your participation in this important trial.”

  Scanning the members of the jury and pausing for a moment to ensure their attention, the confident attorney told the gripping story of a beautiful, young woman engineer working for the construction company Centex Rooney, who left the work site of a new luxury hotel at Walt Disney World on June 10, 1997, for a simple journey “to buy some things for lunch at a nearby Publix market.”

  In dramatic fashion Ashton stated that the devoted wife, and mother of a one-year-old girl, vanished and “was never seen alive.”

  Ashton continued in a grim, detailed narration, describing the intensive, tireless search orchestrated with a great number of varied persons, including sheriff’s personnel, Centex Rooney employees, landscape specialists, friends, helicopter pilots and cadaver dogs with their handlers, with no immediate success in finding her.

  He told of the two grueling days of scouring the highways, the byways, the woods and all of the immediate area before her coworkers happened on her nude body. He described the condition of the body and the area in which she was found.

  The courtroom was deathly quiet, spellbound by Ashton’s portrayal of the facts of the dreadful murder.

  In a strong, emotional presentation, Jeff Ashton told the jury that this defendant took the victim’s clothing and jewelry, as well as her white Ford Explorer, which he parked at a friend’s house and later spray-painted black before destroying it with fire. He added that Huggins took the victim’s purse, which he discarded as he drove along in the Ford Explorer. He said that Carla’s jewelry was found at Huggins’s mother-in-law’s house in an electrical outlet in a shed behind her home.

  Ashton stressed that John Huggins premeditatedly, brutally, unmercifully, murdered Carla Ann Larson.

  Letting his voice drop into silence, the prosecutor turned his head to view the accused seated with his counsel at the defense table. The jury’s eyes followed the prosecutor to focus on John Huggins, who sat unmoved, unaffected and undisturbed.

  Ashton concluded by telling the jury, “You must do your duty, which you have sworn to do.”

  A murmur rippled across the courtroom as Ashton took his seat.

  Orange/Osceola public defender Bob Wesley rose, and facing Judge Belvin Perry, he addressed, “Your Honor, the defense offers no opening statement.” He returned to his seat.

  Wesley’s attitude was that his client did not need to provide a defense. The big man later explained confidently, “Our defense is that the state cannot prove Mr. Huggins’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

  The prosecution began its case as they did in the first trial by presenting Jim Larson, describing his family’s lifestyle, and specifically their activities on and subsequent to June 10. The trial proceeded on course, and Ashton set forth his case methodically, step by step.

  On Thursday, July 18, 2002, the courtroom buzzed as a sixteen-year-old boy took the witness chair. His blond straight hair was in a bowl cut, and he had a diffident expression. Jonathon Huggins, son of the accused John Huggins, sat with his heavy, round face slightly tilted, his eyes focused into the distance, and awaited whatever questions would be asked of him. In this second trial he would testify against his father in person instead of having his deposition read by the prosecutor, as in the first trial.

  A few rows away sat his seventy-two-year-old grandmother, Joanne Hackett, who was raising him and his sister. Her eyes were focused on the boy, and it was clearly evident she was concerned about his appearance in the courtroom.

  Outside the courtroom earlier that day, she had asserted with motherly insistence that she didn’t think her son, John, had participated in the murder of Carla Larson. “I don’t think he did it. I just don’t think he could do that to anybody. He’s a good guy.” She said her son didn’t want her in court, because he thought all the lies told about him would upset her. She acknowledged that her son was a career bank robber, but she said he did that to support his drug habit, for which she blamed Angel. “We’re talking about a real treacherous person here,” she said. “But he was in love with her.”

  Outside the courtroom Jeff Ashton explained the situation with Jonathon Huggins, recalling the deposition he took from the
young Huggins in December 1998. “He gave some testimony that was helpful to us, the most important part was that when Angel and the children left the Days Inn in Kissimmee on the day of the murder to go back to Melbourne, John was not with them, which dovetailed with our theory that Huggins murdered Carla Larson, then drove back to Melbourne in her truck.”

  In the first trial, when Huggins asked that Jonathon not be forced to testify in person, Jeff Ashton agreed, not wanting to put the boy in the position of testifying against his father.

  Despite his hard-line approach to his profession as a prosecutor, Ashton was the father of sons himself, and he had a compassionate feeling for this lad whose father was on trial for his life. The state attorney felt it would be traumatic for Jonathon to be put in the position of saying something against his father that might contribute to his conviction.

  In this second trial the ASA put the ball in Bob Wesley’s court, asking the defense if they wanted to do the same this time.

  Without consulting his attorneys, John Huggins decided that now he wanted his son to testify in person.

  Ashton accepted that decision and had Jonathon come to Tampa to testify.

  On Thursday, before Jonathon testified, Ashton provided him with a copy of his 1998 deposition, asking him if there was anything that he didn’t remember or anything that was different from what he remembered.

  The boy assured the prosecutor that essentially there was not anything different.

  Ashton and his co-counsel, Jim Altman, discussed the potential testimony of Jonathon Huggins, and they agreed to put him on the stand.

  When the young boy testified, he claimed that he pretty much had no memory of anything.

  Prosecutor Ashton skillfully got him to acknowledge that in his deposition in 1998 he made the statement about going back to Melbourne without his father, the defendant. Ashton was pleased to get that important information in front of the jury.