by Dale Hudson
The trial had pretty much lost its emotional edge with the late-afternoon witnesses, but it quickly returned to a higher intensity when sex was mentioned. Dressed fashionably in a bright red suit, Orrie West questioned Jeffcoat in relation to his findings. “Did they ask you to determine whose semen that was in his underwear?” she asked.
“No, I did not. I was never submitted a sample of blood from the victim to compare to the unknown stain. I would have to have that sample to make that comparison.”
“So you don’t know that it was Mr. Poole’s?”
“All I know is there was semen on his underwear,” Jeffcoat stated.
“Now, you said how long have you been doing this for SLED?”
“Fifteen years.”
Hembree asked for permission to redirect and with one question he asked what everyone already knew was the answer: “How would you expect it to get there?”
“Through ejaculation after sex,” Jeffcoat replied.
The unspoken affirmation on the jury’s face was significant. Had Renee Poole really made love to her husband on the night he was shot, thus luring him right into a death trap?
After a brief sidebar and a few remarks from the judge to the jury, the court called for a break.
During the break, Diggs rallied his troops. He anticipated the prosecution was about to make one of its biggest strategic moves. They were preparing to bring on the big boys, Detectives John King and Terry Altman. In addition, they would introduce and play the tapes of Renee’s interviews. This, he believed, was where the game would be won or lost.
Diggs wasn’t worried. He had promised the jury in his opening remarks they would hear Renee’s testimony in her own words. After the tapes were played, his plan was to launch a ruthless attack against the detectives and accuse them of coercing Renee into a confession. This would later on lead the jury straight to his strongest defensive claim when he introduced his expert witness and his testimony relating to false confessions. Renee was in shock after the murder of her husband and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She was in a vulnerable position while she was being interviewed by the police and was coerced into giving a confession. This tactic would put the defense back where they wanted to be in this trial and give them a strong defensive foothold.
But, first things first. He had to contend with the prosecution’s witnesses.
Humphries’ questioning of the mild-mannered and gentle—dressed to the nines—Detective King led into Renee’s confession that she and John had conspired to murder. For the jury, it was hard to imagine this soft-spoken detective forcing Renee into a confession. King implied it was as plain as the nose on his face, she was not under any undue duress and was more than willing to talk with the police. And at no time had she been threatened or had she been promised any hope of reward or hope of leniency for her statements. She had not only agreed to provide a statement voluntarily, but had allowed them to tape it as well. King had no concerns whatsoever regarding whether or not Renee understood what she was saying to him.
Humphries took his time and through King’s examination methodically presented to the jury the circumstances of and conversations from Renee’s interviews. During this process, he introduced and explained in a lengthy discourse with King the Miranda warnings and Waiver of Rights forms that Renee had signed, indicating she had been advised of her rights. He then addressed her interview in Davie County, where she was represented by counsel.
“Specifically, in regard to that particular interview,” Humphries asked, “was the defendant asked directly by law enforcement whether or not John Boyd Frazier had shot William Brent Poole?”
“Yes, she was,” King answered softly.
“And during the interview, the first part of that interview, what was her answer to law enforcement?”
“She said no,” King responded. “She said [that] it could have been. Then she said it could have been anyone. But she didn’t give a direct answer and say, ‘Yes, it was.’ ” He then revealed that during the interview process her attorney had requested a fifteen-minute recess.
Humphries approached the witness. “What new, specific information did you receive, if any, in this second portion of the interview which occurred on the twelfth of June at Davie County?”
“She told us it was John Frazier that shot and killed her husband.”
“And did she indicate to you how she was sure of that information?”
“She said she knew it was John from his voice, from his build, from his mannerism and just from being around him.”
Humphries then asked King to explain for the jury Renee’s arrest the night of her husband’s wake at the funeral home. Why it was necessary to arrest her that evening?
King explained the fugitive task force had located and arrested John Frazier and they had some concern Renee might flee. He admitted his concern was not just specific to Renee, but as it would have been under any other circumstance when a codefendant was arrested prior to another codefendant.
The prosecution held nothing back. “What if anything,” Humphries began, throwing everything out but the kitchen sink, “was said by the mother of the defendant to “Butch,” a member of the fugitive task force, regarding interview techniques, if you will, regarding her daughter.”
King didn’t bat an eye. He looked straight at the jury and responded, “It was relayed that you have to really get on Renee real hard to get the truth out of her.”
Diggs rose to his feet and offered a boisterous objection on the basis of hearsay. The prosecution had insinuated that even the mother couldn’t trust her daughter to tell the truth. Cottingham sustained.
“Your Honor, I understand,” Humphries countered. “Just as a basis, I submit to the court this is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to support the technique used by law enforcement in the interview of the defendant, which will be relevant clearly on cross-examination.”
“All right,” the judge accepted the explanation. “I charge the jury that the assertion by the mother at that time may not be used as any evidence other than it is for the truth asserted. It is merely solicited for the purposes of his further technique in discussing with the defendant. Is that correct?”
“That is correct, Your Honor,” Humphries assured the judge.
Cottingham explained his decision to the jurors again and cleared it with Diggs before he allowed King to continue.
“Once I was in possession of that information,” King stated, “as a result of that information, I wrote that down on a piece of paper and slipped it under the door during her interview.”
“Now, after giving this note that you’ve spoken of to Detective Altman,” Humphries went on to say, “what, if anything, did you note regarding his interview technique with the defendant?”
“Once I gave him that information, his technique did change,” King answered.
“Was it more assertive?”
“Yes, it was.”
“Did there come another point during the interview where you heard something that you wished to then convey back to the interviewers?”
“Yes, I did.”
Several of the jurors leaned forward or sat up in their chairs. Humphries smiled, then instructed King to tell the jury about that.
“During the course of the interview, I heard Renee tell Detective Altman and Lieutenant Frontz that she didn’t think John was gonna be there because the time was too soon. I then wrote that information down on another piece of paper and slipped it under the door to bring that to their attention.”
Humphries took a step toward Sergeant King. “And after giving them that information, did those detectives then go back to that point—that they thought John would be there too soon?”
“Yes, they did.”
Humphries then moved to publish to the court typed transcripts and the first recorded interview between Detective King and Renee on the night of Brent’s murder at 3:37 in the morning. He wanted the jury to hear how much her story
changed from this interview to her later ones, and that the most incriminating evidence against her would come not in this interview but in a subsequent one when she was in the presence of her attorney.
Before the jury heard the tape, Judge Cottingham wanted to make certain Renee got a fair shake. For fifteen minutes, he instructed the jury on the Miranda warnings and the law as it related to Renee’s alleged voluntary statements. It was an impressive history lesson concerning constitutional rights. As the judge went through it all, Renee stared at King from across the courtroom.
The jury listened to the taped interview and followed along with their typed transcript copies for exactly one hour and two minutes. They heard a very calm and collected Renee Poole being interviewed by the polite Detective King. At 6:27 P.M., Judge Cottingham asked the defense if they desired to cross-examine the witness or break for the evening.
Diggs wisely chose to break and begin with King in the morning.
The prosecution believed they had delivered a tremendous blow to the defense’s case that Renee had been coerced into making a confession, in allowing them to listen to the taped interview. They had wanted them to see that even the not-so-bright persons could figure out a fallback position after they had said something they regretted and claim they had been pressured—when it had never happened. The prosecution was convinced Renee was sophisticated enough to do just that when she saw her statement was going to be used against her.
The defense had their work cut out for them. The jury would want to know why it was that Renee hadn’t been able to keep quiet and kept talking to the police until she finally confessed? Had she helped to plan it, but thought she could get away with it simply because she hadn’t pulled the trigger?
Sergeant King was a very believable witness. If the defense was going to discredit him, then Diggs was going to have to show up in court tomorrow with his boxing gloves on.
CHAPTER 33
Bill Diggs must have lain awake all night thinking about damage control, for his first question of the day was so intimidating that it set the tone for the remainder of his cross-examination.
“Is it, Detective King?” he asked slyly.
Deputy solicitor Humphries’ gentle questioning the day before suddenly gave way to a blistering cross-examination from the defense. Diggs came out of his corner swinging and went after King with a vengeance. In a loud, sometimes sarcastic voice, he pounced on the detective from the get-go. With a series of questions he asked with his back turned toward the witness, he began accusing King of having a role in purposely staging the times and places of Renee’s interviews that put her at an unfair disadvantage.
It was a valiant effort—but, somehow, somewhere—Diggs got sidetracked. When King bucked up and refused to answer questions regarding simple information, to his satisfaction, Diggs lost his focus and King’s cross-examination turned into an ugly slugfest. He kept firing his questions at King so fast and furious, often on insignificant matters, that they overlapped his answers, prompting Judge Cottingham to issue several harsh warnings.
“Are you gonna let me finish my answer?” King would shoot back at Diggs throughout his testimony when he tried to snowball him with rapid questions. A frustrated Diggs would respond with: “All I’m trying to ask you is . . . that’s all I’m trying to get to.” Back and forth it went each time, until Diggs made the statement to King, “I understand how limited your knowledge is with respect to this case.”
Humphries jumped to his feet in a strong prosecution objection. “(He’s) characterizing the testimony, Your Honor. That’s improper and he knows it.”
Diggs didn’t fare any better after that, and seemed to get deeper and deeper into a pissing contest with Sergeant King. But he never could land a solid punch. King led him around in circles, time and time again, until he was totally frustrated. Diggs took on the face of a law student who had just been told there was a pop quiz and he had studied the wrong chapter the night before.
“How many interviews did you conduct?” Diggs asked.
King looked at him as though he were confused. “How many interviews? Interviews that I had personally conducted?”
“Well, when I say you, in that sense, I mean the detective unit that was working on this case? However many detectives that may have been?”
“There were several interviews conducted,” King answered.
“Okay, could you tell me the individuals who were interviewed?”
“I don’t have the names. No, I don’t.”
“Do you know . . . ,” Diggs said, wagging his head like a dog. “Is there anybody in the Myrtle Beach Police Department that would have a list of the names of people who were interviewed by that investigative unit prior to your going to North Carolina?”
“Yes, it would be documented which investigator talked to who.”
“And who . . . who would have that documentation?”
“Whichever investigator was assisting in, in talking with these different people.”
Diggs took a deep breath. “All right. Did the investigators talk among themselves or did they construct this wall of silence between themselves?”
“I don’t understand what you’re talking about,” King responded. “‘A wall of silence’?”
“Did the . . . Did the detectives discuss this case among themselves and share information?”
“That’s correct.”
“And did they share it with you?”
“I may have some of it. Yes.”
“And they may have shared it with you, but you just forgot it. Is that what you’re saying?”
“No, that’s not what I’m saying,” King shot back.
“Did they share it with you or not?”
“Like I said, I may have got some of the information. Yes.”
Diggs kept his back turned toward King. “Either you did or you did not, or you forgot it. Now which one is it? Did you get information from them or not?”
“No, sir,” the judge admonished Diggs. “You’re not gonna limit him that way. He may explain his answer.”
“All right, certainly, I wish he would do that, Your Honor.”
King still wouldn’t answer. After several questions, and getting the runaround, Diggs asked him again, with sarcasm as thick as karo syrup: “Did you get it or not? That’s all I am asking. Can you tell us for sure if you got the information?”
“I’m telling you, Mr. Diggs. I may have got some of the information.”
“All right. And I—I . . . I concede that. You’re doing the best you can. Is that correct?”
“Is that a question you’re asking me?” King asked, catching his drift.
“Yes, sir. You’re doing your best?”
King didn’t respond, but the judge did. “That’s a question for the jury,” Cottingham admonished the counselor. “Go ahead.”
Diggs grilled King further about how they determined John was a suspect. At one point, he asked, “Well, did you base your analysis on anything other than evidence that you were collecting? I mean, when you talk about this, was it like crystal balls or something?”
Eyes in the jury widened. The judge boomed, “That would be an improper question.”
“Well, I apologize for that,” Diggs conceded.
“That’s totally improper,” Cottingham reminded him.
The jury’s body language indicated Diggs had hit a sour note. His banter with Sergeant King did more to turn the jury off to his line of questioning than to turn them on. And to make matters worse, the remainder of his time would be spent in hurling spitballs at King, getting objections from the prosecution and then sparring with the judge. Cottingham even lost his patience with Diggs and his antics. After Diggs’s persistent protest that King wasn’t cooperating with him, Cottingham shouted, “No, sir, that’s not true. The jury will determine that. Now don’t argue with me. Get on with the question.”
Finally Diggs threw up his hands in despair and called it quits. “I don’t have anything else. I’m gonna
bring him back as a defense witness, Your Honor. At this point—”
Judge Cottingham wouldn’t let him off the hook. “No, wait a minute.” He called Diggs back to the front of the courtroom. “Let this record reflect that I’m giving you unlimited opportunity to cross-examine this witness. I only say to you that question was answered, and the record will reflect it, on three separate occasions, and that’s sufficient as to that question. Now, if you’ve got any more, have at it.”
“Your Honor, I don’t have any more at this time,” a totally perturbed Diggs answered.
On redirect, Humphries again had no problem soliciting information from King. In questions about Renee and John’s relationship, he worked the sergeant like a well-oiled machine. They were obviously on the same team, but more important, he knew what buttons of his to push and what buttons not to push.
Finally, after about five minutes of smooth sailing, Humphries asked King, “Did [Renee] later explain to you what she meant by her statement [of] ‘I kind of changed in that relationship’?”
“Yes.”
“How did she explain that change? Was it a change in her, the relationship or the character of the relationship?”
“It was a change in the relationship,” King answered.
Diggs objected, but the judge allowed it.
When King stated, “It became a sexual relationship,” Humphries made him repeat it again.
The prosecution was racking up big time, as Humphries and King continued to work off each other. The average juror had watched enough court cases on television and at the movies to know so many conspirators were inept at keeping their story straight and normally became very sloppy in their schemes. They were very surprised to hear Renee’s lawyer Victor Leckowitz had allowed her to confess, unless he mistakenly thought she was innocent. Jurors were smart enough to understand the police can be overbearing, but not to the point where she would confess to an incriminating statement that could be used against her. She was obviously not the brightest bulb in the chandelier for not keeping her mouth shut, but it was a hard sale to say she invented a story because she was tired and wanted to go home.