# State of Tennessee v. Bruce D. Mendenhall

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · January 30, 2013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1045170

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** January 30, 2013
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1045170

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “a lawful traffic stop authorizes officers, as a matter of course, to require drivers to exit their vehicles”
- holding that “[v]olunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today”
- stating that “the defendant must show that the error probably affected the judgment before reversal is appropriate”

## Opinion text

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs November 15, 2011 at Knoxville

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRUCE D. MENDENHALL

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County
No. 2008-C-2541 Steve R. Dozier, Judge

No. M2010-01381-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 30, 2013

Following a jury trial, the Defendant, Bruce D. Mendenhall, was convicted of three counts
and acquitted of two counts of solicitation to commit first degree murder, a Class B felony.
See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-12-102, -12-107, -13-202. The trial court sentenced the
Defendant to ten years for each conviction and ordered that the sentences be served
consecutively, for a total effective sentence of thirty years. In this appeal as of right, the
Defendant contends the following: (1) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to
sever two of the counts; (2) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his
statements to the police; (3) that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress his
statements made to a fellow inmate turned police informant; (4) that the trial court erred by
denying his motion to suppress numerous letters the Defendant had sent from jail; (5) that
the trial court erred by admitting redacted portions from numerous letters the Defendant had
sent from jail and from several telephone conversations the Defendant had while in jail; (6)
that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of another crime as “contextual background
evidence;” (7) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the Defendant’s convictions; and
(8) that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences.1 Following our review, we
affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

D. K ELLY T HOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD
W ITT, J R. and C AMILLE R. M CM ULLEN, JJ., joined.

C. Dawn Deaner, District Public Defender (at trial); Jason Gichner (at trial), Jeffrey A.
DeVasher (on appeal), and Melissa Harrison (on appeal), Assistant Public Defenders, for the
appellant, Bruce D. Mendenhall.

1
For the purposes of clarity and brevity, we have renumbered and reordered the issues as stated by the
Defendant in his brief.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Lacy Wilber, Assistant Attorney
General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; Pamela Sue Anderson and
Rachael Marie Sobrero, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of
Tennessee.

OPINION

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2007, the Defendant was arrested and charged with the murder of Sara Hulbert.
Sergeant Pat Postiglione and Detective Lee Freeman of the Metropolitan Nashville Police
Department (MNPD) led the murder investigation. Shortly after his arrest, the Defendant
gave a statement alleging that he had nothing to do with Ms. Hulbert’s murder and that three
other individuals were responsible for killing Ms. Hulbert: Lori Young, Ritchie Kiem, and
David Powell. However, the police were unable to find any evidence connecting these
individuals to Ms. Hulbert’s murder. While awaiting trial for the murder of Ms. Hulbert, the
Defendant was housed at the Davidson County Sheriff’s Department’s (DCSD) Criminal
Justice Center (CJC) in Nashville, Tennessee. On August 15, 2008, the Defendant was
indicted for soliciting a fellow inmate, Roy Lukas McLaughlin, to commit the premeditated
first degree murders of Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell. The Defendant was also
indicted for soliciting another fellow inmate, Michael Jenkins, to commit the premeditated
first degree murders of Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman. A jury trial on the charges was
held from January 11 to January 15, 2010.

I. The Sara Hulbert Murder Investigation and the Defendant’s Arrest

At trial, Det. Freeman testified that he was called to the scene of Ms. Hulbert’s murder
in the early morning hours of June 26, 2007. Det. Freeman arrived at the TravelCenters of
America (TA) truck stop on North First Street around 2:00 a.m. Ms. Hulbert’s body was
found “in a grassy area at the northeast corner of the parking lot . . . near a fence in [the] back
corner.” Ms. Hulbert was killed by a “gunshot wound to the head.” As part of their
investigation, Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman reviewed surveillance video from the TA
for the night of the murder. The video showed a yellow semi-tractor “that went back to [the]
back area where the body was found.” Det. Freeman testified that the yellow truck was “the
only one during that time frame that didn’t go get gas or . . . you didn’t see a driver walk back
to the business or anything else.”

On July 12, 2007, Det. Freeman went to the TA to review “fuel tickets” from the day
of Ms. Hulbert’s murder. Sgt. Postiglione was on his way to join Det. Freeman at the TA
when he saw a yellow tractor-trailer that “looked similar to . . . the tractor that [he] observed

-2-
on the [surveillance] video.” Sgt. Postiglione testified that “there were a couple of artistic-
type designs on the truck that appeared to be similar to the ones on the video.” Sgt.
Postiglione followed the truck in his unmarked vehicle without activating any emergency
lights or sirens. The truck pulled into the TA parking lot and “went to the same side where
[Ms. Hulbert’s] body was found.” Sgt. Postiglione testified that he parked to the left of the
tractor-trailer. Sgt. Postiglione radioed Det. Freeman to let him know that he had spotted a
truck similar to the one from the surveillance video and that he was “going to approach the
vehicle and speak to the driver.”

Sgt. Postiglione testified that he approached the driver’s side of the truck and noticed
that “the curtains were pulled closed on the driver’s side” and that the engine was running.
Sgt. Postiglione knocked on the door and “waited for a response” but got none. Sgt.
Postiglione knocked a second time, and the Defendant opened the curtains. Sgt. Postiglione
testified that he showed the Defendant his identification and “asked” and “motioned” for the
Defendant to step out of the truck and speak to him. According to Sgt. Postiglione, the
Defendant agreed, “he opened the door[,] and he jumped down.” At some point, Sgt.
Postiglione asked the Defendant for his identification, and the Defendant gave Sgt.
Postiglione his driver’s license. Sgt. Postiglione also asked the Defendant “if he had been
to Nashville before,” and the Defendant stated that the last time he had been in Nashville was
May 2007. Sgt. Postiglione testified that as he spoke to the Defendant he noticed “what
appeared to be several small drops . . . [of] blood” on the interior of the driver’s side door.
However, Sgt. Postiglione could not recall exactly when he noticed the spots on the door of
the truck.

While Sgt. Postiglione was speaking with the Defendant, Det. Freeman arrived and
approached the two. Sgt. Postiglione asked the Defendant if he would consent to give a
DNA sample. The Defendant agreed, and Det. Freeman obtained a consent form from his
vehicle. Det. Freeman reviewed the form with the Defendant, had the defendant sign the
form, and took the DNA samples. Sgt. Postiglione then asked the Defendant if he could look
inside the Defendant’s truck. The Defendant asked if Sgt. Postiglione “was going to tear his
truck up.” Sgt. Postiglione told the Defendant that he would not, and the Defendant “said
go ahead.” Det. Freeman retrieved a consent to search form from his vehicle, and the
Defendant signed the form. Prior to entering the truck, Sgt. Postiglione asked the Defendant
“if there were any firearms in the vehicle, [and the Defendant] said there [were] not.”

Sgt. Postiglione testified that once inside the driver’s compartment of the tractor-
trailer, he noticed “a black knife” and “a roll of black electrical tape.” Sgt. Postiglione then
went “into the rear compartment, the sleeper compartment, and sat down on the bed.” Once
on the bed, Sgt. Postiglione noticed a bag with “some blood” on it behind the driver’s seat.
Sgt. Postiglione testified that he asked the Defendant “if he could explain the blood inside

-3-
the truck,” and the Defendant told Sgt. Postiglione that “he cut his leg getting in and out of
the truck and that’s how the blood got in the back.” Sgt. Postiglione asked the Defendant to
show him the cut. The Defendant “pulled up his pant leg,” but “there was no cut, no scab,
no scar there to be seen.” Sgt. Postiglione testified that he then asked the Defendant “if this
is the truck [they had] been looking for” and that the Defendant “shrugged his shoulders.”
Sgt. Postiglione asked the question again, and the Defendant answered, “if you say it is.”
Sgt. Postiglione “followed that up” by asking if the Defendant was “the person [they had]
been looking for.” The Defendant “shrugged again for a third time and said, ‘If you say so.’”
Sgt. Postiglione then asked the Defendant again if there was a weapon in the truck, and the
Defendant told Sgt. Postiglione that there was a .22 rifle in the truck. The rifle was later
found in the sleeper compartment beneath the bed frame.

After the Defendant told Sgt. Postiglione that he had a rifle in the truck, Det. Freeman
placed the Defendant under arrest, and the Defendant’s truck was impounded to be searched.
Det. Freeman left to get a search warrant for the tractor-trailer. Sgt. Postiglione waited with
the Defendant “for a patrol unit to come and transport” the Defendant to the precinct. Sgt.
Postiglione testified that “it was a very hot day” and that the Defendant “said he was tired
and it was hot, he was a diabetic.” Sgt. Postiglione asked the Defendant if he wanted to sit
in the passenger seat of his car with the air conditioning running, and the Defendant
“accepted.” Sgt. Postiglione testified that his car was not like a patrol car. Sgt. Postiglione
testified that his car was “a very average car.”

The Defendant began talking to Sgt. Postiglione while the two waited in the car. The
Defendant said that he was “pissed off at Ritchie and David, they did the killing” and then
pointed to “[e]xactly” where Ms. Hulbert’s body was found. The Defendant told Sgt.
Postiglione that Ritchie and David “had sex with the victim” before they killed her.
According to Sgt. Postiglione, the Defendant claimed that he “displayed” Ms. Hulbert’s body
“in the parking lot so somebody would find her and solve the case.” Sgt. Postiglione asked
the Defendant if he would be willing to give a formal statement at the police station, and the
Defendant agreed. When the patrol unit arrived, the Defendant was taken “to the hospital
to be checked out to make sure he was medically okay.” A short time later, the Defendant
was released from the hospital and taken to the police station where he again agreed to give
a formal statement.

Sgt. Postiglione testified that he advised the Defendant of his rights pursuant to
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that the Defendant waived his rights and
agreed to speak to the detectives. A redacted video recording of the Defendant’s statement
was played for the jury at trial. In his statement, the Defendant claimed that he was at a Pilot
truck stop in Nashville when he was approached by David Powell and Ritchie Kiem. The
Defendant claimed that one of the men got in his truck and the other followed him to the TA.

-4-
The Defendant explained in his statement that he left his truck to buy a sandwich at the TA,
and that when he returned to the truck, he found Ms. Hulbert’s naked body “sprawled out in
the back.” The Defendant stated that the victim had a plastic bag taped over her head with
black “electrician’s tape.” The Defendant claimed that Mr. Powell and Mr. Kiem took Ms.
Hulbert’s clothes and personal “affects,” told him that it was his problem and not theirs, and
left. The Defendant told the detectives that he then “proceeded to clean the mess up” and
that he “dumped” the victim’s body “out in plain view.” The Defendant described in detail
how he positioned the victim’s body in the TA parking lot.

The Defendant claimed that Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell had sex with the victim before
they killed her because “[t]hey were laughing about it.” The Defendant denied that he had
sex with the victim or that any of his DNA would be found on the victim’s body. The
Defendant also told the detectives that he thought Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell used his rifle
“since they’ve did [sic] it before” and because he did not see either of them with a weapon
before he left his truck. The Defendant went on to claim that Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell did
“it all the time” and that he did not know how they knew where he was, but that they met him
wherever he went. When asked how he knew Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell, the Defendant
explained that Mr. Kiem’s mother, Lori Young, rented a home from him “until [he] found
out she was a whore. And [he] spent a year trying to get her out of [his] house and couldn’t
do it until she beat on [his] daughter, [fifteen]-year-old daughter.”

Sgt. Postiglione testified that prior to speaking with the Defendant, he had never heard
of Mr. Kiem or Mr. Powell. Sgt. Postiglione was able to locate the three individuals the
Defendant claimed were responsible for Mr. Hulbert’s murder. Ms. Young and her son, Mr.
Kiem, were found living in Kentucky, and Mr. Powell was located in Indiana. Sgt.
Postiglione testified that during the course of the investigation into Ms. Hulbert’s murder,
he was unable to find “any shred of evidence . . . whatsoever” connecting Ms. Young, Mr.
Kiem, or Mr. Powell to the killing of Ms. Hulbert.

II. Solicitation of Roy Lucas McLaughlin

In April 2008, Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman received a letter from Roy Lucas
McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin was an inmate housed in the same area of the CJC as the
Defendant. Based upon information contained in the letter, Sgt. Postiglione and Det.
Freeman interviewed Mr. McLaughlin on April 28, 2008. Det. Freeman testified that at this
meeting, he and Sgt. Postiglione learned that the Defendant had solicited Mr. McLaughlin
to kill Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell.

-5-
A. Mr. McLaughlin’s Initial Conversations with Defendant

Mr. McLaughlin testified that he met the Defendant around April 2, 2008, when he
was moved to the fifth floor of the CJC. Mr. McLaughlin told the jury that while he was
incarcerated, he was known as “C-4” because of his “charges.” Mr. McLaughlin claimed
that he got to know the Defendant after he prevented an attack on the Defendant by several
other inmates. After the incident, the Defendant was referred to as “C-truck” by the other
inmates because Mr. McLaughlin had protected the Defendant. Shortly after that, Mr.
McLaughlin received a letter from the Defendant that was signed “C-truck” and that stated,
“We all need friends, I would enjoy being able to call you a friend, talk to you on the roof.”
Mr. McLaughlin explained that the inmates were taken to the roof for outdoor recreation time
when the weather permitted.

Mr. McLaughlin testified that he played chess with the Defendant and talked to the
Defendant about trucking, fishing, and other “general talk.” Mr. McLaughlin explained that
the inmates could talk to each other through the air vents. Each inmate also received one
hour outside of his cell to “make phone calls, get a shower,” and do whatever the inmate
needed to do. During that hour an inmate could talk to the other inmates in his cell block by
going up to their cell doors. Mr. McLaughlin stated that he had “quite a few chances” to talk
to the Defendant while they were on the fifth floor. Mr. McLaughlin testified that he and the
Defendant talked about their charges and that the Defendant eventually asked him if he had
ever “blown anything up.” The Defendant then asked Mr. McLaughlin if he “knew any
truckers that might . . . be willing to help him out with an alibi.” Mr. McLaughlin testified
that he talked “extensively” with the Defendant about finding the Defendant an alibi.

Mr. McLaughlin testified that he eventually asked the Defendant why he needed an
alibi so badly. According to Mr. McLaughlin, the Defendant told him that Ms. Young “was
trying to frame him [and] planting evidence.” Mr. McLaughlin recalled that at some point,
the Defendant sent him a letter asking what his “charges” were and if he had been involved
in killing another inmate’s brother in an explosion. Mr. McLaughlin testified that the
Defendant eventually asked him “[h]ow much C-4 would it take to blow up a trailer.” Mr.
McLaughlin laughed and told the Defendant “not much.” Mr. McLaughlin testified that they
did not talk about it anymore that day, but the next day when they were on the roof the
Defendant told Mr. McLaughlin that Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell were attempting
to frame him for Ms. Hulbert’s murder. According to Mr. McLaughlin, the Defendant asked
him “what it would take to get rid of them.” Mr. McLaughlin testified that he went along
with the Defendant because he had a reputation in the jail as a “bomber hit man.” Mr.
McLaughlin further testified that he and the Defendant talked about killing Ms. Young the
same way Ms. Hulbert had been killed to “draw attention away from that.” The two also
talked about blowing up Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell’s truck.

-6-
Mr. McLaughlin testified that he recalled having three or four conversations with the
Defendant about killing Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell before he contacted the
police. Mr. McLaughlin further testified that the Defendant told him their names, their
addresses, “where they hung out, where they worked, [and] what they drove.” According to
Mr. McLaughlin, the Defendant gave him information about what Ms. Young and Mr.
Powell looked like, but the Defendant told Mr. McLaughlin that he could not remember what
Mr. Kiem looked like because “it had been so long since he had seen him.” Mr. McLaughlin
testified that he could not remember any of the details of what the Defendant had told him,
but that he wrote it down at the time. Mr. McLaughlin also claimed that the Defendant wrote
him a letter in which the Defendant offered to give him “a truck” in exchange for killing the
victims. Mr. McLaughlin testified that he came up with the idea that the Defendant would
pay him $15,000 by working it off at his uncle’s trucking company. Mr. McLaughlin
claimed that the Defendant’s letter was taken from his cell by the deputies guarding him.

According to Mr. McLaughlin, he decided to contact the police about his
conversations with the Defendant because he “thought [he] was getting set up.” Mr.
McLaughlin wrote to Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman because the Defendant “had
mentioned that they were hounding him pretty hard.” Mr. McLaughlin testified that after he
sent the letter, he had a “couple” more conversations with the Defendant about killing the
victims. According to Mr. McLaughlin, he and the Defendant discussed “the best way to do
it,” when to kill the victims, and how to make sure “there was no connection between [the
Defendant] and [Mr. McLaughlin].” Mr. McLaughlin testified that he wrote some of this
information down because he did not have “too good of a memory.” Mr. McLaughlin stated
that he brought what he had written down to his meeting with Sgt. Postiglione and Det.
Freeman on April 28, 2008. At that meeting, Mr. McLaughlin was asked if he would wear
a recording device the next time he and the Defendant were sent to the roof for recreation
time.

Mr. McLaughlin testified that he told the detectives he would consider wearing a
“wire.” Mr. McLaughlin explained that he was “nervous” to wear a wire because it was “not
too awful good” to be known as a “snitch” inside the jail. However, Mr. McLaughlin met
with the detectives again the next day and agreed to wear a recording device the next time
he and the Defendant were on the roof. Mr. McLaughlin testified that the police and the
district attorney’s office did not offer him “anything in exchange” for wearing a wire. Mr.
McLaughlin met again with the detectives on May 1, 2012. On that day, Mr. McLaughlin
was shown how to work the recording equipment and instructed not to ask the Defendant any
questions about the Defendant’s “pending case.” Instead, the purpose of the wire was to gain
information on the Defendant’s alleged solicitation of first degree premeditated murder.

-7-
B. May 2, 2008 Wire Recording

On May 2, 2008, Mr. McLaughlin was scheduled to go to the roof with the Defendant
for recreation time. Mr. McLaughlin had a broken wrist at that time, and this was used to
explain why Mr. McLaughlin was taken from his cell. A redacted version of the wire
recording was played for the jury at trial. In the recording, Mr. McLaughlin complained to
the Defendant that a guard had ransacked his cell. Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that
if he were not incarcerated he would “rig [the guard’s] car up man, boom.” The Defendant
then informed Mr. McLaughlin that his lawyers had informed him that there was “a snitch”
in the jail and to keep his “mouth shut.”

Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that “like [they] were talking about” earlier, he
was “trying to think of people [he] already [knew]” to help the Defendant with an alibi. Mr.
McLaughlin then asked the Defendant where he needed an alibi witness to say they saw the
Defendant. The Defendant responded that he “would need them at the TA [to] say [they]
heard [him] tell the q---r [(Sgt. Postiglione)] no to the search, is what [he] need[ed].” Mr.
McLaughlin informed the Defendant that he was “still working on that.” Mr. McLaughlin
then asked the Defendant if “this right here is [Ms. Young’s] correct address.” The
Defendant responded that it was “[f]or now.” The following exchange then occurred:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: What uh, but, here’s my thing, I told you, you know, I’d
help you -
[The Defendant]: But yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: When you get out?
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I want you to look at me, just don’t f--k me over.
[The Defendant]: I don’t f--k people over.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I, but we cool, I just, I want to get that up front.
[The Defendant]: I don’t kill people either.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well, yeah, I don’t technically kill people, but I mean, my
– well, my thing is, look. I’m not going to sit here you know if I - -
[The Defendant]: I’m just saying.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Let me think of how to phrase this.
[The Defendant]: I would owe you dramatically.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Right, well my thing is, [Ms. Young] goes away, you
know.
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: My preferred, hell, I’ll blow a b---h up, I don’t give a f--k.
But my thing is, hang on a second . . . . Hell, here’s my thing. That right there
is eliminated and nobody testifies against you then and you come out [and]

-8-
drive a truck? You got to hook up with me because that’s how, you know,
we’ll work it, work it off like that.
[The Defendant]: Nobody else will hire me.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Look, man this s--t look, you man, you acquitted on s--t
like this, man you ain’t got to worry about s--t.
[The Defendant]: I’m just saying, nobody else will hire me because that.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: That cloud.
[The Defendant]: Yeah.

Mr. McLaughlin then told the Defendant how he was “planning everything” and
assured the Defendant that as long as Ms. Young lived at the address the Defendant had
provided him, he would kill her. Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant where Ms. Young
worked. The Defendant responded that he did not know because Ms. Young was “a hooker.”
Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant to get “against the wall” because he did not want “too
many people listening.” Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that “hypothetically” the rumors
that Mr. McLaughlin had killed another inmate’s brother were true. The following exchange
then occurred:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright, hypothetically, you know, I ain’t going to admit
to s--t well, I mean, I don’t give a f--k. I like to know people’s patterns.
Where they go, where they go shopping, that way s--t looks like [an] accident
man. You know, if motherf--kers found, you know, if. Alright. Say you go
to the gym at four o’clock everyday when you get off work.
[The Defendant]: Mmm-hmm.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: You know and it’s on 100th street, alright, but you are
found on 500th street. You are not in your normal area. See what I’m saying?
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I want s--t to look like it’s, I want the detective to look at
s--t when he finds a body and go, well they got robbed, you know. Normal
everyday thing, they’re going where they go. Alright, that’s how I take care
of my s--t. You know that’s why I ain’t been linked up. F--k that s--t.
[The Defendant]: Her normal everyday is Monday through Friday truck stop
whore.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: You know what truck stop?
[The Defendant]: Any that she can get to.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: She run a CB?
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: What’s her handle?
[The Defendant]: Uh, Spoiled Brat.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Spoiled Brat?

-9-
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: So if I can get up on there and you know make spo - -
[The Defendant]: If you hollar [sic] for her it’s going to tip her off.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well how the f--k?
[The Defendant]: And she’ll hide. She’s smart. How do you think she got me
set up?
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well how the hell do you think I’m going to, dude, how
can I find her then if she don’t live there? ‘Cause dude, I ain’t going to do my
s--t like that. Hell, I’ll just blow, [does] she live in a trailer?
[The Defendant]: Yeah, trailer park.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Oh, a trailer park.

Mr. McLaughlin then asked the Defendant what kind of car Ms. Young drove. The
Defendant responded that she drove a Dodge or a Plymouth. Mr. McLaughlin asked again
if Ms. Young lived in a trailer park, and the Defendant responded, “Yeah, it’s a trailer park.”
The Defendant then told Mr. McLaughlin that Ms. Young was framing him for Ms. Hulbert’s
murder. The Defendant claimed that he saw Ms. Young “one night when this supposedly
person got killed,” but that her son, Mr. Kiem, was “alibiing her” and that was what was “f--
king” the Defendant. Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant for more information about Mr.
Kiem. The Defendant told Mr. McLaughlin that Mr. Kiem lived with Ms. Young and that
he had “a baby and a girlfriend and she, she hooks too.” The two men then engaged in the
following exchange:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright, here’s the, here’s the trip. Let’s make it look like
a gas leak. I’ll blow the whole f--king house up. It’s a gas leak.
[The Defendant]: Whatever. You know that’s your, that’s your thing.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Yeah, I mean I don’t. I’ll do what, I, what I’m good at.
You just, you know you don’t even have to worry about it. After court, after
your trial?
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: We settle up. We do our thing.
[The Defendant]: How, how can we settle up? I, I - -
[Mr. McLaughlin]: You come work. You just pay it, you just pay it off.
[The Defendant]: Okay.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright, you know, like you, like you said you was.
...
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright, well here’s the deal. I’ll take care of that little
issue, when you come out, you drive a truck and, you know, we’ll do like a ten
percent or something for a couple of months.
[The Defendant]: Alright.

-10-
[Mr. McLaughlin]: You know, you know how much you can make on a hot
load and s--t. Like, if you, if you running streamline, you know, state, state,
state?
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Twelve, fourteen hundred dollars a week. You know, until
I say, I, I get five grand, then you, you kill my ten percent. You ain’t got to
pay that. Like I said –
[The Defendant]: Whatever you say.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: We’re truckers. I got you bro.

Later, Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that he “was a hit man” and that he blew
“people up.” Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that he would give him “an update later”
after he found “out some more stuff.” Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant to keep what
they had “just talked about” between themselves. The Defendant responded that “[i]t stays.”
Mr. McLaughlin then asked how the Defendant managed to “piss off” Ms. Young. The
Defendant claimed that Ms. Young thought he was “in love with her.” Mr. McLaughlin
responded that the Defendant would not have “to worry about her. I got her.” Mr.
McLaughlin then approached another inmate, identified as “L-Hood,” and the two proceeded
to discuss how Mr. McLaughlin, once he was released from jail, would kill two witnesses for
L-Hood. Mr. McLaughlin told L-Hood that he would kill both witnesses for $10,000, “two
for one.” Mr. McLaughlin described himself to L-Hood as “a psycho motherf--ker [who]
blows people up” and upon his release would be “giving out hell.” Mr. McLaughlin told L-
Hood that he had “earned” his nickname, C-4, and that it would only “take four ounces of
C-4” to kill the witnesses. Mr. McLaughlin then went back and continued his conversation
with the Defendant until they were returned to their cells.

At trial, Mr. McLaughlin testified that while he was incarcerated “a rumor had been
started” that he had killed another inmate’s brother. Mr. McLaughlin explained that he
“[k]ind of went with it” regarding the rumors that he had killed someone because there was
“no way you can get rid of a reputation in jail.” Mr. McLaughlin denied telling other inmates
that he had previously killed people. Instead, Mr. McLaughlin insisted that when another
inmate would ask him if he “could kill witnesses,” he would “just let that ride and stay[] with
the program so to speak.” Mr. McLaughlin testified that he never attempted to challenge the
impression that he was a “hit man” because “[t]he less information that you give about
yourself in jail, the better.” However, Mr. McLaughlin denied that he had lied to his fellow
inmates about whether or not he was a killer.

According to Mr. McLaughlin, L-Hood “believed” the rumors about him being a hit
man. Mr. McLaughlin claimed to have been surprised by L-Hood’s approaching him that
day and requesting that he kill two witnesses. However, Mr. McLaughlin later clarified that

-11-
the two had previously discussed the matter “the night before and a couple of days before in
the cells.” According to Mr. McLaughlin, he was surprised by L-Hood’s request because the
two had only previously discussed Mr. McLaughlin’s providing explosives and building an
explosive device for L-Hood. Mr. McLaughlin denied approaching L-Hood and discussing
the “hit” so that he “could get some extra help from the detectives.”

C. May 16, 2008 Wire Recording

Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell’s names were never mentioned in the May 2, 2008
recording. After listening to the recording, Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman decided to
have Mr. McLaughlin wear a body wire a second time in order to get “more detail.” Det.
Freeman testified that given the difficulty of coordinating a wire operation in jail, it would
ideally only be attempted once. However, Mr. McLaughlin “was talking too much” on the
May 2, 2008 recording. Det. Freeman testified that they wanted Mr. McLaughlin to wear a
wire a second time so that it would be clearer who the Defendant wanted killed and how the
Defendant would pay Mr. McLaughlin. Det. Freeman explained that on the May 2, 2008
recording, “things were talked about [without using] full names or anything like that.”
Instead, Mr. McLaughlin and the Defendant’s conversation showed that they knew “what
each other were talking about” based upon previous conversations, but “somebody listening
to it wouldn’t understand all of it.” Mr. McLaughlin agreed to wear a wire for a second time
on May 16, 2008.

A redacted version of the wire recording was played for the jury at trial. After some
small talk, Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that he was worried about what would happen
“[i]f they start correlating this s--t after [he] [got] out.” Mr. McLaughlin stated that he did
not think that the Defendant would turn him in to the police, but that he wanted to “just go
ahead” and “iron everything out.” The following exchange then occurred:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: Who, you know, I’ve done my, my homework. I ain’t
gonna walk into s--t blind. But, who the hell is David [Powell]? What’s,
what’s his whole connection? I mean, if I’m gonna, if I’m gonna pop his ass,
I need to know why. I mean, what did he, who is he to you though?
[The Defendant]: Nobody. He’s a friend of uh . . .
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Whoa, whoa, whoa.
[The Defendant]: . . . Richie [Kiem] and Lori [Young].
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Oh, okay. ‘Cause I’m sitting here going, alright, well he’s
on the list, you know, you know, I’m gonna make his ass go bye bye, I kinda,
you need, need . . .

-12-
[The Defendant]: And he, uh, he’s living with [Ms. Young’s] daughter. Um,
‘cause, and her daughter is a hooker too, that goes to the three truck stops up
there in Anderson.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Well, do you think all them together is really that
big of a threat though?
[The Defendant]: Could be.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Well, like we discussed, hang on . . .
....
[Mr. McLaughlin]: But uh, sorry, I just don’t like talking around people. You
know how I am.
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: But uh, so, they, they could be that big of a threat?
[The Defendant]: Yeah, it’s possible.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Like we talked in my cell the other day, as far as
uh, uh, what’s her name? Um, [Ms. Young] and that little ordeal with her
pick-up truck?
[The Defendant]: Um-hmm?
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I thought about it, and I’m just gonna do it how I’m gonna
do it. It’s a gas leak in the trailer, and everybody blows up. I’m happy.
You’re happy. And my part’s done with it. Uh, you know, my thing, I was,
I wanted to, you know, I got the [Ms. Young] thing down, I just wanted to
know who the [Mr. Powell] guy was and if, if he was that big of a threat, that
you know, one thing I don’t like doing is innocent bystanders.
[The Defendant]: Um-hmm.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I don’t, I don’t want to kill an innocent bystander. You
know. But, like you said, if they that big of a threat, f--k it. What’s one more
explosion?
[The Defendant]: Yep.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Oh, me. Oh, so.

The Defendant then told Mr. McLaughlin about a “hawk” he saw on the roof “the
other day.” After discussing the hawk, Mr. McLaughlin went on to clarify how the
Defendant would pay him for the murders. The following exchange occurred:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: Seeing as how the truck thing is kinda wishy-washy, we
still, we still on for what we discussed about, you know, I was just fixing to
say . . . . But um, we still on, and you pay me back? You know . . .
[The Defendant]: Yep.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: . . . Later. Alright. Now as far as a price now, I don’t want
you to, you know, or a fee, how about that? I’m thinking like roughly fifteen,

-13-
fifteen thousand. And that’s for the whole thing, everybody. And you go
about your merry day. No witnesses show up for you. But, I mean, I ain’t
gonna [be] coming up here visiting you or nothing. “Hey boo, took care of
that s--t.”
[The Defendant]: Ah, naw.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I’ll send, I’ll send ya a big old billboard, how about that.
[The Defendant]: No connections.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Yeah. That’s, that’s my thing, I don’t want no connections.
[The Defendant]: Just the number to your uncle’s trucking company.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. And you, you still need those alibis right?
[The Defendant]: Um-hmm.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. I got them set up for you. So, I got that
information you wrote me down.
[The Defendant]: Um-hmm.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Where they were supposed to see you and everything.
[The Defendant]: Right.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: So, so that’s good. Ah, now, you know I’m not new to
this. So, I’m gonna ask you something that I’ve had to ask a couple of other
people. I ain’t gonna do this, then you gonna wind up having remorse, or a
guilty conscience or whatever.
[The Defendant]: Like I said, you do your thing (inaduible).
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright.
[The Defendant]: (Inaudible) it’s not mine.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Then I’ll do it how I do it. Uh, so.
[The Defendant]: And I don’t want to know. You know.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Ah, plausible deniability with you?
[The Defendant]: Sure. The less I know, the better it is for you.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: How is it less . . . come over here, man.
[The Defendant]: ‘Cause if they connected us I could say no, no that’s bulls--t.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well, I, I, I see what you’re saying. Uh, on a serious note,
there’s, there’s, this right here is how it’ll backfire. Okay?
[The Defendant]: Um-hmm.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Ah, they’re gonna testify against you, I’m gonna go ahead
and kill them, just cut to the chase. You get nervous later on, and you get, I’m
just listen to me, alright? You get nervous later on and give me up, there
gonna be a world of s--t. That’s, that’s how shit gets f--ked up.
[The Defendant]: Alright.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Um.
[The Defendant]: Like I said, after today, we don’t talk at all.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well, that’s, that’s why I want to get all this ironed out.

-14-
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Because, um, we can’t, you know. I mean, walking around
up here, yeah. It don’t look too bad. Cause well, we’re white.
[The Defendant]: Right.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I mean, you get my point on that one.
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Uh, you know, everybody usually sticks to their own up
here. But, that’s why I want to get all of this ironed out today, you know?
‘Cause are they gonna be at separate spots or do they all live together in the
house, I mean, you know. If, if I blow up the trailer, and take out [Ms. Young]
and her son, I don’t know his name.
[The Defendant]: Ritchie [Kiem].
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Oh, [Mr. Kiem], okay. If I go ahead and take them two
out, does [Mr. Powell] live there too? Or . . .
[The Defendant]: Nope.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Okay.
[The Defendant]: He lives in Anderson, Indiana on Drexel Street.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: On Drexel. Okay. Then what I’ll do, and you said he’s
with her daughter.
[The Defendant]: Right.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Does she need to go?
[The Defendant]: Not really, no.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. So she can’t hurt you.
[The Defendant]: No.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: So, [the] only one’s that’s gonna can hurt you by testifying
[are] . . . [Ms. Young], [Mr. Powell], and um, . . .
[The Defendant]: Her son.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: . . . that [Mr. Kiem] boy.
[The Defendant]: Yep.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Those are the only three that can hurt you.
[The Defendant]: Yep.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well, guess what, they ain’t gonna hurt you. You know?
I, I, thought a little bit. Uh, you know how I sit there and I’ll ponder different
directions, you know . . .
[The Defendant]: Um-huh.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: . . . look into different options. Uh, I say you’re gonna owe
me fifteen grand, which is f--king cheap. Uh, I mean, it’s f--king . . . you
heard rumors flying around here about how much I got paid for doing little
dude’s brother.
[The Defendant]: No. No. And I don’t even want to know.

-15-
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Yeah, yeah. Let’s not get into my prior cases. I don’t need
nobody going to the police and being like, “Hey you remember this case, well
guess what?” So, I mean, I [doubt] you’ll do that. But uh, fifteen grand, I kill
all three. After that, you don’t know me until you come out, then you just call
that phone number, talk to my uncle. My uncle will get you in touch with me.
But other than that, we don’t know each other.
[The Defendant]: Alright.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Is that a deal?
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. So, everything. I mean, you know, I didn’t want
to turn your words around, but I mean, based on what all you told me and the
conversations we’ve had . . .
[The Defendant]: Um-hum.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: . . . that’s how it stands. We straight?
[The Defendant]: Yep.

Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant if there was “anything else [he] need[ed] to look
into.” The Defendant responded that he had “no idea.” Mr. McLaughlin asked again if there
was anyone else he had to “worry about,” and the Defendant responded that there was no one
else as far as he knew. Mr. McLaughlin then asked the Defendant to give him Ms. Young’s
full name and the type of car she drove. The Defendant provided this information to Mr.
McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant that if he saw “a b---h driving a Ford
Ranger” pull up to “the trailer,” could he “hit it that day,” could he “blow [it] up and [] know
[he] got the right one.” The Defendant responded, “Right.” A short time later, the following
exchange occurred:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: So, but uh, who’s the new guy that you just said? What’s
....
[The Defendant]: David Powell?
[Mr. McLaughlin]: No, I’ve already got [Mr. Powell’s]. You already gave me
that information. I got it in a . . .
[The Defendant]: Uh, Ritchie [Kiem]?
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Yeah. Alright. How, how old, how old is . . . oh, that’s,
that’s her son?
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well, hold on. Whoa. Is he a minor?
[The Defendant]: The same age as uh, well, hell no.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Uh, uh, well dude, I just . . .
[The Defendant]: Same age as David Powell.

-16-
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I look at it like this man, if you live with your momma,
your ass better be under eighteen. You know, ‘cause, if you’re over eighteen,
you outta be out on your damn own. That’s just how I look at it.
[The Defendant]: Yah. But, how can you do crime and not have your momma
to alibi ya?
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Actually, I guess that’s a damn good alibi, cause you know
she ain’t gonna turn on ya.
[The Defendant]: Yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: So, alright, well, we straight up. Those are the three that
die. Fifteen thousand, and you don’t know me.
[The Defendant]: I don’t know you.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I like that. I like that.
[The Defendant]: Leave that there number when you get ready to leave.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Do what?
[The Defendant]: Your uncle’s number.

The two men then discussed Mr. McLaughlin’s broken wrist for several minutes
before Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant if “there [was] any particular way” the
Defendant “would like for these services to be carried out.” The Defendant responded “no,”
and agreed with Mr. McLaughlin’s statement “[j]ust as long as they don’t show up for court.”
Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that he was “getting paid to provide a service” and that
he “just want[ed] to make sure everybody’s happy with it.” Mr. McLaughlin told the
Defendant to remember “[p]lausible deniability” and that the Defendant did not know Mr.
McLaughlin. The Defendant responded that he “just met [Mr. McLaughlin] up here. That’s
it. Walked around talking trucking.”

The two men then spent several minutes discussing other prisoners before the
following exchange occurred:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: You let me take care of that. You, you.
[The Defendant]: You know they’re not gonna say, “Yeah, yeah, we’ll cut you
loose.”
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Hey, I don’t give a s--t. Hey, all I know is you hired my
services. Those people ain’t gonna show, you going home. If that’s your
goal? You know, don’t worry about.
[The Defendant]: Going home’s my goal.

The Defendant then changed the subject and began talking about a beam above them on the
recreation area’s roof. After discussing how the beam was attached to the building, the two
men talked about the weather, a prisoner who had a heart attack, and other various topics.

-17-
A short time later, Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant “no more talk” and assured the
Defendant that he had the victims “taken care of.” The Defendant urged Mr. McLaughlin
not to forget to give him the phone number for Mr. McLaughlin’s uncle because the
Defendant did not want Mr. McLaughlin to get out and forget about him. Mr. McLaughlin
again assured the Defendant that he would give the Defendant his uncle’s phone number and
that he would not forget the Defendant. Mr. McLaughlin stated that he would “do what I do”
and “kill these three and that’s it.” Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant not to “lay [him]
out there,” and the Defendant stated that he would not.

At the conclusion of the recreation hour, the two men were placed back in their cells.
A short time later, the Defendant was allowed out of his cell for his hour of personal time.
As the Defendant walked around the cell block, Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant to
come to his cell door. Mr. McLaughlin then asked the Defendant for more details about Mr.
Powell. The Defendant spelled Mr. Powell’s name for Mr. McLaughlin and provided Mr.
McLaughlin with Mr. Powell’s street address. Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant for
more information about Mr. Kiem. The Defendant stated that Mr. Kiem lived with Ms.
Young, told Mr. McLaughlin how old Mr. Kiem was, and spelled Mr. Kiem’s name for Mr.
McLaughlin. Mr. McLaughlin asked the Defendant for a description of Mr. Kiem, but the
Defendant stated that he had not “seen him in years.” However, the Defendant made several
disparaging remarks about Mr. Kiem’s intelligence and told Mr. McLaughlin that Mr. Kiem
went “to school” and was picked up by a “[s]chool bus” for “like [] GED classes.” The
Defendant also told Mr. McLaughlin what color Mr. Kiem’s hair was and that he thought Mr.
Kiem had a beard.

Mr. McLaughlin then told the Defendant that he would make Ms. Young’s murder
“look like a copy cat.” Mr. McLaughlin explained that “if it happens the same way” and the
Defendant was in jail, then he would have “a damn good alibi.” The following exchange
then occurred as Mr. McLaughlin further explained his reasoning to the Defendant:

[Mr. McLaughlin]: That if uh, if I took and made it look like your s--t, then,
you know, your lawyers will have something to go on. Like hey, listen, this
other s--t happened to another woman at a truck stop. And you know, the
same way, and you know, so, and it couldn’t have been him, ‘cause he was in
here. You know, it don’t matter whether she was a witness against you or not.
You see what I’m saying?
[The Defendant]: Um-hmm.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: But if I go, like we talked about while ago. I go to blowing
s--t up? ‘Cause you know me, I love that s--t. I’ll make that s--t be seen from
the f--king space, astronauts up there at the U.S. space station go damn, say
“What the hell’s that?” I mean, ‘cause I’m gonna make it go boom, motherf--

-18-
ker. But, what I would rather do is, if I’m gonna do this for you, I’d rather do
her, because she is a female, I’d rather do her at a truck stop like that. Okay?
And then, I can take, I can take and put a bullet you know, I can take a Barrett
fifty cal, two miles away and take care of the other motherf--kers. You know.
But I was just thinking with her, make it look like the previous s--t. You know
what I mean?
[The Defendant]: Right.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: But, I mean, I wanted to get your approval on that before
I done anything. I didn’t want that, ‘cause I didn’t want you to hear about it
and all of a sudden you freak out. You see, yeah, you’re laughing, but you see
what I mean.
[The Defendant]: Oh yeah.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: I mean, what would you think if all of a sudden you heard
that, you know, that the witness you asked me to take care of, was killed like
these you’d flip man.
[The Defendant]: I don’t, huh?
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Exactly. You would have flipped your lid dude.
[The Defendant]: Still will anyway.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Well, I mean, is that cool? You want me to, you want me
to do it like that?
[The Defendant]: However.
[Mr. McLaughlin]: Alright. Done.
[The Defendnat]: Okay.

Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that he thought the Defendant would be out “in
a year” thanks to the fact that the Defendant’s “witnesses” would be gone and the alibis he
would provide the Defendant. Mr. McLaughlin told the Defendant that he wanted to make
sure they were “copasetic” because he did not want the Defendant to “start freaking out.”
The Defendant assured Mr. McLaughlin that he did not “freak out.” Mr. McLaughlin then
asked the Defendant if Ms. Young would be carrying a weapon. The Defendant stated that
he had “no clue” but warned Mr. McLaughlin that Ms. Young “changes . . . like a
chameleon.” The recording concluded with Mr. McLaughlin and the Defendant playing
several games of chess.

In addition to the audio recordings, portions of the conversations were video taped and
those videos were shown for the jury. Sgt. Postiglione testified at trial that they could not
record video of the entire conversation because there was a chance the inmates might see the
camera and the videographer. Mr. McLaughlin admitted that while he told the Defendant in
both recordings that he would be leaving on May 27, 2008, he knew that was not true. Mr.
McLaughlin was not released until he pled guilty on August 14, 2008. However, Mr.

-19-
McLaughlin was removed from the CJC after the Defendant’s attorneys were informed about
the body wire recordings. Mr. McLaughlin also admitted that on the May 16, 2008
recording, he was the first person to bring up the topic of killing the victims. Mr.
McLaughlin also acknowledged that at times during the recording the Defendant seemed
“distracted” and would change the subject. However, Mr. McLaughlin claimed that the
Defendant did this “because another inmate was walking by [them].”

D. Impeachment Evidence Regarding Mr. McLaughlin

Mr. McLaughlin testified that while he was incarcerated with the Defendant, he had
charges for four Class B felonies and one Class C felony pending against him. Mr.
McLaughlin explained that he had been arrested “for having explosive components, gun
powder and stuff of that nature.” Mr. McLaughlin was also facing a Class D felony for
passing a worthless check. Mr. McLaughlin subsequently pled guilty to one count of
possessing a “prohibited weapon” and one count of passing a worthless check. Mr.
McLaughlin received eight years on probation as part of his guilty plea. Mr. McLaughlin
testified that he was also on probation for a separate conviction of theft. After Mr.
McLaughlin was released, a probation violation warrant was filed against him because he
failed to report to his probation officer. Mr. McLaughlin’s probation was ultimately
reinstated. Mr. McLaughlin denied that there was a current probation violation warrant
pending against him. Mr. McLaughlin admitted that all together he had four felony
convictions and four misdemeanor convictions. Mr. McLaughlin also admitted that he had
written “some bad checks in Arkansas” in 2006. Mr. McLaughlin further admitted that he
was “moved around” the CJC because he had gotten into fights and had possessed
contraband.

On cross-examination, Mr. McLaughlin contradicted his earlier testimony and the
information on the wire recordings. Mr. McLaughlin stated that before he met with the
detectives, the Defendant had asked about killing Ms. Young “specifically and vaguely about
two other people but [he] didn’t . . . [have] their names at that time.” Mr. McLaughlin also
testified on cross-examination that the Defendant only asked him to kill the victims after he
told the Defendant that he could not get any alibi witnesses for the Defendant. Mr.
McLaughlin testified that he could not remember when he told the Defendant that. However,
the May 16, 2008 wire recording clearly belied this statement because Mr. McLaughlin told
the Defendant that he had alibis ready for the Defendant.

Mr. McLaughlin denied that his cooperation in this case was a part of the plea deal
he received for his pending cases. Mr. McLaughlin admitted that in January 2008 he had
accepted a plea agreement in which he would be required to serve an eight-year prison
sentence. However, Mr. McLaughlin backed out of that agreement in February 2008. Mr.

-20-
McLaughlin also noted that he participated in the wire recordings three months before he
accepted a plea agreement with an eight-year sentence to be served on probation. Mr.
McLaughlin insisted that he did not need the detectives’ help with his “charges.” Mr.
McLaughlin also insisted at trial that he had testified truthfully.

Mr. McLaughlin admitted on cross-examination that in phone conversations with his
family, he had stated that he “didn’t want to be screwed over by the police yet again.” Mr.
McLaughlin also admitted that he said that he knew the police could not promise him
“anything up front,” but that he trusted that they would “help [him] out.” Mr. McLaughlin
further admitted that he told his family that if the police would not “help” him then he was
“going to blow the whole deal for them.” However, Mr. McLaughlin insisted that when he
referred to the police helping him out, he meant that the police would move him “if anything
went wrong,” and not that they would help him out with his charges. Mr. McLaughlin
insisted that he only wanted the police to protect him if he was “found out” by the other
inmates.

Dan Hamm testified that he was the Assistant District Attorney General who handled
Mr. McLaughlin’s cases. General Hamm testified that he was aware that Mr. McLaughlin
had cooperated in this case, but that he did not know what information Mr. McLaughlin had
provided in this case and that Mr. McLaughlin’s cooperation in this case did not factor into
the plea agreement. General Hamm testified that he had already reached an agreement with
Mr. McLaughlin’s attorney before he found out about Mr. McLaughlin’s cooperation in this
case.

The State also recalled Det. Freeman following Mr. McLaughlin’s testimony. Det.
Freeman testified that Mr. McLaughlin was never offered anything in “exchange for wearing
the wires” or to testify at trial. Det. Freeman also testified that he “corroborated” the
information Mr. McLaughlin had given him “prior to going forward with the body wires.”
On cross-examination, Det. Freeman admitted that he did not remember if, during their first
meeting, Mr. McLaughlin mentioned the Defendant’s wanting to kill anyone besides Ms.
Young. Det. Freeman also admitted that Mr. McLaughlin agreed to wear a body wire at their
first meeting on April 28, 2008, and that Mr. McLaughlin did not say he needed time to think
about it. Det. Freeman further admitted that none of the papers Mr. McLaughlin gave him
“contained any information about an alleged solicitation to commit murder.”

Mr. McLaughlin told Det. Freeman that he had other “documentation” in his cell, but
he never produced those documents to the detectives. Det. Freeman testified that Mr.
McLaughlin’s cell was searched by Sheriff’s deputies, but they did not find any documents
that pertained to the solicitation. After Det. Freeman’s testimony, the defense called
Davidson County Sheriff’s Deputy Orlando Tippins to the stand. Deputy Tippins testified

-21-
that he was a guard on the fifth floor of the CJC when Mr. McLaughlin was there. Deputy
Tippins testified that, in his opinion, Mr. McLaughlin was an untruthful person.

III. Solicitation of Michael Jenkins

Sgt. Postiglione testified that around July 10, 2008, he received a letter from Michael
Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins had been housed on the fifth floor of the CJC with the Defendant
earlier in 2008. As a result of the letter, Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman interviewed Mr.
Jenkins. However, at the time Mr. Jenkins was housed at a different correctional facility and
no longer had access to the Defendant; therefore, the detectives could not conduct another
wire operation.

At trial, Mr. Jenkins testified that he was on the fifth floor of the CJC with the
Defendant in February of 2008 and from May 29, 2008 until June 5, 2008. According to Mr.
Jenkins, during that time the Defendant discussed the facts of his murder charge with Mr.
Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins testified that the Defendant became “very angry and upset” after the
Defendant learned that Mr. McLaughlin “had been recording their conversations.”
According to Mr. Jenkins, a short time later, the Defendant approached him and “was very
angry and he wanted somebody to kill the two officers.” Mr. Jenkins testified that the
Defendant never gave him “the names of [the] officers, but everybody knew” who they were.
Mr. Jenkins went on to explain that the Defendant was referring to “the arresting officers”
who had stopped him at the TA.

According to Mr. Jenkins, the Defendant stated that “he blamed them for all of his
problems . . . he blamed them for everything” including the recent death of the Defendant’s
wife. Mr. Jenkins described the Defendant as “very belligerent about those two officers.”
Mr. Jenkins testified that the Defendant told him “point blank” that he “wanted those officers
dead.” Mr. Jenkins further testified that the Defendant was “very serious” about wanting to
kill Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman. According to Mr. Jenkins, the Defendant asked Mr.
Jenkins to kill “the two officers,” and Mr. Jenkins said yes because he thought he “needed
to keep [the Defendant] close to [him] and relay” the information to the police chief.

Mr. Jenkins testified that the Defendant offered him $15,000 to kill Sgt. Postiglione
and Det. Freeman. Mr. Jenkins further testified that the Defendant told him that the
Defendant “was due some money.” Mr. Jenkins thought “it was probably from his wife’s
death.” According to Mr. Jenkins, he had “several” conversations with the Defendant about
killing the detectives. Mr. Jenkins testified that on one occasion, the Defendant asked him
“to pull [his] shirt up” to show the Defendant that he was not wearing a wire. Mr. Jenkins
also testified that the Defendant told him things that were said on the wire recordings with
Mr. McLaughlin. Mr. Jenkins recalled that the Defendant told him that Mr. McLaughlin said

-22-
“that he would take the same caliber gun and shoot someone to make it look like that the
killer was still out there” and that the Defendant said he told Mr. McLaughlin “to do what
you do.” On cross-examination, Mr. Jenkins admitted that he told the police that he thought
Mr. McLaughlin was a liar.

Mr. Jenkins testified that he was currently serving a ten-year sentence in the
Tennessee Department of Correction, that he had “battled drug and alcohol” abuse through
much of his life, and that he had a “lengthy” criminal history. Mr. Jenkins also admitted that
while he had various charges pending he wrote “a lot of letters to different people” offering
to be a police informant. On cross-examination, Mr. Jenkins admitted that in his letter to the
police, he got the Defendant’s name wrong, referring to him as Mr. Mendenhoff. Mr.
Jenkins also admitted that he told no one about his conversations with the Defendant until
after he was arrested on new charges on June 18, 2008.

IV. Jail Letters and Phone Calls

In addition to the foregoing evidence, the State also presented redacted excerpts from
several phone conversations the Defendant had while incarcerated and several letters the
Defendant sent from jail. At trial, Det. Freeman testified that it was typical for investigators
to listen to a defendant’s “jail phone calls” after a defendant’s arrest. Kevin Carroll, an
internal affairs investigator with the DCSD, testified that the jail’s “telephone system records
all outgoing phone calls that inmates . . . make.” Mr. Carroll also testified that at “the
beginning of each recorded phone call, there is a prerecorded tag that says this call may be
monitored and recorded.” Mr. Carroll received a request from Det. Freeman for the
Defendant’s “jail calls,” retrieved the recordings from the jail’s computer system, and
provided them to Det. Freeman. Det. Freeman testified that he and Sgt. Postiglione listened
to “more than 100 calls” made by the Defendant and that they became familiar with the
voices of the Defendant and his family members.

Det. Freeman further testified that based upon statements made by the Defendant in
the recorded “jail calls,” he obtained a judicial subpoena for copies of the Defendant’s mail.
Det. Freeman explained that the Defendant “stated in certain calls that he was going to have
to write it in a letter about finding alibis and other things.” Mr. Carroll testified that all
inmates at the CJC were provided a handbook that stated that “their mail may be read and it
may be turned over to law enforcement.” Mr. Carroll further testified that it was common
to get judicial subpoenas for an inmate’s mail and that inmate mail could also be scanned
“out of concerns for jail safety and security.” Mr. Carroll testified that he received and
complied with the judicial subpoena to copy the Defendant’s mail. Mr. Carroll also testified
that the Defendant was not alerted to the fact that his mail was being intercepted. Det.
Freeman testified that he and Sgt. Postiglione read almost 500 letters written by the

-23-
Defendant and that they became familiar with the Defendant’s handwriting and the people
the Defendant wrote to.

The phone calls and letters can be separated into the following categories: (1) calls
and letters which referred to Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell and the Defendant’s
belief that they were responsible for framing him for Ms. Hulbert’s murder; (2) calls and
letters which referred to Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman and the Defendant’s belief that
they were also responsible for framing him for Ms. Hulbert’s murder; (3) calls and letters that
corroborated Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Jenkins’ testimony; (4) calls and letters in which the
Defendant stated that he needed an alibi or attempted to fabricate an alibi; and (5) letters
written after June 5, 2008. Det. Freeman admitted at trial that at no point in the calls or
letters did the Defendant discuss “a scheme where someone [had] been hired to commit a
murder on his behalf” or ask “anyone to commit murder on his behalf.”

A. Calls and Letters Regarding Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell

In a phone conversation with his wife from August 7, 2007, the Defendant stated,
“She’s [(referring to Ms. Young)] got me tied up pretty good.” When the Defendant’s wife
asked him who he was referring to, the Defendant responded, “Well, who do you f--king
think? Who have I been searching for all these months?” The Defendant’s wife told him
that Ms. Young had “been blabbing.” The Defendant responded that his “lawyers” had told
him that and that Ms. Young was “smiling, so that’s a plus on me.” Later in the
conversation, the Defendant stated, “But you know, how long we [sic] been looking for her?
And our lawyers we hired couldn’t find her . . . . My lawyers found her in two days.” The
Defendant’s wife informed him that Ms. Young had been “[p]utting [him] down.” The
Defendant then stated that he heard that Ms. Young had said that he was “a good guy.” The
Defendant’s wife responded that Ms. Young had said that at first and “then she said some
other things.” The Defendant warned his wife to “keep it off that air.” Later in the
conversation, the Defendant asked his wife to have their daughter “text [Ms. Young] and ask
the questions” on their daughter’s “untapped line.”

In a phone conversation with his wife from August 10, 2007, the Defendant discussed
the fact that Ms. Young had a recent conviction for driving under the influence. The
Defendant’s wife stated that Ms. Young got out of the charge by paying “a hundred bucks.”
The Defendant then stated that was the type of thing his attorneys wanted “the jury to hear
. . . [w]hat [he] was up against with [Ms. Young].” The Defendant stated that would paint
“a better picture” for him. The Defendant’s wife then asked him if he knew that their phone
call was monitored. The Defendant responded that he did and that he was not saying
anything that he was not supposed to. Later in the conversation, the Defendant’s wife told

-24-
the Defendant about a newspaper article that described Ms. Young as the Defendant’s
“girlfriend.”

In a phone conversation with his wife and one of their daughters from August 18,
2007, the Defendant discussed the news coverage of his case in a “rag paper” called
“Disclosure.” The Defendant’s wife stated that someone interviewed in the paper said Ms.
Young “was a prostitute.” The Defendant then stated that he guessed he “pissed [Ms.
Young] off enough” because his attorney told him that she “wouldn’t shut her mouth.” The
Defendant and his wife hoped that his attorney would “see through” Ms. Young. The
Defendant told his wife and daughter that his attorneys had “found everybody but one.” The
Defendant’s wife asked if Mr. Kiem was still missing. The Defendant told her that they had
found Mr. Kiem, but Mr. Powell was stilling missing, and the Defendant’s wife then referred
to Mr. Powell as “d--khead.”

In a phone conversation with his son from August 22, 2007, the Defendant stated that
he “hired them [sic] two lawyers, to you know, look, to look for you know who [(referring
to Ms. Young)].” The Defendant then stated that those attorneys “couldn’t find her in six
years,” but that his new attorneys found Ms. Young in two days.

In a phone conversation with his wife from August 29, 2007, the Defendant again
stated that he had “hired a lawyer to look for [Ms. Young], to get [his] money” and that after
six years they “never did really find her.” However, the Defendant stated that during that
time Ms. Young “was finding [him].” The Defendant stated that it took his new attorneys
only two days to find Ms. Young. The Defendant’s wife pointed out that this was after Ms.
Young “came out in the paper” with a story that she had ridden in the Defendant’s truck for
“three or four days” and what “saved” her was the fact that she was not a prostitute. The
Defendant insisted that his attorneys found Ms. Young before her story had been published.
The Defendant then stated that his attorneys had found everyone except for Mr. Powell.

In a phone conversation with his wife from September 17, 2007, the Defendant stated
that he wished he knew Ms. Young’s “so called husband’s address” so he could “write him
a letter and let him . . . wise up to things.” The Defendant’s wife informed the Defendant
that Ms. Young’s husband was a “truck driver too.” The Defendant responded that Ms.
Young “always picks on truck drivers. That’s for sure.” The Defendant continued
discussing Ms. Young’s husband in a phone conversation with his wife on September 24,
2007. In that conversation, the Defendant stated that no one believed him that Ms. Young
could frame him and that the only reason for that was because no one knew Ms. Young like
he did. The following exchange then occurred:

-25-
[Defendant’s wife]: Lori or Lori’s husband.
[The Defendant]: Yeah. I don’t know him. So, I wouldn’t, uh, put it on him.
[Defendant’s wife]: Well, I know, in the Disclosure they said he was a
hothead.
[The Defendant]: Um. Well, like I said, you outta write him and tell him he’s
next on the list.
[Defendant’s wife]: Yeah, she’s setting him up real good, isn’t she? I don’t
know she might be scared of him.
[The Defendant]: Huh?
[Defendant’s wife]: She may be scared of him.
[The Defendant]: She ain’t scared of nobody. She uses the law against
everyone of us.

In a phone conversation with his wife and one of their daughters from September 28,
2007, the Defendant’s wife advised him to “keep [his] enemies closer.” The Defendant
complained that he tried to do that with Ms. Young, but he “got bit.” In a later conversation
with his wife from October 15, 2007, the Defendant stated that Ms. Young “stacked it good”
against him. The Defendant’s wife stated that she did not think Ms. Young had framed the
Defendant by herself and that she thought “there’s more people to it.” Later, the Defendant
stated that he had asked one of his daughters to get information on Ms. Young.

In a phone conversation with his wife from October 22, 2007, the Defendant
complained that no one was “going after” Ms. Young. The Defendant stated that Ms. Young
could “allegate [sic] against the guys and they arrest ‘em. But you turn it around, you have
to prove it.” The Defendant further stated that he was “up against a brick wall and no where
to knock it down.” In a later conversation on November 30, 2007, the Defendant stated that
Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell had “alibied theirselves [sic].” The Defendant’s wife
stated that their alibis were “fake.”

Exhibit 16 at trial was a letter from the Defendant to one of his daughters dated
January 9, 2008. In the letter, the Defendant stated that Ms. Young and Mr. Kiem had him
“pretty well hemmed up here trying to prove that [he] didn’t do it and they alibied each
other.” The Defendant also stated that “Mr. F’n Powell got alibied he was at work.” The
Defendant then stated that because Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell had alibis, he
would need someone to say that they saw him on the night of the murder. Later in the letter,
the Defendant stated that he believed his daughters were “the target of [Ms. Young and Mr.
Kiem’s] threats.” The Defendant told his daughter that he believed Ms. Young and Mr.
Kiem had “screwed with” her car after they had spoken to his attorneys. The Defendant then
asked his daughter to help him by “getting someone to trick them into getting them to talking

-26-
about coming after [him], setting [him] up, like [his daughter] said Powell was doing that one
night.”

The January 9, 2008 letter continued with the Defendant making the following
statement about Ms. Young:

I always jumped your mom for not kicking Lori’s ass when she beat on you,
but I found out the hard way it’s not possible because she knew she had to
have help getting me down. So she brought Ritchie and David with her and
always came out of the dark or blindsided me. And I realized your mom didn’t
stand a chance against her and neither did you. So that’s why last year you
hardly ever heard me cut your mom down for not protecting you because I was
at the other end of it. I was not very proud of myself but they didn’t know
what she was up to until the day that I was arrested, but it was too late.

The Defendant concluded the letter by stating his version of the events that led up to his
arrest.

In Exhibit 18, a letter from the Defendant to his “pen pal” Katie Collins and dated
February 22, 2008, the Defendant asked Ms. Collins if she knew Ms. Young. The Defendant
then told Ms. Collins where he thought Ms. Young was and asked Ms. Collins to write to Ms.
Young “like you’re her friend and you hate [the Defendant]. Find out all of the info you can,
please. It would be real helpful.”

Exhibit 21 was a letter from the Defendant to his wife and daughters dated March
2008. In the letter, the Defendant asked if there was anything about him or Ms. Young “in
the paper.” The Defendant referred to Ms. Young as “the b---h.” The Defendant then stated
that he had learned the name of Ms. Young’s husband and some information about him.
After complaining about the detectives in his case, the Defendant then asked if his family
remembered “the night [they] went looking for” Mr. Kiem after they saw him drive by their
house. The Defendant claimed that he could not find Mr. Kiem that night because Ms.
Young had helped Mr. Kiem hide his car. The Defendant claimed that Mr. Kiem lied by
saying that he had “never [] driven a car” and that Mr. Powell lied by saying that “he hasn’t
been around [them] since 2002.” The Defendant implored his family to give “any info” to
his attorneys to help “back [him] up.” The Defendant also claimed that a friend had stated
that Mr. Powell “was still in the area in 2005 or 2006.”

Later in Exhibit 21, the Defendant asked his family to “run the computer to a
newspaper in [the town of] Only about Powell’s arrest for not reporting and [Mr. Kiem’s]
losing his driver’s license for [a] DUI wreck.” The Defendant stated that this information

-27-
would “help support [him] saying [he] saw them.” The Defendant then stated that he recalled
an incident when Mr. Kiem and Ms. Young drove by his house. The Defendant elaborated
stating as follows:

Richie and Lori drove by with Richie behind the wheel, but I need help
proving Richie and David are big ass liars. Richie is saying Lori was with him
at home, so proving him a liar would be a must.

The Defendant concluded the letter by stating that he was “nervous Lori might win,” and he
would never get to go home.

In Exhibit 23, a letter from March 2, 2008, the Defendant stated Ms. Young’s alleged
attempt to frame him was “one hell of a set up.” The Defendant also stated that he had not
killed anyone, but that it was “stack[ed] really good” and that it was “enough to make you
wonder how in the f--k did Lori manage it?” In Exhibit 24, a letter from the Defendant to
his “pen pal” Ms. Collins dated March 4, 2008, the Defendant stated that he asked Ms.
Collins “to keep tabs on Ms. Lori Young [] because she has a history of getting men in
trouble with [the] law.” The Defendant claimed that while these men were “in jail fighting
to prove their innocence,” Ms. Young would “disappear[] under the radar, [and] assume[]
a different identity.” The Defendant also claimed that when Ms. Young “started messing
with” him, he contacted the police, “but she was sexually involved with them from our state’s
attorney down to the chief of police, so [he] was banging [his] head against the wall.” The
Defendant then went on a rant about the unfairness of the judicial system and how the
detectives in his case had framed him.

In Exhibit 28, a letter from the Defendant to his daughter dated March 13, 2008, the
Defendant stated that Mr. Kiem was lying about having not driven. The Defendant stated
that he had people checking court and police records on Mr. Kiem so that any information
they found could be used so that when Mr. Kiem’s “bearded fat ass gets on the stand and
lies” the Defendant’s attorneys would “have the ammo available.”

Exhibit 29 was a letter from the Defendant to one of his daughters dated March 19,
2008. In the letter, the Defendant stated that making Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell “out to be
F’n liars” was “real important because it supports what [he had] been saying.” The
Defendant then stated what he believed to be Mr. Kiem and Mr. Powell’s various lies, “So
far they say they have not seen me and you since 2001 and Richie never has driven a vehicle.
And I’m the one that killed your cat and her little kittens.” The Defendant complained that
“someone who doesn’t know me ain’t going to believe unless someone other than family
says” that he was telling the truth. The Defendant then stated that he would not speak to the

-28-
media about Ms. Young’s alleged plot to frame him but instead would follow his attorney’s
advice and win his case “a step at a time.”

In Exhibit 36, a letter to the Defendant’s wife dated April 25, 2008, the Defendant
stated that he was frustrated with his social worker because she wanted to know why he was
“setting Lori up with these crimes.” In Exhibit 37, a letter to one of the Defendant’s
daughters dated April 25, 2008, the Defendant also complained about his social worker
asking why he was “trying to frame Lori.” The Defendant asked his social worker “who’s
framing who here? The evidence is pointing toward me, not her, so who’s doing the
framing?” The Defendant then asked his daughter to “find out when did David Powell move
to Anderson, Indiana,” so they could prove that he was “still in the area in 2006 or 2005.”
The Defendant also stated that he had someone else looking up information on Ms. Young
and Mr. Kiem.

In Exhibit 39, a letter dated April 30, 2008, the Defendant told one of his daughters
to “watch” herself “a lot” because “Lori [had] been released.” In a phone conversation with
his wife from May 4, 2008, the Defendant told his wife to warn their family “to start
watching their backs closer, Lori’s on the loose.” In another phone conversation with his
wife on May 6, 2008, the Defendant stated that Ms. Young was “on the loose,” that she had
been in jail in Kentucky, and that “they let her go.” The Defendant stated that “one of the
guys here, he found out she got two years probation.” The Defendant told his wife that he
was not sure if it was true, but that he wanted his family to “watch you guys’ back [sic], real
good now.” In a phone conversation with his wife on May 10, 2008, the Defendant stated
“[l]ook out, look . . . [s]he is, she is on the loose. She’s got a two year probation.”

Exhibit 54 was a letter from the Defendant to his wife dated May 11, 2008. In the
letter the Defendant claimed that he was being framed and that he was worried about his
family being “safe . . . from Lori.” The Defendant reiterated what he had told his wife in an
earlier phone conversation that she needed to “watch [her] damn back[] because Lori’s up
to something.” The Defendant concluded the letter by stating that “something is smelling
bad.”

B. Calls and Letters Regarding Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman

In a phone conversation with his son from August 20, 2007, the Defendant stated that
Sgt. Postiglione “needed to clear his desk” so he “wouldn’t have an open case laying [sic]
on his desk, when he retired.” The Defendant claimed that he was Sgt. Postiglione’s “bait.”
Later in the conversation, the Defendant stated that the “arresting officer” had “blinders on”
and could not see what had really happened with Ms. Hulbert’s murder. The Defendant then
reiterated that “when you got a detective getting ready to retire, you know, he don’t want that

-29-
on his desk when he walks out the door.” The Defendant’s son responded that Sgt.
Postiglione would have a lawsuit “on his desk before he walks out that door.” The
Defendant’s son further stated that Sgt. Postiglione “jumped the gun . . . and he’s gotta pay
the price for that.” The Defendant made a similar statement on August 25, 2007. The
Defendant claimed that Sgt. Postiglione “just wanted to clear his desk before he retired” and
that the Defendant was “his scapegoat.”

In a phone conversation with his son from August 28, 2007, the Defendant stated that
Sgt. Postiglione “ain’t gonna let [his case] die.” The Defendant stated that Sgt. Postiglione
kept his case in the news by “putting everything on the internet and s--t.” In a later phone
conversation with his wife on October 26, 2007, the Defendant stated that someone had
asked him in a letter if he needed anything and that he responded “[j]ust two cops’ badges
is all.”

In Exhibit 16, a letter from the Defendant to one of his daughters dated January 9,
2008, the Defendant stated his version of his encounter with Sgt. Postiglione on July 12,
2007. In the letter the Defendant referred to Sgt. Postiglione as a “q---r looking gentleman,”
a “q---r,” “Mr. Q---r,” and “q---r boy.” The Defendant claimed that he initially refused to
speak to Sgt. Postiglione but eventually got out of his truck. The Defendant further claimed
that he never consented to Sgt. Postiglione searching his truck and that Sgt. Postiglione ran
past him to get inside his truck while he spoke to Det. Freeman. According to the Defendant,
the detectives began to accuse him of Ms. Hulbert’s murder almost immediately, and Sgt.
Postiglione stated that he would bet “his badge” that the Defendant’s DNA and shoe prints
would be found at the murder scene. The Defendant then claimed that Sgt. Postiglione began
“tearing trash bags open” and questioning him. The Defendant claimed that he was
handcuffed for refusing to answer Sgt. Postiglione’s questions. The Defendant further
claimed that he was tricked into signing the consent to search form because the detectives
told him it was a second consent form for a DNA sample.

Exhibit 17 was a letter from the Defendant to his wife and daughters dated February
15, 2008. In the letter the Defendant stated that nothing was going on with his case, “just
more time for the detectives to fabricate more s--t.” Exhibit 19 was a letter from the
Defendant to one of his sisters dated February 21, 2008. In the letter, the Defendant stated
that the “two detectives” had “people in a frenzy down here” by spreading “rumors” and
“lies” about him. The Defendant stated that he wanted “the SOB’s job and his retirement
benefits” so that “the next detective might think more than once about putting his badge on
the line like these have done.” The Defendant concluded the letter by stating that it was
unfair that he was being treated as guilty until proven innocent but that the detectives were
“innocent until you prove them guilty.” The Defendant stated that he felt that was a “little
ass backwards.”

-30-
Exhibit 20 was an undated letter from the Defendant to Katie Collins. In the letter,
the Defendant stated that the police had arrested him and “then started trying to make the
crime scene fit.” The Defendant then made the following cryptic statement, “One by one is
gone, bye-bye and that one so long. I would elaborate more, but my lawyers say watch it so
I do.” In Exhibit 21, the Defendant stated that when anyone referred “to the two detectives,”
he would say “f--k them” and that the detectives were “two-faced lying SOB[s].” The
Defendant also stated that the “two detectives [were] contradicting themselves.”

Exhibit 22 was a letter from the Defendant to one of his sisters dated March 2, 2008.
In the letter, the Defendant again claimed that the detectives had tricked him into signing a
consent to search form by telling him it was a consent form for providing a DNA sample.
The Defendant also claimed that the detectives “dubbed” the tape of his interview and
planted evidence in his truck to make him appear guilty. The Defendant then stated that he
was charged with murder “because two detectives can’t pull their heads out of their asses if
you drew them a map on how.”

In Exhibit 24, a letter dated March 4, 2008, the Defendant told his “pen pal” Ms.
Collins that he had “a finger on each hand, and it’s the middle one, aimed at anyone who is
connected to the law.” Later, the Defendant stated that he was “pissed” because he had “to
prove the detectives wrong” and that a “little injustice goes a long way.” The Defendant then
told Ms. Collins to make sure that her boyfriend wore gloves whenever he threw trash away
and always had an alibi because the TA would “do whatever somebody tells them, lies,
cheats, makes s--t up.” Later, the Defendant stated that the detectives had “everyone scared
from the TA workers to the pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes.”

Exhibit 27 was a letter from March 2008, with the Defendant writing to one of his
sisters. In the letter, the Defendant stated that “it still hurts that these detectives can spread
such BS and [nothing] gets done to stop it.” Later in the letter, the Defendant recalled a
conversation in which someone told him that they would send the detectives “to jail for being
such blundering idiots.” In Exhibit 28, a letter from March 13, 2008, the Defendant stated
that the police were framing him because he looked “like a good patsy.” The Defendant also
warned his daughter to “watch who you talk or write to because it could be a cop or police
informant trying to make [him] sound like a liar.”

Exhibit 31 was a letter from the Defendant to his daughter dated April 1, 2008. In the
letter, the Defendant stated that he wanted the “public to know what kind of crooked
detectives they have and put it on TV and newspaper nationwide like they did when [he] was
arrested.” The Defendant stated that he would “burn” the detectives “the same way” they had
burned him.

-31-
Exhibit 32 was a letter from the Defendant to Ms. Collins dated April 11, 2008. In
the letter, the Defendant stated that Ms. Young had always said that “cops are f--king idiots
who can’t pull their heads out of their own ass even if you gave them step by step
instructions.” The Defendant then stated that he wanted “two crooked as a dog’s hind leg
detectives’ badges,” and that one of the detectives had just won an award that he was “going
to tarnish.” Exhibit 33 was a letter from the Defendant to Christina Edwards, another “pen
pal,” and dated April 19, 2008. In the letter, the Defendant described Sgt. Postiglione and
Det. Freeman as “two crooked detectives who couldn’t pull their own heads out of their asses
if you handed them step by step instructions.”

Exhibit 34 was two separate letters that were mailed in the same envelope. In the first
letter the Defendant wrote to one of his daughters that he was going to “miss a lot of s--t”
because he could not get anyone “to step forward for [him] because they are scared of these
cops.” The second letter was dated April 9, 2008, and addressed to the Defendant’s wife.
In that letter the Defendant stated that he was “going down a fighting, tarnishing a couple of
badges as” he went. Later, the Defendant stated that there was “nothing that a few dead
detectives wouldn’t cure.” Further in the letter, the Defendant stated that “[l]ike Lori said,
cops are a bunch of dumbasses who can’t pull their heads out of their own asses if you
handed them step by step instructions! Right!”

In Exhibit 35, a letter from the Defendant to his son dated April 23, 2008, the
Defendant referred to Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman as “assholes” and liars. The
Defendant stated that everything the detectives said about him was “a lie,” and that “[t]hese
detectives lying was bad enough,” but now his own son was questioning him. The Defendant
accused the detectives of dubbing the recording of his interview and pulling “this case out
from under another [detective] and [causing] that one to lose his job.” The Defendant also
noted that the detectives were tapping “phone calls.” The Defendant concluded by saying
that there were a “bunch of FN’ questions and no answers.”

In Exhibit 38, a letter from the Defendant to his son dated April 30, 2008, the
Defendant stated that he needed alibis “badly because the detectives are helping frame [him]
good.” The Defendant also stated that one detective “was overheard saying he would frame
anyone fitting close to it so it wouldn’t be on his desk when he retired.” Later in the letter,
the Defendant stated, “I hope when you get the picture of your asshole taken, have Detective
Freeman on one cheek and have the other Detective Postiglione.” The Defendant then asked
his son if he could “shed some positive light on [his] case by going after them.” The
Defendant told his son to keep his “head up and quit listening to the news, it’s all bulls--t
created by these crooked detectives and they are so far under water they are doing everything
they can to survive the explosion coming.” The Defendant then told his son to quit
“worrying on what the assholes say.”

-32-
Exhibit 52 was a letter from the Defendant to his son dated April 1, 2008. In the
letter, the Defendant accused the police of hiding evidence “in a storage place at Metro police
station.” The Defendant stated that Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman had “ruined [his]
family’s life and [his] life so [he] will go to court and try to ruin two detectives’ lives as
well.” The Defendant further stated that the detectives had ruined his life “worldwide,” so
he wanted “these crooked S.O.B.’s [sic] lives ruined on TV as well.” The Defendant then
stated that he hoped he would win his trial, but the detectives had “done a damn good frame
up.” The Defendant stated that he wanted to show the world “how crooked Nashville
detectives will stoop to say they solved a crime.” The Defendant claimed again that he was
being framed by Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman. The Defendant concluded the letter by
telling his son to “never ever trust a detective. Never ever let them in your house. Never
ever let them search your vehicle without [a] legal warrant.”

In Exhibit 53, a letter from the Defendant to one of his sisters dated April 1, 2008, the
Defendant stated Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman had ruined his life and his family’s lives
and that he wanted “the news channels and paper to ruin these two detectives’ lives, show
everyone how hind leg crooked these assholes are.” Exhibit 55 was a letter from the
Defendant to a “pen pal” named Vanessa Ellis dated May 15, 2008. In the letter, the
Defendant stated that “the detectives covered their track real good” in planting evidence and
framing him for murder. The Defendant then stated that his attorneys would “have to do
their jobs as crooked as the detectives.” The Defendant claimed that the FBI had planted
“two snitches” in his cell block and explained that was why he asked Ms. Ellis to send him
“some skimpy clothing pictures, ‘cause a cop will not expose their bodies.”

Exhibit 57 was a letter written after the Defendant learned about the police
intercepting his mail and Mr. McLaughlin. The Defendant stated that he knew incoming
mail “was checked for contraband,” but he thought that “the law says once an envelope is
sealed and placed in a mailbox it becomes federal property.” The Defendant complained that
“[t]hese assholes bend the rules to suit theirselves.” The Defendant then stated that he “just
added two more people to [his] drop dead list so the detectives won’t feel alone: C-4 and the
DA, both crooks.” The Defendant concluded the letter by stating that he would not
“elaborate on [anything] else” in his letters.

C. Calls and Letters Corroborating Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Jenkins’ Testimony

In a recorded phone conversation with his wife from March 25, 2008, the Defendant
stated that a fellow inmate had just been convicted of ordering “a hit, a kill” on someone
even though “he wasn’t even around.” The Defendant stated that he could not believe that
a conviction could be based upon “that hearsay bulls--t” and that “hopefully” he would not
“get something like that done to [him].”

-33-
Exhibit 36 was a letter from the Defendant to his wife dated April 25, 2008. In the
letter the Defendant referred to his conversations with Mr. McLaughlin. The Defendant
stated that “another guy [had been] brought up whose uncle owns a trucking company, [and]
he’s setting me up with a high dollar run when I get out, which he says I will.” The
Defendant stated that he told Mr. McLaughlin that his wife, kids, or brother would ride with
him because he “won’t be set up again.” According to the Defendant, Mr. McLaughlin stated
that “his uncle wouldn’t care who rides with [him] as long as [he] did the run.” The
Defendant then described the route he was supposed to drive for Mr. McLaughlin’s uncle.
Later in the letter, the Defendant stated that Mr. McLaughlin told him he would “have no
problem” winning his case. Mr. McLaughlin then stated that the FBI had put “one of their
guys two cells down” from the Defendant “trying to get [him] to say something.” The
Defendant concluded that he was “pissing [them] off” because they could not get anything
out of him.

Exhibit 37 was a letter from the Defendant to one of his daughters dated April 25,
2008. In the letter, the Defendant asked his daughter to “get on the internet and look up Roy
McLaughlin, get a picture of him, if possible, and send all [the] info you can.” The
Defendant stated that Mr. McLaughlin had told him that “he bombed the building in New
York” and that he had been “in jail here for around two years.” The Defendant explained
that Mr. McLaughlin had been “released [] out on bail and was rearrested a couple of months
ago.” Later in the letter, the Defendant stated that there was “a guy who’s saying I will walk
from these charges and his uncle would like me to drive for him.” The Defendant then
described the route and stated that he would not “even tell him okay if no one will ride with
me. Ain’t going to get set up again, that’s for damn sure.” The Defendant stated that Mr.
McLaughlin told him he would make around $2,000 to $3,000 a week. The Defendant stated
that Mr. McLaughlin also stated that he would try to get the Defendant’s brother a job with
his uncle because the Defendant’s brother was unable to get work after the Defendant’s
arrest. The Defendant concluded the letter by stating that after he “beat these charges,”
neither one of them would “have to worry about money anymore.”

In Exhibit 38, a letter to the Defendant’s son dated April 30, 2008, the Defendant
stated that there was “another truck driver in here for carrying a cargo of C-4 and detonators
in his jeep going home from work.” The Defendant stated that Mr. McLaughlin “said he
would help alibi me with some of his friends, [and] asked where did I need it.” The
Defendant told Mr. McLaughlin “let me count the ways” and “was looking up at the sky.”
The Defendant stated that Mr. McLaughlin “laughed” and told him that he was “serious.”
The Defendant responded, “so am I.” In Exhibit 39, a letter to one of the Defendant’s
daughters dated April 30, 2008, the Defendant asked his daughter if she would be willing to
drive a truck for him. The Defendant told her that he had “a guy who said he would hook”
him up with “his uncle making runs.” The Defendant stated that Mr. McLaughlin told him

-34-
that if the Defendant could get drivers for his uncle’s company, his uncle would hire the
Defendant when the Defendant got out of prison. The Defendant also stated that someone
would have to ride with him so he would not “get set up again.”

In a phone conversation with one of his sisters from May 5, 2008, the Defendant
stated that he was “being such a good cat and mouse game player they brought another
[confidential informant] up here.” The Defendant stated that there were informants on both
sides of his cell. The Defendant told his sister that he would walk and talk on the roof with
another inmate nicknamed C-4 and that his nickname was C-Truck. The Defendant
explained that Mr. McLaughlin was nicknamed C-4 because “he likes to play with plastic
explosives.” The Defendant claimed that while he was talking to Mr. McLaughlin, another
inmate approached him and tried to talk to him about being at the Pilot truck stop in
Nashville. The Defendant stated that Mr. McLaughlin told him “that motherf--ker’s CI.”
The Defendant agreed with Mr. McLaughlin. The Defendant then stated that because he was
in “county jail” the police “can’t use a wire.”

A phone conversation from June 1, 2008, between the Defendant and one of his sisters
was played for the jury. In the conversation the two discussed the Defendant’s wife’s life
insurance policies. In Exhibit 60, a letter dated August 3, 2008, the Defendant asked one of
his daughters if she had checked on his wife’s life insurance policy and stated that he thought
the policy was worth $15,000 or $16,000. Det. Freeman testified that the amount mentioned
in the letter was significant because Mr. Jenkins had stated that the Defendant asked him to
kill Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman for a “down payment” of $15,000.

Exhibit 58 was a letter from the Defendant to Ms. Ellis dated June 2, 2008. In the
letter, written after the Defendant learned that Mr. McLaughlin had been a police informant,
the Defendant stated that it was his fault “for believing who he was and what he was capable
of doing and not caring about innocent people in the way, his term he used was casualty of
war.” The Defendant then stated that Mr. McLaughlin “got what he wanted when he wanted,
nothing got in his way to obtain it.”

D. Calls and Letters Regarding an Alibi or Attempts to Fabricate an Alibi

In a phone conversation with his son from August 27, 2007, the Defendant stated that
the case against him was “stacked so good, [he] may not get out.” The Defendant reiterated
that he “couldn’t believe how good it was stacked.” Later in the conversation, the Defendant
stated that the “way these things [were] stacked on [him], it’s gonna be a longer time for
[him].” The following exchange then occurred:

-35-
[The Defendant]: But, trying to find alibis for when they’re saying this s--t
happened. That’s what’s hard. Finding them. Remembering dates, times.
[Defendant’s son]: Um-hmm.
[The Defendant]: I go. About the only way to get one is to lie about one.
[Defendant’s son]: Right. Can’t do that.
[The Defendant]: No. Well, you could, if you could talk to somebody about
doing it. I mean, you know, like me and you talking right now, you know,
they’d hear and know about it before you did it. You know what I mean? So,
it wouldn’t be no good.
[Defendant’s son]: Right.
[The Defendant]: Oh well.

In a phone conversation with his wife from October 8, 2007, the Defendant stated that
he would not be able to go home unless he got “some alibis here.” The Defendant also stated
that unless he could “get an alibi” he would be “done.” Later in the conversation, the
Defendant reiterated that he had to “have alibis.” In a phone conversation on October 12,
2007, the Defendant informed his wife that their son had told the Defendant that he would
not be an alibi for the Defendant. The Defendant reiterated that the “only way to beat this
system down here is with alibis.” The Defendant’s wife then reminded him that their phone
conversation was being recorded. The Defendant responded that “the only thing they record
is if you talk about uh, trying to get out.” The Defendant’s wife then stated that she had
something to say, but she was not sure if she could say it over the phone. The Defendant told
her to write it in a letter. The Defendant stated that he knew the jail read incoming mail but
he did not know about outgoing mail.

In a phone conversation with his wife from October 22, 2007, the Defendant told her
that he had to prove that he told the police that he wanted a lawyer and that they could not
search his truck. The Defendant’s wife asked how he could possibly prove that when the
detectives were saying “something different.” The Defendant responded that he needed to
“get somebody that said, you know, they over heard [him] saying it.” The Defendant
concluded that was “hard to do.” The following exchange then occurred:

[The Defendant]: In other words, if I can get, you know like, Aries or
somebody like that to say, “Well I was walking down the railroad tracks when
they [were] trying to arrest this guy and, we snuck down into some higher
grass, and listened and we heard the driver say, ‘No you can’t search my truck,
and I want [a] lawyer.’” You know something like that . . . .
[Defendant’s wife]: Well, it didn’t happen.
[The Defendant]: Well, you get my drift.
[Defendant’s wife]: Yeah, I get your drift.

-36-
The Defendant later reiterated that he needed an alibi because “they just stacked a lot of s--t
on [him].” The Defendant stated that he needed to “get somebody to lie for [him] to get out
of it” and that he needed to “come up with some alibis.” The Defendant’s wife interrupted
him and reminded him that their conversation was being recorded. The Defendant responded
that he had “said nothing wrong.” After discussing Ms. Young, the Defendant stated that he
was “gonna have to come up with people that you know, wasn’t there that says they were.”
The Defendant’s wife again reminded him that their conversation was being recorded, and
the Defendant stated that he was “just saying” that if “somebody comes up and says they
were there” he would be “surprised.”

In Exhibit 17, the Defendant stated that his wife “better not get jealous of [him]
walking around with a hooker and talking even if the hooker testifies” that they had sex
because his family would “know better.” The Defendant went on to state that he would “not
say any different” if a hooker claimed to have had sex with him at the time of the murder
because “just that alone [would] be a good alibi.”

Exhibit 23 was a letter from the Defendant to Dee Barrett and dated March 2, 2008.
In the letter, the Defendant stated that someone named Bud “could muster to help [him] by
saying he saw Richie [in] February of 2007 with a gun that looked like his.” The Defendant
then made the following statements:

But anyway, if I could use some people to stack s--t right back at these
mothers to make them look really stupid! And say you had the killers already
behind bars and even know it and laughed at them as I walk away with 20
million. The people you use has to be reliable and trustworthy to pull this s--t
off. I need two women really acting like whores and one saying she had [seen]
Sara Hulbert a week prior to her death [and Ms. Hulbert had said] she had seen
a girl killed by spoiled brat (Lori) and Hollywood and thought maybe she was
next. And the other one to say on July 10th she saw my yellow truck and seen
my yellow paper in [the] window and knew me and went to the TA to meet me
and saw the police around me and heard one policeman in plain clothes, 5’10”,
165 pounds, ask me if he could search my truck and heard me say no. And
couldn’t believe it when they saw him bail into the bunk area. You know
that’d end a lot [of] bulls--t . . . . But if there’s anyone you know who doesn’t
live around me that can identify me and wants to help me by acting as a whore
just write and say you know a whore and I give you the girl’s description.
Well, better tell me scene #1 she saw it, or scene #2 saw me. Whore #1 or
Whore #2 or both whore. Don’t mention no names, they read what you write.

-37-
The letter ends with the Defendant stating the following, “So my only luck would be scene
#2, but I also will [accept] #1 with it. Sara Hulbert was beautiful blonde with . . . .”

In Exhibit 24, the Defendant stated that he had people offer to provide him a fake alibi
for money and that he had turned them down. The Defendant then stated that “now I’m
thinking hell anything will do! Right!” Exhibit 25 was a letter from the Defendant to his son
and grandson dated March 4, 2008. In the letter, the Defendant stated that he needed
“someone to grow some balls and step forward and help [him].” Exhibit 26 was a letter from
the Defendant to his sister and nephew also dated March 4, 2008. In the letter, the Defendant
stated that he needed “someone” to “grow some balls and stand up against these assholes
instead of being scared.” The Defendant claimed that he had five witnesses who “saw a
white Volvo pull in with the dead woman in his truck and was saw [sic] changing clothes.”

In Exhibit 31, a letter dated April 1, 2008, the Defendant asked one of his daughters
to tell someone named Bud that when the police interviewed him, “to say that wasn’t the gun
he left in [the Defendant’s] car, but he did see it in Richie’s hand when squirrel hunting with
him.” The Defendant told his daughter that the “DA cannot put the dead woman in [his]
truck or the gun in [his] hand so [his] lawyers want[ed] to disprove it when they try to put
[the gun] in [his] hands. 10-4 good buddy. Ha ha.” The Defendant then told his daughter
not to tell his wife about his plan because she would “rant and rave.” The Defendant stated
that Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell had all lied and that he wanted “to turn it a little
back at them.” The Defendant then stated that Mr. Kiem had “dark brown eyes, long hair,
and [a] full beard.”

In Exhibit 38, the Defendant stated that he “needed alibis badly” because the
detectives were framing him. The Defendant stated that Mr. McLaughlin had offered to help
him get some alibis. The Defendant also told his son to “just cross your fingers my alibis can
be found prior to court. I don’t like someone to lie, but at this point in the game, I will take
anything, right?”

E. Letters Written After June 5, 2008

Exhibit 59 was a letter from the Defendant to a fellow inmate named “Ray-Ray” and
dated July 7, 2008. In the letter, the Defendant stated that “C-4 turned out to be an F-N’
snitch so watch that to be good.” Exhibit 61 was another letter to Ray-Ray dated August 8,
2008. In the letter, the Defendant told Ray-Ray not to trust anyone and referred to Mr.
McLaughlin as an “asshole.” The Defendant further stated that he did not talk about Mr.
McLaughlin “very much to anyone” but that Mr. McLaughlin was “lower than snail slime.”

-38-
Exhibit 62 was a letter from the Defendant to Randy Dee dated August 19, 2008. In
the letter, the Defendant stated that the “FN’ rat’s name is Roy Lucas McLaughlin” and that
as “soon as he snitched on [the Defendant] and two others” he was moved to “protective
custody.” The Defendant then asked Mr. Dee to “[t]ell your buddy judge I need his help.
Ha! Ha!” Exhibit 63 was also a letter to Randy Dee dated September 7, 2008. In the letter,
the Defendant stated that he learned that Mr. Jenkins was also a “snitch” and that he thought
it was “funny” that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. McLaughlin were working with the police. The
Defendant then stated, “Both are saying I hired them but I never said s--t like that, nor did
I write it. The detective must be scared to death that I might go free and he’ll be caught with
a hand full of s--t which he created.”

Exhibit 64 was a letter from the Defendant to his son dated October 1, 2008. In the
letter the Defendant stated that he thought the person in the cell next to him was a “snitch.”
The Defendant then stated that Sgt. “Postiglione, stick this guy up your ass.” Exhibit 65 was
a letter to Ray-Ray dated October 23, 2008. In the letter, the Defendant stated that Mr.
McLaughlin and Mr. Jenkins were testifying against him and called the situation “bulls--t.”

Exhibit 66 was an undated letter from the Defendant to Randy Dee. In the letter, the
Defendant stated that he would “fight for [his] constitutional rights” and that he would make
sure “the detectives are going to wear some battle scars, sort of speaking.” The Defendant
further elaborated that Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman would “be blackballed from any
civil service job in the U.S.” when he got done with them. The Defendant also complained
that his mail was read “without a search warrant.” The Defendant then asked Mr. Dee to “get
on a computer and find [him] some info” to help him “nail the two detectives.”

Exhibit 67 was another letter to Randy Dee dated November 9, 2008. In the letter, the
Defendant called Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman “lying jerks” and stated that he wanted
to “take [their] badges so bad [he] [could] taste it.” The Defendant stated that he was “more
angry with Postiglione than Freeman” but that Det. Freeman was still “backing the asshole
up.” The Defendant then stated that his attorneys were “up against a detective whose been
doing this type of bulls--t for [twenty] years.” The Defendant stated that he thought it was
“time for [Sgt. Postiglione’s] reign of terror to end and harshly.”

Exhibit 68 was a letter from the Defendant to his son and grandson from April 2009.
In the letter, the Defendant wanted someone to “at least start something against Postiglione
and Freeman legally like, internal affairs, so them assholes can start ducking the s--t.”
Exhibit 69 was a letter from the Defendant to Randy Dee dated June 9, 2009. In the letter,
the Defendant complained that “they” did not “make cops pay for their crimes on us poor
people.” The Defendant stated that instead “dirty f--king cops [get] to retire and draw [their]
monthly money like [they] never did nothing [sic] wrong.”

-39-
V. Verdict and Sentencing

Based upon the foregoing evidence, the jury convicted the Defendant of soliciting Mr.
McLaughlin to commit the premeditated first degree murders of Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and
Mr. Powell. The jury acquitted the Defendant of soliciting Mr. Jenkins to commit the
premeditated first degree murders of Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman.

Following a sentencing hearing on February 26, 2010, the trial court sentenced the
Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to ten years for each count. The trial court ordered
the sentences to be served consecutively, for an effective thirty-year sentence. In determining
whether the Defendant’s sentences should be served consecutively, the trial court made the
following statement:

Is [the Defendant] under the law a dangerous offender whereby some,
all, none of these multiple convictions are run together? Well, the law has
discussion of that as well. And the only - - based on the proof, the only
possible classification [the Defendant] would possibly fall under is the
dangerous offender.

That statute goes on to define that: One whose behavior indicates little
or no regard for human life. And [defense counsel is] right in that the case law
goes beyond that for courts having to find certain factors. That’s what I was
mentioning earlier.

Aggregate terms of the sentence and how that relates to the severity of
the offense, whether it’s necessary within the sentencing of a certain individual
to protect the public from further serious criminal conduct. Well, you could
say, well, that - - just let that rise and fall on the other charges and if he’s
convicted then that’ll handle that. Well, if he’s - - I mean, we [are] here for
sentencing on these particular counts. And the Court has to factor in what the
law says as to these particular charges and let the other charges rise and fall on
their own. He may be found not guilty of all of those particular charges. So
I’ve got to, here today, under those statutory factors and [State v. ]Wilkerson[,
905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995),] factors determine what aggregate terms should
be imposed based on the facts and circumstances of this case.

And then that gets to what I was discussing. I mean, not every serious
offense - - I mean, this is a serious offense based on what I’ve already said.
I mean, going to the - - trying to alter the justice system which some people
may not like, but it’s the best system I’m aware of in our - - within the world.

-40-
So that then gets us [] back to the facts of the case. And when you
listen to all of the statements and the discussions on tape, you review the proof
that was introduced through some of the letters, I mean, it appears that there’s
a - - and [the Defendant] argued to the jury, well, he didn’t really mean what
he was saying, it was mainly Mr. McLaughlin or his idea just to help himself
out with the State. But I’ve looked back through here earlier, the statements
on tape and otherwise and without repeating all of them - - I mean, they’re
fairly descript as to what’s being discussed and names, addresses being
provided. “We’re not going to talk after this as long as they don’t show for
court, don’t care how you carry it out, blah, blah, blah.”

I mean it’s apparent to the Court that [the Defendant] has a nonchalant
attitude about the lives of these three people. Just quite apparent. But as I was
saying, not every serious offense makes one a dangerous offender. But in the
Court’s opinion based on the proof in this particular case and those factors that
I’ve mentioned under the statute and the case law, [the Defendant] would
qualify under [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 40-35-115 as a dangerous
offender.

After sentencing, the Defendant filed a timely motion for new trial which the trial
court denied. A timely notice of appeal was filed, and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

I. Severance

Prior to trial, the Defendant filed a motion to sever the two counts charging him with
solicitation of the first degree murders of Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman from the
remaining counts of the indictment. The trial court held a hearing on the matter and issued
a written order denying the motion. The trial court concluded that both sets of charges were
part of “a continuing plan or conspiracy of preventing key State’s witnesses from testifying
against” the Defendant in the trial for Ms. Hulbert’s murder. The trial court also concluded
that if the two groups of offenses were tried separately, evidence of one group would be
admissible at trial for the other group as “evidence of the [D]efendant’s motive, an absence
of mistake on his part, and existence of a larger plan–all of which are material issues in the
instant case.” The trial court further concluded that “the probative value of such evidence
would outweigh any potential prejudice to the [D]efendant.”

The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever. The
Defendant argues that the two counts involving Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman were not

-41-
part of a common scheme or plan in relation to the other counts of the indictment because
the Defendant had different alleged motives for each group of offenses. The Defendant
further argues that, if the two groups of offenses were tried separately, evidence of the counts
regarding Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman would not have been admissible at a trial on the
remaining counts. The State responds that the alleged solicitations in all five counts were
part of a continuing plan “to avoid prosecution in [the Defendant’s] capital case.” The State
also responds that evidence of the two groups of offenses would be admissible in separate
trials to show absence of mistake and the existence of a larger plan. The State further
responds that the Defendant did not suffer any prejudice by the trial court’s ruling because
the jury acquitted the Defendant of the solicitation charges regarding Sgt. Postiglione and
Det. Freeman.

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b) provides that “[t]wo or more offenses may
be joined in the same indictment” if the offenses are either (1) “parts of a common scheme
or plan” or (2) “of the same or similar character.” However, Rule 14(b)(1) provides that if
“two or more offenses are joined . . . pursuant to Rule 8(b), the defendant has the right to a
severance of the offenses unless the offenses are part of a common scheme or plan and the
evidence of one would be admissible in the trial of the others.” Accordingly, once a
defendant makes a motion to sever or objects to a pre-trial consolidation motion by the State,
“the trial court must consider the motion by the severance provisions of Rule 14(b)(1)”
instead of the provisions of Rule 8(b). State v. Garrett, 331 S.W.3d 392, 402 (Tenn. 2011)
(quoting Spicer v. State, 12 S.W.3d 438, 443 (Tenn. 2000)).

Upon a defendant’s motion to sever, “the trial court must hold a hearing in order to
gather the information necessary to adjudicate the issue.” Garrett, 331 S.W.3d at 403. The
trial court must sever the offenses unless it can

conclude from the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing that: (1)
the multiple offenses constitute parts of a common scheme or plan; (2)
evidence of [one] offense is relevant to some material issue in the trial of all
the other offenses; and (3) the probative value of the evidence of other
offenses is not outweighed by the prejudicial effect that admission of the
evidence would have on the defendant.

Id. (quoting Spicer, 12 S.W.3d at 445) (citations omitted). A trial court’s denial of a motion
to sever is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. at 401 (citing Spicer, 12
S.W.3d at 442).

As our supreme court has previously stated, “a common scheme or plan for severance
purposes is the same as a common scheme or plan for evidentiary purposes.” State v. Moore,

-42-
6 S.W.3d 235, 240 n.7 (Tenn. 1999). For offenses to be considered part of a continuing
scheme or plan, the crimes must be directed toward a “common goal or purpose.” State v.
Denton, 149 S.W.3d 1, 15 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting State v. Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d 935, 943 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1995)) (quotation marks omitted). This “requires proof of ‘a working plan,
operating towards the future with such force as to make probable the crime for which the
defendant is on trial.’” State v. Allen Prentice Blye, No. E2001-01375-CCA-R3-CD, 2002
WL 31487524, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 1, 2002) (quoting Hoyt, 928 S.W.2d at 943),
perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar. 10, 2003).

We agree with the trial court’s assessment that both sets of offenses were part of a
common scheme to derail the case against him for Ms. Hulbert’s murder. The Defendant
argues that his motive in soliciting Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman’s murders was his
personal hatred for the two men, and that he sought to kill Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr.
Powell because they would be witnesses against him at his murder trial. However, the
evidence established that the Defendant believed that both sets of victims were attempting
to “frame” him for Ms. Hulbert’s murder. Likewise, the evidence demonstrated that the
Defendant was obsessed with and despised all of the victims. Additionally, evidence
demonstrating the Defendant’s repeated attempts to acquire false alibis illustrated the
Defendant’s continuing scheme to gain an acquittal in his murder trial by circumventing the
judicial process. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that
both sets of offenses constituted parts of a common scheme or plan.

The primary issue of any severance case is whether the evidence of one offense would
be admissible in the trial of the other if the two offenses remained severed. Garrett, 331
S.W.3d at 402. Put another way, a severance motion is essentially “‘a question of evidentiary
relevance.’” Id. (quoting Spicer, 12 S.W.3d at 445). Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)
excludes evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” committed by the defendant when
offered only to show the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged. This is
because such evidence lacks relevance and invites the finder of fact to infer guilt from
propensity. Garrett, 331 S.W.3d at 402-03. However, evidence of prior bad acts may be
admissible for other purposes, such as “to show identity, guilty knowledge, intent, motive,
to rebut a defense of mistake or accident, or to establish some other relevant issue.” Moore,
6 S.W.3d at 239 n.5 (quoting State v. Hallock, 875 S.W.2d 285, 292 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1993)).

We agree with the trial court’s assessment that evidence of one set of offenses would
have been admissible at trial for the other set of offenses. The Defendant’s main argument
at trial was that he did not intend to solicit Mr. McLaughlin or Mr. Jenkins and that the two
men misunderstood his statements to them. Evidence that the Defendant offered Mr.
McLaughlin $15,000 to kill Ms. Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell would have been

-43-
admissible at trial for the solicitation of Mr. Jenkins in order to rebut the defense of mistake
or accident. Both Mr. Jenkins and Mr. McLaughlin testified that the Defendant offered them
the same amount of money to kill the different sets of victims. Likewise, evidence of the
wire recordings with Mr. McLaughlin would have been admissible to corroborate Mr.
Jenkins’ testimony that the Defendant gave him details about the recorded conversations.
Evidence that the Defendant asked Mr. Jenkins to “pull [his] shirt up” in order to demonstrate
that he was not wearing a wire would have also been admissible at a trial for the solicitation
of Mr. McLaughlin in order to rebut the defense that Mr. McLaughlin took the Defendant’s
statements out of context. We also agree with the trial court’s assessment that the probative
value of this evidence would not have been outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying the motion to severe.

With respect to the notion that the Defendant was prejudiced by the joinder of the two
sets of offenses, we note that prior to trial, the Defendant argued that trying all of the
offenses together would improperly “bolster” the State’s “weak proof” with respect to the
counts regarding Sgt. Postiglione and Det. Freeman. Having been acquitted of those counts,
the Defendant now complains on appeal that the counts regarding Sgt. Postiglione and Det.
Freeman improperly bolstered the evidence in the remaining counts and created an inference
“that the [D]efendant had a propensity to solicit persons to kill others.” However, even if the
trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion to sever, such error would ultimately
have been harmless. State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tenn. 1999) (stating that “the
defendant must show that the error probably affected the judgment before reversal is
appropriate”).

Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt with respect to the counts involving Ms.
Young, Mr. Kiem, and Mr. Powell, which we will discuss in more detail later in this opinio

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1045170. Public record. Not legal advice.