State of Tennessee v. Howard Hawk Willis

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

September 16, 2014 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HOWARD HAWK WILLIS

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Washington County

No. 28343 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Senior Judge

No. E2012-01313-CCA-R3-DD - Filed March 13, 2015

A Washington County jury convicted appellant, Howard Hawk Willis, of two counts of

premeditated first degree murder and one count of felony murder in the perpetration of a

kidnapping. Following the penalty phase, the jury sentenced appellant to death on each

conviction. The trial court merged the felony murder conviction into one of the convictions

for premeditated first degree murder. On appeal, appellant asserts that: (1) the trial court

erred in finding that appellant implicitly waived and forfeited his right to counsel and

requiring him to proceed pro se at trial; (2) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion

to suppress his statements; (3) the searches of the residence and the storage unit were

unconstitutional; (4) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s multiple motions to continue

the trial; (5) the trial court erred in staying appellant’s funding and other privileges used in

preparation for trial after this court granted an interlocutory appeal; (6) the evidence is

insufficient to support the convictions; (7) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s ex parte

motions for expert services for a crime scene expert and a false confession expert; (8) the

trial court failed to apply a higher standard of due process in all aspects of the case; (9) the

trial court erred in admitting certain photographs; (10) the prosecutor made improper

statements during closing arguments in both phases of the trial; (11) the trial court erred in

instructing the jury during the guilt phase; (12) the aggravating circumstances upon which

the State relied were not stated in the indictment; (13) the trial court erred in denying

appellant’s motion to preclude for-cause removal of jurors who were not death qualified; (14)

Tennessee’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (15) the trial court erred in failing to

advise appellant with respect to his testimony during the penalty phase; (16) the trial court

failed to make an adequate inquiry into appellant’s competency to waive his right to present

mitigating evidence; (17) the trial court erred in instructing the jury during the penalty phase;

(18) the trial court erred in admitting victim impact evidence; (19) the proportionality review

is unconstitutional; and (20) cumulative error warrants reversal. Following our thorough

review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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

Affirmed.

R OGER A. P AGE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT, J R.

and N ORMA M CG EE O GLE, JJ., joined.

Hershell D. Koger, Pulaski, Tennessee (on appeal); Kathleen Morris, Nashville, Tennessee

(on appeal); and Howard Hawk Willis, pro se (at trial), for the appellant, Howard Hawk

Willis.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; James E. Gaylord, Assistant Attorney

General; Anthony Clark, District Attorney General; and Dennis Brooks, Assistant District

Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Appellant was convicted of multiple counts of first degree murder for the October

2002 deaths of Adam Chrismer and Adam’s wife, Samantha.1 Appellant was indicted on

premeditated first degree murder of Adam, premeditated first degree murder of Samantha,

felony murder of Samantha in the perpetration of a kidnapping, felony murder of Adam in

the perpetration of first degree murder, two counts of abuse of the corpse of each victim, and

one count of abuse of the corpse of Sam Thomas, appellant’s step-father. The State

dismissed the charge of felony murder of Adam. The trial court ordered separate trials for

the murder counts and the abuse of a corpse counts.

After multiple changes in counsel that resulted in long delays in the proceedings, the

trial court found that appellant both implicitly waived and forfeited his right to be represented

by counsel. The trial court ordered that appellant proceed pro se at trial and appointed

advisory counsel. On interlocutory appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s order. See

State v. Willis, 301 S.W.3d 644, 645 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). On remand, the trial judge,

Judge Lynn W. Brown, recused himself from the case, and Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood was

designated as the trial judge. The trial was held in June 2010.

FACTS

The State’s Proof

1

The victims and several witnesses share the same surname. For clarity, we will refer to them by

their first names. By doing so, we intend no disrespect.

-2-

Patty Leming, Samantha’s mother, testified that Samantha was born on April 21,

1986, and was sixteen years old when she was killed. Ms. Leming said that at some point,

Samantha began living with Kelly Willis, who was one of Samantha’s friends and appellant’s

daughter. Ms. Leming assumed that appellant was also living with them. Samantha visited

Ms. Leming on a weekly basis. Ms. Leming said she only saw appellant if he brought

Samantha to visit.

Ms. Leming testified that she last saw appellant on October 4, 2002. On that date, Ms.

Leming, her boyfriend, and Samantha went to a Pizza Hut located on the border of

Chattanooga and Georgia. Ms. Leming said she drank three glasses of beer but was not

intoxicated. She also said that before their pizza arrived, Adam entered the restaurant and

appeared tired. Adam slumped over on the table and told Samantha, “Howard said, let’s go.”

Ms. Leming assumed that appellant had brought Adam and that appellant, Kelly, and Adam

had been to the dog pound to retrieve Samantha’s dog.

Ms. Leming said she saw a vehicle that appeared to be a red Jeep in the parking lot.

While she was not certain, she believed the Jeep belonged to appellant. She also saw

someone in the vehicle who looked like appellant. Ms. Leming stated that the vehicle was

parked farther back in the parking lot, that it was “dusky dark” outside, and that the

headlights of the vehicle were shining in the window. She saw the vehicle at the same time

that Adam entered the Pizza Hut. Adam did not stay long. Samantha asked him where her

dog was, and Adam told her that they did not retrieve it. Ms. Leming said Samantha “sort

of flew off the handle and called [appellant’s] daughter a b****.” The victims then left with

appellant, and Ms. Leming did not see the vehicle after they left.

Ms. Leming testified that she called Samantha’s cellular telephone on October 5 but

did not reach her. She said she had not had any prior difficulties contacting Samantha using

that number. Ms. Leming continued to attempt to reach Samantha but was unsuccessful.

On cross-examination, Ms. Leming denied informing agents from the Tennessee

Bureau of Investigation (TBI) that the victims left in a blue Jeep. She stated that from

September 27 through October 4, 2002, the victims were living in Rossville, Georgia, with

appellant and Kelly.

On redirect examination, Ms. Leming testified that following Samantha’s death, she

visited the trailer on Mohawk Drive in Rossville, Georgia, where the victims had recently

moved. Ms. Leming said that the victims and appellant had rented the trailer and that the

victims had lived there for approximately one week prior to their deaths.

-3-

Teresa Chrismer, Adam’s mother, testified that Adam was born on August 26, 1985,

and was seventeen years old when he died. Adam moved out of Teresa’s home when he

turned seventeen. Teresa met appellant through the victims in 2002 when he brought the

victims to her home to visit. Teresa said appellant came to her home a few times. She did

not like him, and they argued.

Teresa testified that she last saw Adam at his great-grandmother’s house but that she

could not recall the date. Teresa said Adam had found a job and was looking forward to his

life with Samantha. Teresa recalled that the victims were moving into a trailer on Mohawk

Drive. Teresa stated that she last spoke to Adam on October 4, 2002. He called her and was

upset and crying. Teresa told him to come home, and he agreed to do so.

Teresa stated that after speaking to Adam on October 4, she tried to call him but could

not reach him. On October 7 or 8, Teresa received a call from a detective in Bradley County

who wanted to speak to Adam. Teresa said she became “frantic” after the call. She believed

that something bad had happened to Adam because she had not heard from him.

Teresa testified that Adam had previously given her a number to use to reach him and

told her that it was a “secret” number. Teresa called the number several times and left a

message that it was important that he call her. On October 11, appellant called Teresa from

that same number and asked her what she wanted. Teresa told appellant that she wanted to

talk to Adam and asked where he was. Appellant said he had not seen the victims since they

were setting up their trailer on Mohawk Drive. Teresa stated that she tried to keep appellant

on the telephone for as long as she could while her husband called the police. She said she

remained on the telephone with appellant for twenty to twenty-five minutes. Teresa could

hear two women talking in the background but could not determine what they were saying.

Appellant was trying to get them to stop talking. Teresa stated that appellant was “as cool

as a cucumber” during the conversation.

Luther Earl Whitson testified that on October 11, 2002, he went fishing at Boone Lake

in Washington County, Tennessee. He went to Winged Deer Park at the boat ramp to pick

up a friend. He “threw down the trawl motor” and was preparing to fish when he saw a

human head floating in the water approximately twenty yards from the bank. He called

9-1-1.

Edward Brownlow Baker testified that on October 12, 2002, while fishing in a

tournament on Boone Lake, he saw a human hand floating in the water. He caught the hand

in a fishing net and brought it to a bridge where he called 9-1-1 and met officers.

-4-

Jerry Taylor, a bus driver for the sheriff’s office, testified that on October 12, 2002,

he had taken a crew of inmates to clean a cemetery. Mr. Taylor said he received a call from

his sergeant who instructed him to go to DeVault Bridge on Bristol Highway to meet with

investigators. When he arrived, he was instructed to take his crew and walk the bank of the

lake to search for body parts. After searching for fifteen to twenty minutes, they found a

human hand in the water.

Isaac Nichols testified that in October 2002, he learned that a human head and hand

were discovered in Boone Lake. He said that during that month, he, his nephew, and his

daughter went fishing at the lake where they found the top of a skull behind a boulder. He

called 9-1-1 and located the skull for officers.

Wilma Clay testified that she lived in Johnson City next door to Betty Willis,2

appellant’s mother. Mrs. Clay saw appellant, the victims, and appellant’s daughter at the

home beginning in April 2002 and on and off throughout the summer until September 2002.

Mrs. Clay last saw the victims at the home in September 2002.

Mrs. Clay stated that during the early morning of October 5 or 6, she saw appellant

standing outside Betty Willis’s vehicle, a red Jeep, with his arm resting on the door smoking

a cigarette. The red Jeep was parked on the side of the driveway and was filled with personal

belongings. The appellant stood there for a few minutes, threw down his cigarette, picked

up a black garbage bag from the back of the Jeep, and threw it on the ground. Mrs. Clay said

she felt uncomfortable, so she reentered her home.

Mrs. Clay testified that later that day, when it was daylight, she went outside to

retrieve her newspaper. She saw that the garage light at Betty’s house was on and that the

garage door was down. Mrs. Clay had not seen the garage light on previously.

On cross-examination, Mrs. Clay testified that she saw appellant on Saturday, October

5, 2002, at 5:30 a.m. She did not see any vehicles other than the red Jeep. Mrs. Clay said

she did not see a blue Jeep that day and did not recall the last time that she had seen the blue

Jeep. She acknowledged that neither she nor her neighbors got along with Betty.

James Robert Miller III, an attorney, testified that on September 27, 2002, he and his

secretary went to the home of Betty Willis on Brentwood Drive on a routine business matter.

When Mr. Miller parked in the driveway, he saw Betty standing outside in the yard. He also

saw Adam exit the house through the front door and walk around the yard.

2

The name of the appellant’s mother is referred throughout the record as Betty Willis, Betty Hawk,

Elizabeth Hawk, and Elizabeth Willis. For clarity, we will refer to her as “Betty Willis” or “Betty.”

-5-

Mr. Miller stated that he entered the house and saw that the kitchen, bathroom, and

living room were covered in debris. The State showed Mr. Miller a photograph of the house,

and Mr. Miller said that the hardwood floor depicted in the photograph from the front of the

house going toward the kitchen was not uncovered. Rather, he said that the floor was

carpeted. Mr. Miller stated that when he left the house, the victims were playing video

games on a television that appeared to be new.

Mr. Miller testified that at one point he went into the backyard where he saw

Samantha talking on her cellular telephone. Samantha handed the telephone to appellant,

who spoke into it and then handed it back to her. Samantha told Mr. Miller that she had

come from Georgia to help clean the house.

On cross-examination, Mr. Miller testified that he was at the house for approximately

forty-five minutes. He saw Samantha standing beside a blue Jeep and said that she had sandy

or light brown hair. Samantha told him that she had met appellant at a Hardees’ restaurant

one or two weeks before.

Catherine Campbell testified that in October 2002, she was a manager of 24 Hour Self

Storage Facility in Johnson City, Tennessee. Her office was located two blocks away from

the storage units. The company rented the units remotely by telephone.

Ms. Campbell explained that a person who wanted to rent a storage unit was required

to use the lobby telephone at the storage facility. The telephone connected to the main office.

Ms. Campbell or one of the employees at the main office completed contracts using the

information that the person provided over the telephone. The person also completed the

same contract while speaking to the employee and was required to make a payment at that

time. If the person paid using cash or a check, he or she was instructed to place the payment

in a lockbox at the site along with the contract. Once payment was rendered, the person was

provided with a temporary gate code until the person’s permanent code could be entered into

the system.

Ms. Campbell testified that on October 10, 2002, she rented Unit Number X47 during

the mid-afternoon. Ms. Campbell spoke to a man over the telephone for a few minutes. She

said the man sounded as if he were middle-aged or older. The man told Ms. Campbell that

a woman wanted to rent a storage unit and that the unit would be in the woman’s name. Ms.

Campbell told the man that she would need to speak to the woman directly. The man then

handed the telephone to a woman who identified herself as Betty Willis. Betty confirmed

that she wished to rent a unit, and Ms. Campbell talked her through the paperwork and

provided her with a temporary gate code. Betty paid with a check.

-6-

Ms. Campbell stated that later that evening, she retrieved the paperwork at the storage

facility. The paperwork listed the name “Betty H. Willis” and listed the address as 104

Brentwood Drive, Johnson City, Tennessee. The check was made in the amount of $55.00.

After Ms. Campbell deposited the check in the bank, it was returned due to insufficient

funds. On cross-examination, Ms. Campbell testified that the facility did not have video

surveillance and did not store information regarding who entered the facility.

Dr. Larry Miller, a professor and forensic document examiner for the Department of

Criminal Justice at East Tennessee State University, was accepted by the trial court as an

expert in handwriting analysis. Dr. Miller testified that in November 2003, Investigator Todd

Hull with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office requested that he examine documents that

purportedly bore the handwriting of Emma Elizabeth Hawk, also known as Betty Willis. Dr.

Miller was asked to compare the handwriting on the documents with Betty’s known

handwriting.

Dr. Miller testified that he examined a storage rental agreement form that was

completed by a person by the name of Betty H. Willis. He concluded that the signature and

other handwriting on the document were that of Betty. Dr. Miller also examined a check

dated October 10, 2002, payable to 24 Hour Storage and determined that the writing,

numerical formations, and signature were made by Betty.

Sergeant Kenneth Phillips testified that in October 2002, he was the Director of the

Drug Task Force, which included Washington, Carter, Johnson, and Unicoi counties. On

Friday, October 11, Major Link Higgins requested his assistance regarding a human skull

found at Boone Lake. Sergeant Phillips stated that on the afternoon of Monday, October 14,

Major Higgins requested that he investigate a lead regarding the identity of the skull, which

involved two missing juveniles from the Chattanooga or Bradley County area.

Sergeant Phillips stated that he and an investigator from Bradley County went to the

Washington County Detention Center and listened to tape recordings of telephone calls that

appellant had made at the jail. Sergeant Phillips had listened to one or one and one-half of

the tapes when he received a call from Investigator Hull who stated that it appeared that the

lead regarding the missing juveniles was probably the most feasible lead. After meeting with

Investigator Hull, Sergeant Phillips called Major Higgins and informed him of the

information that he had received and said that they needed to act that night. They called in

various law enforcement agencies, and Sergeant Phillips and Agent Tom Smith began

drafting search warrants. One search warrant was for Betty Willis’s home on Brentwood

Drive, and the second search warrant was for the home of Marie Holmes, Betty’s sister.

Sergeant Phillips recalled that the backyards of the two homes were adjacent.

-7-

Sergeant Phillips testified that during one of the telephone calls that appellant made

to Betty, she mentioned storage, and appellant told her to “shut up.” As a result, Sergeant

Phillips knew that they needed to find a storage building or unit. On October 15, officers

learned that appellant and Betty rented a storage unit at a storage facility located at Buffalo

Street. Sergeant Phillips said he had access to the storage facility because the sheriff’s office

rented a unit there. Sergeant Phillips and other officers walked around the facility “killing

some time” while waiting for other investigators to identify the unit.

Sergeant Phillips stated that as he was walking around the facility, he came upon the

unit for which he believed they had been searching. He believed he smelled rotting flesh

from the unit. Sergeant Phillips said that at that time, he had been an officer for seventeen

or eighteen years and had worked a number of murder scenes involving dead bodies in

various stages of decomposition. One investigator with the Washington County Sheriff’s

Office and two or three officers from Bradley County were with Sergeant Phillips. These

officers did not smell anything until they put their noses to the crack of the door of the unit.

Sergeant Phillips observed eight to ten maggots coming out from under the door. He said

that based upon his experience, he believed decomposing bodies were likely in the storage

unit.

Sergeant Phillips testified that around the time that he discovered the unit, Investigator

Hull called him and said that he had the number of the storage unit rented to the Willises.

Sergeant Phillips told Investigator Hull that he believed that he had located the unit and

confirmed that the unit number was X47. Sergeant Phillips stated that he and the other

officers secured the unit and reported what they believed that they had found. Two patrol

cars remained there all night to secure the scene. Sergeant Phillips said that there was a lock

on the unit and that it was not opened while he was there.

Sergeant Phillips recalled that on Tuesday, October 15, 2002, he met with Wilda

Willis, appellant’s ex-wife, and that they went to the jail where Wilda met with appellant as

officers recorded the meeting. Sergeant Phillips said that he heard the conversation while

it was being recorded and believed that a transmitter was in the trash can.

Sergeant Phillips stated that Wilda and appellant met again the following night.

Sergeant Phillips also stated that the second meeting was a “contact visit,” or a visit where

appellant and Wilda were in the same room, that was set up by either Major Higgins or the

sheriff through the jail superintendent. Sergeant Phillips believed that a transmitter was

again placed in the trash can, and he listened to the conversation. At one point, Sergeant

Phillips heard appellant tell Wilda, “‘I blew their brains out.’” Sergeant Phillips terminated

the meeting shortly thereafter. He and an agent entered the room, and Sergeant Phillips

-8-

began reading appellant his rights. Before Sergeant Phillips could complete the reading of

the rights, appellant stopped him and requested counsel. The interview was then terminated.

Sergeant Phillips testified that in accordance with his usual policy, he informed the

jailers that they should watch appellant because he had admitted to two murders. Sergeant

Phillips explained that he wanted to ensure that appellant did not injure himself and said that

some officers refer to this as “suicide watch.” He further explained that when an inmate is

on suicide watch, the jailers take away his items of clothing so that the inmate cannot use

them to hang himself. The inmate is provided with a paper gown. Sergeant Phillips said he

was told that jailers implemented similar procedures with appellant. He did not see appellant

for a few weeks after appellant’s admission.

On cross-examination, Sergeant Phillips testified that he also learned of the existence

of the storage unit while monitoring a conversation between Wilda and Betty. He did not

listen to all of the tape recordings of telephone conversations between appellant and Betty.

Sergeant Phillips said that he never saw the rental contract for the storage unit and

acknowledged, when shown the contract, that appellant’s name was not on the contract.

Sergeant Phillips was aware that appellant had requested an attorney on October 14

on an unrelated charge. He also heard a recorded telephone conversation between appellant

and Betty during which they discussed retaining an attorney to represent appellant on charges

that he had pending in New York.

Special Agent Rainer Drolshagen of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)

testified that in October 2002, he was stationed in Johnson City, Tennessee. Due to his

experience working with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office and his forensic collection

background, Special Agent Drolshagen was called to assist in executing a search warrant at

Betty’s home.

Special Agent Drolshagen testified that a red Jeep was parked behind the house. He

observed that the vehicle was very clean, which surprised him because the house was not

clean. The carpet inside the vehicle was damp, and he noticed a foul odor in the vehicle. He

believed the vehicle needed to be processed for bodily fluids and trace evidence.

Special Agent Drolshagen recalled that he entered the residence through the front door

and walked into the living room. He observed beige carpet in the living room and a large

spot on the living room floor where the carpet had been bleached. Special Agent Drolshagen

said the den located at the rear of the house was in disarray. He saw white stains on the

carpet that appeared to be paint and other materials on the carpet, including glass.

-9-

Special Agent Drolshagen stated that someone had removed a fair amount of carpet

from the dining room and hallway area and that only a select portion of the carpet in the room

was removed. He further stated that the carpet was cut away “haphazardly” and that the cuts

on the carpet were not straight. Special Agent Drolshagen said that the house was not in a

good condition and that there was a foul odor throughout the house. He observed flies and

larvae in the house. He explained that they were searching for a body that had been moved.

He further explained that when carpet had been cut in such a way, it was an indicator that the

carpet may have been removed to conceal a crime or was used during the course of the crime.

Special Agent Drolshagen testified that he also assisted in searching the storage

facility. He collected larvae or maggots at the front stoop. When he entered the storage

facility, he observed two red or orange gas cans with a mixture of fuel in them. He also

observed a blue tarpaulin and tools, including a hammer, a hatchet, and a pair of scissors

coming out from underneath the tarp. Two beige plastic containers with light-colored lids

were underneath the tarp. A bag containing cans of air freshener was on top of the

containers. A similar air freshener container had been previously found at Betty’s home. A

yellow rope was used to tie down one of the containers. A stain was on the side of one of the

containers where it appeared that fluid had come out and seeped down onto the floor. Larvae

and pupae were on the floor near the containers. A male body was in the container that was

tied with a yellow rope, and a female body was in the other container.

Special Agent Drolshagen testified that while collecting various samples of larvae and

pupae, he conferred with Dr. Erin Watson, an entomologist. Special Agent Drolshagen noted

the specimens could indicate the time of death based upon their life cycles. Dr. Watson

informed Special Agent Drolshagen that her analysis also would require temperature readings

because the temperature was relevant to the development of larvae. Dr. Watson requested

that he take a four-day sample of the temperature from the storage unit. Special Agent

Drolshagen purchased a scientific thermometer and obtained the high and low temperatures

from the unit on January 9-12, 2003. He also checked the high and low temperatures for the

majority of October 2002.

Special Agent Drolshagen testified that several layers of material were on top of the

female victim. Her body was in a state of decomposition. Her head was tucked, and her

hands were bound behind her body. A gag was in her mouth.

Special Agent Drolshagen stated that he recovered larvae and pupae samples from the

container with the female victim. He observed and collected only pupae samples from the

container with the male victim. He collected both live and dead samples. The dead samples

were placed in alcohol to preserve them at their actual state when they were recovered. To

store the live samples, Special Agent Drolshagen purchased vermiculite and ground beef,

-10-

placed them in a Styrofoam container, and punched holes in the top of the container. He

placed the live samples in the container to allow them to continue to feed and remain alive

for Dr. Watson’s analysis.

Dr. Vince Pinyard, the county medical examiner for Washington and Unicoi Counties,

testified that he received a call on a Friday night or early Saturday morning in October 2002

regarding the discovery of body parts in Boone Lake. Early that next morning, Dr. Pinyard

went to the scene where he and deputies began searching for other body parts. The head had

been taken to the forensic pathology laboratory by the time that he arrived. A hand was

found while he was at the scene.

Dr. Pinyard testified that he received a call from investigators who stated that they had

information that other body parts may be in a storage facility in Johnson City. Larvae or

maggots were crawling around the unit, and it was determined that the specimens would not

be present if organic material had not been in the facility to keep them alive. Dr. Pinyard

went to the storage unit. He stated that before the door was opened, he observed larvae or

maggots crawling around and smelled an odor coming from inside the storage unit.

Investigators determined that they needed to request assistance from the TBI and sealed off

and guarded the unit until TBI agents arrived the following day.

Dr. Pinyard said that after TBI agents collected evidence, he and Dr. Mona Stephens

examined the contents of the containers in the storage unit. They decided to replace the lids

of the containers to avoid disturbing the evidence until they transported them back to the

forensic laboratory to process them correctly. Dr. Pinyard and two emergency medical

technicians loaded the containers into the back of an ambulance. Because the forensic

laboratory did not have radiology or x-ray equipment available, they transported the

containers to the local hospital to be weighed and x-rayed. They then transported the

containers to the forensic pathology department. Dr. Pinyard described the containers as

heavy, bulky, and awkward to handle. He did not believe that he could have moved them by

himself without spilling the contents.

Dr. Mona Gretal Case Harlan Stephens, a forensic pathologist, was accepted by the

trial court as an expert in forensic pathology. She performed the autopsies on both victims.

Dr. Stephens testified that she first became involved in the case when she was notified that

a human head had been found in the area of Winged Deer Park. She was notified at night

and went to the boat ramp where she observed a human head.

Dr. Stephens testified that Adam Chrismer was seventeen years old when he died of

a close-range gunshot wound to the head. His dismembered head and neck, his hands, and

additional pieces of his skull were recovered from a lake at separate times. Dr. Stephens said

-11-

the majority of Adam’s decomposing body was recovered in a storage bin in a storage unit

where Samantha’s body was also found. Adam was identified based upon DNA comparison

with his mother, fingerprint comparison, and mitochondrial DNA comparisons of his hands,

head, and ribs. Dr. Stephens determined that Adam’s manner of death was homicide and said

that the pupae present in his storage bin suggested that he died before Samantha.

Dr. Stephens stated that a bullet entered in an area beneath Adam’s chin. The bullet

traveled through the skin, the pharynx, and the base of the skull. Dr. Stephens explained that

the tissue above the base of the skull was largely lost and disrupted, so she was not able to

show the path of the bullet beyond the disrupted base of the skull. The bullet was not

recovered. Dr. Stephens observed stippling or powder tattooing 0.7 inches from the entry

wound. She explained that stippling generally does not embed in the skin if the gun is fired

more than two feet from the surface of the skin. As a result, Dr. Stephens characterized the

wound as a near gunshot wound.

Dr. Stephens testified that Adam’s head and hands were dismembered using a

chainsaw. She determined that the separate piece of skull that was found in the lake matched

some of the missing portion of Adam’s skull. She stated that the separate piece of skull

showed evidence of flat sides from the chainsaw activity and separations along the suture

lines.

Dr. Stephens said that the container in which Adam had been placed had a yellow rope

around it. Adam was wearing shorts and boxer-style undershorts. A black jacket also was

in the container. A comforter with a blue background and a sunflower design on one side,

a marble blue lining, and a synthetic polyester-type material as the filling was wrapped

around Adam’s body. A pink fleeced blanket with nylon ends or trim was wrapped around

the comforter. The material and Adam’s body were tied around the middle with a black

nylon rope.

Dr. Stephens testified that the evidence was consistent with the materials’ being

wrapped around Adam’s body before he was dismembered with the chainsaw. When Dr.

Stephens examined Adam’s head, she saw material in part of the gash on the right side of the

head made by the chainsaw. Dr. Stephens said the material appeared to be some sort of

polyester-type fabric batting used for quilting or found in the inside of a jacket or comforter.

She also said the fabric was similar to the fabric found in the container. Dr. Stephens

observed chainsaw markings on the black jacket.

Dr. Stephens stated that Adam’s head had damage to the right side going down in an

angled pattern that was in the same plane as the chainsaw marks to the front of his upper

chest. Adam had a chainsaw mark at the inferior margin of his neck area that was similar to

-12-

the chainsaw mark on the left side of the torso. The chainsaw marks caused damage to the

skin that looked like serrations in some areas and small parallel lines in other areas.

Dr. Stephens said Adam’s left leg had been sawed through and folded back, but the

soft tissues were still connected. The right femur had a series of saw marks, and the cut

farthest from the foot went through the entire bone tissue. The legs were still attached by the

skin, but the bones had been sawed through completely.

Dr. Stephens testified that if Adam had been wrapped in multiple layers when

dismembered, it would have helped contain any bleeding or tissue fragmentation. She also

testified that the chainsaw marks appeared to have been made post-mortem. She explained

that as a result, bleeding would not have been excessive because there would have been no

arterial spurting. Dr. Stephens noted bruising and darkening around the wound underneath

the chin and said that tissues were damaged through the base of the skull. She explained that

as a result, Adam was alive when he was shot and was deceased when he was dismembered.

Dr. Stephens testified that she observed maggots and brown pupae cases on the

surfaces of the black jacket and the blanket. She collected them and provided them to

Special Agent Drolshagen. Dr. Stephens did not find any of these specimen in the container

where Samantha was found.

Dr. Stephens testified that Samantha was sixteen years old when she died from a

gunshot wound to the head and a second “loose contact” gunshot wound. Dr. Stephens

concluded that the manner of death was homicide. Samantha’s nude decomposing body was

found in a rental storage facility in a large plastic bin with her hands bound behind her back.

Dr. Stephens stated that Samantha’s ankles showed evidence of ligatures that had been in

place while her blood was circulating.

Dr. Stephens said that the first gunshot wound was over the big knot on the back of

the skull that forms the occipital protuberance. She also said that the wound was large and

that she observed a great amount of soot around the wound. The bullet traveled downward

and to the right toward the neck and upper shoulder area. A bullet fragment traveled through

the scalp about where the hairline is located in the back of the neck. The other fragments

traveled down farther into the neck where Dr. Stephens recovered them.

Dr. Stephens testified that the second gunshot wound was not as easily seen on the

outside of the scalp. She said the bullet traveled farther up on the head in the back and

farther to the left. The bullet traveled through the scalp and what would have been the brain.

The brain was no longer present due to maggot activity. The bullet struck the base of the

skull and caused an outward fracture. Dr. Stephens was unable to locate the bullet.

-13-

Dr. Stephens stated that two small rugs were found in the same container where

Samantha’s body was found. A pillowcase with a floral, yellow, and tan design was also

found in the container. After Dr. Stephens examined the contents of the container, she was

asked to go to Brentwood Drive on October 23, 2002. A pillowcase with the same design

was found in a cabinet in the bathroom.

Dr. Stephens testified that she observed larvae or maggots of various sizes in the

container with Samantha but did not observe any pupae. Dr. Stephens explained that the

round pupae casings she found in the container with Adam represented the end stage before

the specimen emerges as a fly. She further explained that the lack of pupae in the container

with Samantha suggested that Adam died before Samantha.

Dr. Stephens said there was a black zip-tie around each of Samantha’s wrists.

Samantha’s wrists were tied together by another zip-tie. Her ankles also had zip ties around

them. Dr. Stephens stated that the coloration in Samantha’s hands suggested that the zip-ties

were around her wrists when she was still alive. Dr. Stephens found bruising on the front of

Samantha’s right leg, the back and outside of her right leg, the front of her chest, the inside

of her right breast, and her right shoulder. Samantha had bruising on the inside of both of

her feet that was consistent with the positioning of the zip-ties. There was a knotted cloth

gag in Samantha’s mouth, and Samantha had teeth missing that Dr. Stephens found in the

container.

On cross-examination, Dr. Stephens testified that when she went to the storage unit,

she saw that one of the containers was leaking “purge fluid” resulting in a large spot on the

floor. She found a paper towel in the purge fluid and found a piece of glass in the paper

towel. She also collected numerous fly samples. She preserved some of the samples in

alcohol and some in a nutrient container that was provided by an FBI agent.

Dr. Stephens said that while she was at the Brentwood Drive address, a piece of

material that matched the lining of the jacket that was in the storage container with Adam

was found within the door frame in the garage. Dr. Stephens stated that the jacket was an

XXL and likely would have been big on Adam. She recalled that so many items were piled

up in the front bedroom of the Brentwood Drive address that it was difficult to walk into the

room. The bed was turned over, and the room was not livable. The rest of the house was in

disarray, and paint was splashed on the walls and the doors.

Dr. Stephens testified that she searched in the home for materials similar to those

found in the containers. She also searched for obvious blood or tissue staining and bullet

fragments in the home but did not find any.

-14-

Dr. Stephens was unable to determine what the material found in the skull was but

said that the material was consistent with polyester batting. She noted that polyester batting

was in the jacket and the comforter. She did not send the material to be tested and did not

examine the chainsaw that was recovered.

Dr. Stephens testified that Samantha’s hair was medium brown or red. Dr. Stephens

explained that postmortem changes could have made the hair appear a bit redder and that her

hair was in the purge fluid. Dr. Stephens stated that if Samantha’s hair was blonde, it was

very dark blonde.

Dr. Mark Koponen testified that in 2002, he was a deputy chief medical examiner for

the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”). The trial court accepted Dr. Koponen as an

expert in forensic pathology. Dr. Koponen said a GBI agent asked him to perform a second

examination of Samantha. He understood that the purpose of the second examination was

to facilitate the transfer of information.

Dr. Koponen testified that during an x-ray examination, he found a bullet within

Samantha’s chest. He understood that the bullet was not found during the first autopsy

because that office did not have x-ray capabilities. Dr. Koponen said three explanations for

the bullet existed. The first explanation was that Samantha was shot in the chest. Dr.

Koponen was not able to determine whether Samantha had a gunshot wound to the chest due

to cuts made during the first autopsy. Dr. Koponen stated that the second explanation was

that Samantha was shot in the head and that the bullet traveled down the hole where the

spinal cord passes. The third explanation was that the bullet fell down to the chest when the

body was manipulated due to extensive decomposition.

Dr. Koponen testified that he did not have access to the original autopsy performed

by Dr. Stephens when he performed the second autopsy. He had since reviewed the original

autopsy. He said that the likely explanation for the bullet was that it was originally within

the cranial vault and fell down the spinal column as the body decomposed.

Captain Debbie Pattillo of the Johnson City Police Department testified that she

participated in the execution of some of the search warrants at the Brentwood Drive address.

She also attended the autopsy of Samantha’s body. Captain Pattillo said that while at the

autopsy, she saw a pillowcase that had been taken from the container and recognized it as

matching a pillowcase that she had seen at the residence. Captain Pattillo and Dr. Stephens

later went to the residence and found the matching pillowcase inside a drawer. Captain

Pattillo stated that she searched the entire drawer and did not find any other pillowcases that

matched the one that she seized from the home.

-15-

Officer Bill Burtt with the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office testified that in October

2002, he was the captain of the criminal investigative division. He said that on October 4,

2002, appellant was scheduled to come to his office for an interview but did not show up.

Rather, appellant called Detective Shaunda Efaw and said that he was unable to meet.

Officer Burtt and Detective Efaw interviewed appellant on October 8, 2002. During the

interview, the subject of the victims arose, and appellant said that they possibly were in

Georgia and that he had last seen them on October 4.

Officer Burtt testified that following the interview, they were interested in speaking

to the victims. Detectives went to Georgia to attempt to locate them. They spoke to Adam’s

mother, Teresa, in an attempt to determine his location, but she had not seen him. Officer

Burtt spoke to Teresa by telephone after October 8 but was unable to locate Adam through

her information. Officer Burtt said the conversations with Teresa occurred following his

interview with appellant but before appellant’s arrest.

Detective Shaunda Efaw with the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office testified that she

requested that appellant meet with her on October 4, 2002, but that he did not show up. She

then scheduled an interview with him for October 8. Detective Efaw said that during the

interview, appellant told her that he had last seen the victims on Friday, October 4 when he

went to north Georgia to retrieve some flyers.

Detective Efaw said that on October 10, she received a message that appellant wanted

to speak to her. When she returned his call, appellant told her that he last saw the victims on

Mohawk Road on the day that he went to Georgia to retrieve some flyers. Detective Efaw

stated that this was essentially the same story that appellant had told her on October 8.

Detective Efaw testified that on January 3, 2003, the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office

was working with Wilda Willis, appellant’s former wife, in searching for a chainsaw.

Officers searched for the chainsaw off I-75 in Bradley County, while Detective Efaw

remained in the vehicle with Wilda. During that time period, Wilda received a telephone call

from appellant, which Detective Efaw recorded. Other officers located the chainsaw.

On cross-examination, Detective Efaw testified that on October 8, 2002, appellant told

her that he did not keep up with dates with regard to when he last saw the victims and that

he would need to ask Wilda. Detective Efaw said that on October 11, she was in Washington

County searching for the victims and arrested appellant pursuant to a federal warrant.

Detectives Keith Fretwell and Bill Coultree were with her, and she requested assistance from

Washington County officers. At the time of appellant’s arrest, officers looked through the

house where appellant was arrested as well as the house on Brentwood Drive.

-16-

Detective Efaw testified that on the night of October 11, she requested that a Jeep be

towed. She said that there were two Jeeps and that she could not recall which Jeep was

towed. She acknowledged that she did not have a warrant to tow the Jeep but had it towed

based on instructions from her supervisors in Bradley County. Detective Efaw did not know

why the Jeep was towed and never saw the Jeep again. She was aware that forensic testing

was conducted on a Jeep. She stated that if the blue Jeep was towed, it was likely because

it was the last vehicle in which the victims were seen.

Detective Efaw stated that either she or Captain Burtt called Wilda to their office on

October 14, 2002, and that they spoke to her at approximately 9:00 p.m. Wilda said she was

going to Greeneville, Tennessee, the following day. Detective Efaw did not recall whether

Captain Burtt told Wilda not to go to Greeneville and to go to Johnson City instead.

Detective Efaw did not recall the exact conversation but said that it was discussed that Wilda

would go to Johnson City and meet with officers from the Johnson City Police Department.

Detective Efaw testified that she gave a recorder to Wilda to record telephone

conversations between her and appellant. Wilda brought completed tapes to Detective Efaw,

who then gave Wilda blank tapes. Detective Efaw said Wilda may have also purchased blank

tapes on her own. Detective Efaw recalled at least one recorded telephone conversation

between appellant and Wilda regarding a chainsaw. Detective Efaw heard appellant make

a statement regarding his source of knowledge about where or why the chainsaw was at the

location where it was recovered by officers.

Sergeant William Coultry with the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office testified that in

January 2003, he and other officers were asked to retrieve a chainsaw that had been disposed

of off Interstate 75 in the northbound lane at mile marker seventeen. Sergeant Coultry said

Wilda directed officers to that location. The chainsaw was located over a guardrail and

seventeen to twenty feet from the bank.

Lieutenant Elizabeth Pope testified that in January 2003, she was the senior lieutenant

assigned to the crime scene investigation unit with the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office. She

responded to a scene at I-75 to assist in the recovery of the chainsaw and transported it to the

detectives’ office. She logged the chainsaw into evidence and later gave it to Lieutenant

Barry Tharpe, who transported the chainsaw to the TBI crime laboratory in Nashville.

Lieutenant Pope stated that she also assisted in the execution of a search warrant at

the Brentwood Drive address. She recovered a school identification card for Adam and a

receipt from Wal-Mart in the garage.

-17-

Lieutenant Barry Tharpe with the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office testified that the

sheriff sent him to Johnson City, Tennessee; Cleveland, Tennessee; and Georgia to attempt

to locate the victims. Lieutenant Tharpe was not present when the chainsaw was discovered,

but he later took photographs of the material that was on the chainsaw. He said he was in the

storage unit when the containers were discovered and opened. He saw a jacket in one of the

containers with material similar to the material on the chainsaw. Lieutenant Tharpe

transported the chainsaw to the TBI crime laboratory.

Wilda Willis Gadd, appellant’s former wife, testified that they married in 1992 and

divorced in July 2002. They continued to have contact following the divorce. She said that

on October 4, 2002, appellant came to her house with two other people in Betty Willis’s red

Jeep. Wilda stated that appellant sometimes drove a blue Jeep. Appellant entered Wilda’s

home, but the other two did not. Wilda said that because it was late in the evening and she

was in a hurry, she did not pay attention to the two people with appellant. She further said

that a female appeared to be in the Jeep and that a young man was standing outside the

vehicle. Wilda’s home was located in Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, approximately forty-five

minutes from Bradley County. Appellant returned to Wilda’s home on October 8.

Wilda testified that in October 2002, she learned that appellant was arrested in

Washington County. She spoke to appellant by telephone in the week leading to his arrest.

On October 10 or 11, either the evening before appellant’s arrest or the evening of his arrest,

appellant called her. He told her that Patty Leming had been calling him wanting to know

where Samantha was and stating that no one had seen Samantha. Appellant asked Wilda

what he was supposed to do about the calls. Wilda asked appellant where the victims were.

Appellant said that he did not know and that the victims had left Johnson City earlier that

morning.

Wilda stated that during the evening of Friday, October 11 or the morning of Saturday,

October 12, either Betty Willis or Marie Holmes called her and informed her of appellant’s

arrest. They asked her to attend federal court in Jonesborough on Monday. They implied

that appellant was arrested over whether the blue Jeep or the red Jeep had been at Wilda’s

home on October 4.

Wilda testified that she went to Washington County on October 15 after learning of

appellant’s arrest. Appellant had called Wilda from Marie Holmes’s telephone and asked her

to visit him at the jail. Appellant told Wilda that he had information for her.

Wilda stated that officers from Bradley County requested that she meet with officers

with the Johnson City Police Department regarding Betty Willis and Marie Holmes. On

October 15, Wilda approached officers with the Johnson City Police Department and was

-18-

introduced to an officer with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. Wilda said officers

initially requested that she talk to Betty and Marie while wearing a wire. Wilda stated that

she agreed but also insisted on meeting with appellant. Officers provided Wilda with a

recording device. She spoke to Betty and Marie on October 15 and met with appellant later

that evening. Wilda maintained that she wore the wire of her own free will.

Wilda testified that she met with appellant at the jail, where they were separated by

plexiglass. The plexiglass had holes to allow them to talk to each other. Wilda said that

communication was difficult and that they had to speak up to hear each other. She further

said appellant began providing her with information but then “backed off.” Appellant asked

her to return the following day with a tape recorder, a pad on which to write, and a pencil.

Wilda told appellant that returning would be difficult. Appellant instructed her to hire a

“fifty dollar attorney” and return to the jail with the attorney. Appellant further instructed

her to persuade the attorney to present her as his paralegal so that she would be allowed in

the room. Appellant told Wilda that he would then tell the attorney to leave the room so that

appellant could talk to her.

Wilda stated that following her meeting with appellant, she told officers from the

Washington County Sheriff’s Office that she wanted to return and meet with appellant the

next day. She met with appellant the following evening on October 16 in a private room. She

brought a spiral notebook, pencils, and a small tape recorder, but she did not bring an

attorney. She did not wear a wire during the meeting and knew that cameras were in the

room. Wilda said her tape recorder did not record portions of the meeting because it was

turned on and off during the course of the meeting. She explained that there were times

when appellant wanted her to record what he was saying. Appellant then would turn off the

recorder, and Wilda would turn it back on.

Wilda testified that appellant told her that he “blew [the victims’] brains out.”

Appellant stated that he cut Adam’s head and hands off and threw them in a river. Appellant

further stated that Samantha’s body and the remaining portion of Adam’s body were in a

storage building. Wilda said appellant did not “point blank” provide a date on which he

killed the victims. She stated that appellant discussed Sunday, October 6. She recalled that

appellant showed no emotion when he discussed the killings. She said, “It didn’t matter to

him that they were dead at all.” After the meeting, appellant continued to call Wilda several

times a day.

The recording and a transcript of appellant’s statements to Wilda on October 16, 2002,

were entered into evidence. Appellant told Wilda, “I blew their brains out . . . . I just pulled

the trigger right then and there on them.” He stated that Samantha arrived at Betty’s house

on Saturday afternoon and was “acting real funny.” Appellant said Adam arrived the

-19-

following morning and “kept acting funny.” Appellant and Adam began a discussion that

resulted in an altercation. Appellant stated that while they were “scuffling around” in Betty’s

bedroom, he found a pistol and shot Adam with it. Appellant said that Samantha was beside

Adam and that appellant then shot her. Appellant stated that he severed Adam’s head and

hands and threw them in the lake close to Devault Bridge. He then placed Samantha’s body

and the remaining portion of Adam’s body in a storage shed. Appellant told Wilda that he

was unaware of what information that Betty had and that to his knowledge, Betty was “totally

innocent in the whole matter.”

Wilda testified that appellant was transferred to New York on the last Tuesday in

October and that she met with him on the evening before he left. They met at the

Washington County Sheriff’s Office, and she did not wear a wire. Wilda stated that appellant

asked her whether the victims’ bodies had been found. Appellant continued to tell her what

he did to Adam and how he cut Adam’s body.

Wilda said appellant began calling her in December asking her to visit him in New

York on New Year’s Day. He told her that he would inform her of the rest of the truth and

that she would have the answers to all of her questions. Wilda stated that after appellant

arrived in New York, he began varying his stories regarding what had happened to the

victims. At one point, appellant told Wilda that Betty Willis had killed them. He later said

Samantha’s brothers, Daniel and Richard, killed them. Appellant also said the Mafia had

killed them.

Wilda stated that on January 1, 2003, she went to New York to meet with appellant

at a federal prison. They met in the visitor’s room where prisoners meet with their families

and friends. Wilda was not allowed to wear a recording device during the meeting.

Wilda testified that during the meeting, appellant insisted that someone else had killed

the victims and that he needed her to do various things for him upon her return home.

Appellant informed her that Betty Willis had thrown out the chainsaw and told her where to

find it. Appellant instructed Wilda to drive on I-75 north toward Chattanooga, past the

Ooltewah exit, and toward the gravel road where eighteen-wheelers park. Appellant told

Wilda to pull her car up to the guardrail and walk until she could not see her car. He said she

would find the chainsaw to the right in the ditch. Wilda stated that appellant instructed her

to take gasoline and rags with her to clean off any fingerprints from the chainsaw. Appellant

further instructed her to take the chainsaw and some other objects, break into the home of

Daniel Foster, Samantha’s brother, in the Hunter Green trailer park, steal some of his clothes,

wrap the items up in the clothing, hide them under the trailer, and have someone call the

police and report a tip that the items were located there. Wilda said appellant stated that he

did not report the information that he claimed to have learned from Betty to law enforcement.

-20-

Wilda did not indicate to appellant at that time that she was cooperating with law

enforcement.

Wilda stated that she spoke to both Investigator Todd Hull and Detective Efaw while

she was in New York. She met with them upon her return from New York. Officers then

accompanied her to the location described by appellant and found the chainsaw. Appellant

called Wilda before she arrived in Bradley County and told her to hurry up and locate the

chainsaw. He called her while she was at the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office. Appellant

also called Wilda when officers found the chainsaw and told her that she should be at the

location by that time. Wilda said appellant wanted to ensure that she did not take the

chainsaw back to her house. Rather, he wanted her to clean it and hide it so that it would not

be found until she gathered the remaining items. Wilda told appellant that she would follow

his instructions. Bradley County officers provided Wilda with a device to record the

telephone conversations.

Wilda testified that appellant called her throughout the day. He said he wanted her

to search for items in Washington County and in Chattanooga near the Tennessee River.

Wilda said that during the next few months, appellant called her at different times requesting

that she locate various items. He sent her pictures and riddles. He also asked her to give

Investigator Hull riddles and messages to assist in locating items faster. Wilda stated that at

one point, appellant dictated a summary of the events that occurred in October 2002. She

believed that appellant wanted her to type it and give it to the prosecutor and Bradley County

officers so that they would know his side of the story.

Wilda said that when she met with appellant on October 16, 2002, appellant was not

charged with the offenses. When she spoke to him in January 2003, appellant had been

charged with murdering the victims.

On cross-examination, Wilda testified that during her marriage to appellant, Betty

Willis was a constant source of trouble. Wilda said that Betty routinely threatened others’

lives and that Wilda had to take out warrants against her.

Wilda recalled that on the morning of Saturday, October 12, 2002, appellant called

her and requested that she attend a federal hearing in Greeneville, Tennessee, on Monday and

provide testimony regarding appellant’s driving a red Jeep and not a blue Jeep on October

4. On October 14, Detective Efaw called Wilda and visited her at her place of employment.

Officers called her that evening and requested that she drive to Bradley County. Wilda and

Wilda’s friend, Joy Gadd, drove to Bradley County where Wilda met with Detective Efaw

and Captain Burtt. Wilda said Captain Burtt instructed her to go to the Johnson City Police

Department and speak to Debbie Barron before going to Greeneville. Wilda stated that

-21-

Captain Burtt told her to speak to Ms. Barron about the information that Wilda might have

regarding Betty Willis and Marie Holmes. Wilda did not speak to Ms. Barron and did not

recall the name of the officer with whom she spoke. She met with officers from the Johnson

City Police Department for forty-five minutes to one hour. She was then directed to the

Washington County Sheriff’s Office where she met with Lincoln Higgins and Kenneth

Phillips.

Wilda denied that Sergeant Phillips brought up the idea of her meeting with appellant

while wearing a wire. Rather, she said she insisted on meeting with appellant in exchange

for meeting with Betty and Marie. Wilda denied that any of the officers instructed her on the

questions that she should ask appellant. She learned about the storage shed after speaking

to Marie and Betty. Wilda remained in Johnson City overnight after her meeting concluded

on October 15. Sergeant Phillips took Wilda and Joy Gadd to a hotel. Wilda said Joy Gadd

either paid for the hotel or was given money for the hotel. Wilda stated that they may have

been given money for food, but she was not sure. She met with Betty and Marie again the

following afternoon. She then returned to the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.

Wilda acknowledged that on December 21, 2002, she sent an e-mail to Gertrude Lark

in which she stated that she planned to request that the district attorney general allow her to

meet with appellant in person and that she was “going to push every button [she could] to get

[appellant] to tell the truth about everyone.” Wilda also acknowledged that she had

numerous conversations with appellant during which he implicated Daniel Foster.

Wilda stated that when appellant came to her house on October 4, 2002, the female

in the Jeep covered her head when Wilda walked outside. Wilda said the female appeared

to have blonde hair but noted that it was dark outside.

Investigator Todd Davis with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office testified that

he went to different stores in Johnson City searching for containers similar to those in which

the victims’ bodies were found. He found identical containers at Wal-Mart. The Washington

County Sheriff’s Office purchased a container, and he verified that it was identical in color,

size, and shape to the containers found in the storage unit.

Josh Hopkins testified that in October 2002, he was working at the Johnson City

Wal-Mart in store loss prevention. He was responsible for monitoring the video system in

the store to apprehend shoplifters and investigate internal theft. In October 2002, officers

from the Washington County Sheriff’s Office contacted Mr. Hopkins regarding the homicide

of the victims and requested that he research the purchase of fifty-gallon Rubbermaid storage

totes. Mr. Hopkins was able to locate the times in prior days when the containers were sold

and provided a printout to the sheriff’s office.

-22-

Mr. Hopkins said he located a receipt dated October 7, 2002 at 3:51 p.m. Based upon

the receipt, officers requested to see three items: a hatchet, the container, and a pair of shoes.

To Mr. Hopkins’ knowledge, Wal-Mart was the only retailer at that time that sold that

particular type of container. Officers also asked about an air freshener product and provided

Mr. Hopkins with search parameters. Mr. Hopkins said he found the air fresheners on the

shelf and ran a transaction history on the sale of the air fresheners.

On cross-examination, Mr. Hopkins testified that he did not research whether the

containers were sold in Chattanooga or north Georgia. He acknowledged that he did not

know who purchased the items listed on the receipt.

Investigator Todd Hull testified that he had been an investigator with the District

Attorney General’s Office since December 2003 and had been an investigator with the

Washington County Sheriff’s Office before that. Investigator Hull said that in October 2002,

he was called to Winged Deer Park at Boone Lake to investigate the discovery of human

remains. When he arrived, he saw a human head floating in the water. The head was

brought ashore shortly after he arrived. Investigator Hull recalled that one hand was later

found adjacent to DeVault Bridge and that the other was found upstream. Investigator Hull

took fingerprints from the two severed hands.

Investigator Hull stated that officers with the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office

provided him with a missing person report on Adam from Walker County, Georgia. While

investigating that lead, Investigator Hull became aware of appellant, who was incarcerated

at that time on a separate charge.

Investigator Hull recalled that Dr. Stephens spoke to Dr. Arpad Vass, a scientist at the

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who conducted “time since death” tests. Dr. Stephens

collected samples from the victims, and Investigator Hull transported them to Oak Ridge.

Investigator Hull noted maggot activity at Brentwood Drive and sent a photograph of the

activity to Dr. Erin Watson, an entomologist.

Investigator Hull testified that he contacted loss prevention personnel at Wal-Mart

regarding air fresheners that had been recovered during the investigation. Special Agent

Oakley McKinney with the TBI provided Investigator Hull with a break down of the air

fresheners, including the type and scent. Investigator Hull said he gave Mr. Hopkins the five

types of air fresheners that were found in the storage unit and asked him to research them.

Officers recovered two air fresheners of one scent, two of a second scent, and one of a third

scent. Mr. Hopkins reported that he was unable to find a purchase for five with that

combination but that he found a purchase of six air fresheners on October 7, 2002, that

included that combination of five. Investigator Hull requested the video surveillance tapes

-23-

from the dates in question. He noted that the quality of the tape was poor and said he was

not able to obtain any clues from the video regarding the identity of the person who

purchased the items.

Investigator Hull stated during his investigation, he learned that officers with the

Bradley County Sheriff’s Office had the blue Jeep towed from the home of either Betty

Willis or Marie Holmes. When officers first executed a search warrant at Brentwood Drive,

only the red Jeep was there.

Investigator Hull testified that on October 14, 2002, Betty’s residence on Brentwood

Drive and Marie’s residence on Lowell Street were searched. The Brentwood Drive home

also was searched on October 17 and October 23. During the time that search warrants were

being executed, officers also were attempting to obtain information from Betty and informed

her of the possibility that she could be charged. During the search of the garage at the

Brentwood Drive address, officers found wedding photographs taken in August 2002 that

depicted the victims, appellant, appellant’s daughter Kelly, and her husband. Investigator

Hull explained that Kelly and her husband were married in a dual ceremony with the victims.

Investigator Hull testified that appellant was formally charged with killing the victims

on October 23, 2002. Investigator Hull served the process on appellant and read the charges

to him. Investigator Hull stated that appellant did not have a reaction. Rather, appellant only

asked who his attorney would be and whether he could have lunch since he missed it as a

result of the meeting.

Through Investigator Hull, the State entered transcripts of telephone calls between

appellant and Betty Willis while appellant was incarcerated. During a telephone call on

October 14, 2002, Betty asked appellant what to do about the furniture and said that it could

not be moved. Betty stated, “It’s padlocked.” Appellant asked her whether it was because

of the check. Betty said that she did not believe so and that she did not have $55.00.

On cross-examination, Investigator Hull testified that when the maggots at the

Brentwood Drive address were found, officers from the Johnson City Police Department

informed him that the house had been vandalized and the refrigerator had been turned over.

On redirect examination, Investigator Hull stated that Betty died several months prior to trial.

Investigator Holly Jamerson with the Washington County Sheriff’s Office testified

that she was present during the execution of some of the search warrants at the Brentwood

Drive address. She collected a can of air freshener from the bathroom. Several cans of the

same brand of air freshener were collected from the storage unit. Investigator Jamerson

noted that the air freshener was listed on a Wal-Mart receipt as being purchased with other

-24-

items of interest. She and other officers went to Wal-Mart and looked for items on a

particular receipt. Investigator Jamerson had to enlist the assistance of the loss prevention

employees who were able to pull the numbers and items that matched the items listed on the

receipt.

Investigator Jamerson said she and other officers searched the garage. She recalled

a “stench” in the garage that was “terrible” and made it difficult to work. When officers

raised the garage door, they found a red fabric swatch where the garage door came down and

met the concrete. Investigator Jamerson stated that officers also found packets of notes and

letters, a yearbook, and personal mementos that belonged to Samantha in the garage. The

personal belongings were found next to photographs of appellant with the victims that had

been taken by Olan Mills. Investigator Jamerson also collected cigarette butts from Betty’s

room.

On cross-examination, Investigator Jamerson testified that the air freshener can was

collected from the residence on October 23, 2002. She acknowledged that two search

warrants had been executed on the house prior to October 23. She stated that items were

strewn throughout the house. The bedroom was difficult to enter because it was dirty and

things were in the way. The cigarette butts were found on a dresser in the bedroom.

On redirect examination, Investigator Jameson testified that on October 23, the house

was substantially the same from the time that the search warrants were executed on October

15. No items were moved in between those dates. On recross-examination, Investigator

Jameson stated that officers conducted a thorough search of the house while attempting to

maintain the integrity of the scene. She also stated that she was able to walk into the

bedroom without moving things around and climbing over anything.

Lieutenant Steve Sherfey with the Johnson City Police Department testified that in

October 2002, he went to a home on Brentwood Drive and assisted officers from the

Washington County Sheriff’s Office in the execution of a search warrant. While checking

the area around the residence, Lieutenant Sherfey found a Rizinay 7.655 automatic pistol and

a magazine in the grass between the Brentwood Drive residence and another residence. He

said he found the pistol near a garage or outbuilding and did not know who owned the

property on which the pistol was found. He spoke to a neighbor who lived beside the

Brentwood Drive residence, and the neighbor denied that he had lost a gun. Lieutenant

Sherfey testified that he also found “three .32 round . . . unfired bullets” on the ground with

the pistol.

Larry Hendrix testified that he lived on Lowell Street in Johnson City for twenty-one

years. He recalled an occasion in October 2002 during which officers woke him up and

-25-

informed him that they were conducting a murder investigation. The officers stated that they

had found a pistol behind his garage and asked if they could search the area. Mr. Hendrix

consented to the search. The officers asked him if he owned the pistol, and Mr. Hendrix told

them that he did not. Mr. Hendrix testified that he would not have left the pistol outside

where a child could find it or where it could be damaged by the weather.

Lieutenant Thomas Smith with the Carter County Sheriff’s Department testified that

in October 2002, he was assigned to the First Judicial Drug Task Force and assisted in

executing a search warrant at the Brentwood Drive address on October 17, 2002. Lieutenant

Smith found a box of .32 caliber Winchester ammunition in the attached garage. The

ammunition was in a paper bag on top of a cabinet or dresser. Lieutenant Smith said the

bullets appeared to be round-nosed and were copper colored.

In 2002 and 2003, TBI Special Agent Oakley W. McKinney was a forensic scientist

who specialized in latent fingerprints. The trial court accepted Special Agent McKinney as

an expert in the field of latent fingerprints. Special Agent McKinney identified a blue tarp

that was seized from the storage unit. He testified that the tarp was somewhat shiny and

appeared to have never been used. He developed a latent fingerprint from the blue tarp,

which he identified as appellant’s right thumb print. He stated that he was “positive beyond

all shadow of doubt in [his] mind” that the print belonged to appellant. He also noted a

possible shoe track on the tarp.

Special Agent McKinney testified that he compared the fingerprint impression of the

unknown deceased female with the known impressions of Samantha and determined that they

were the same person. He also compared the fingerprint impressions of the unknown

deceased victim’s severed hands with the known fingerprint impressions of Adam and

determined that they belonged to the same person.

On cross-examination, Special Agent McKinney testified that he developed latent

prints on other items and determined that those prints did not belong to appellant. He was

not able to identify the person to whom the prints belonged. He tested three cartridges found

in an outbuilding and did not find any latent prints. He also examined a pistol recovered

from a neighbor’s house and did not find any latent prints.

Special Agent McKinney was unaware of when the tarp was purchased but said that

it was not soiled as if it had been used for years. He acknowledged that he could not

determine whether anyone other than appellant handled the tarp or when appellant touched

the tarp. He also acknowledged that he did not know where the tarp had been located when

appellant touched it.

-26-

TBI Special Agent James Russell Davis II, testified that he was a forensic scientist

assigned to the microanalysis unit in the crime laboratory and that he analyzed trace

evidence. The trial court admitted Special Agent Davis as an expert in the area of forensic

analysis. Special Agent Davis assisted in the execution of search warrants at the residence

on Brentwood Drive and the storage unit.

Special Agent Davis testified that he collected paint, glass, and carpet standards from

the den located in the rear of the house on Brentwood Drive. He collected two types of glass

from the den. Both were tempered glass or glass used in windows in vehicles. One type of

glass had black paint on it. He also collected a small partial florescent light bulb from the

den floor.

Special Agent Davis stated that he collected four different designations of glass from

outside the door of the den. Some were tempered glass, and some were milk glass or glass

that had a milky white color. He also collected a large quantity of milk glass from the den

floor. He noted that the milk glass that he collected from the doorway of the den had built

in features that were fairly visible, raised, and had bumps or dots.

Special Agent Davis testified that while he was at the storage unit, he collected a piece

of carpet that was in the container with Samantha’s body. He observed in the carpet

splotches that appeared to be paint. He removed the paint from the carpet for use by another

analyst who performed paint comparison. He also peeled paint from the glass collected from

the residence.

Special Agent Davis found textured milk glass from the carpet that he analyzed and

determined was indistinguishable from the physical and elemental characteristics of the milk

glass that he collected from the residence. He explained that his finding meant that the glass

had to have come from the same item or an item with the identical physical and elemental

composition. He stated that the milk glass recovered from the carpet did not have

measurable optical properties because it was translucent.

Special Agent Davis said he collected tempered glass from the carpet that he

determined met the same criteria as the tempered glass from the residence. He also said a

piece of glass collected from the container matched the optical, physical, and elemental

properties of the bulb collected from the Brentwood Drive residence.

Special Agent Davis stated that he saw two five-gallon containers of liquid at the

storage unit. He collected a smaller sample of the liquid because he did not want to transport

that much material.

-27-

Special Agent Davis testified that he collected carpet samples from the Brentwood

Drive address and attempted to determine whether the edges of the piece of carpet recovered

from the storage unit matched any of the carpet from the residence. He was unable to do this,

so he sent the carpet to a fiber analyst.

Special Agent Davis collected a piece of rope that was tied around the storage

container where Adam’s body was stored. He also collected a piece of rope from the

Brentwood Drive residence. There were small pieces of electrical tape on the ends of the

rope collected from the house and on one end of the rope from the storage unit. Special

Agent Davis said he attempted to put the pieces of electrical tape from the ropes back

together but was unable to do so. He determined that the tape on the rope from the residence

and the tape on the rope from the storage unit had the same dimensions, were made out of

the same material, and had the same sort of adhesive. Special Agent Davis attempted to

match the cut ends of the rope together but was unable to do so. He stated that both ropes

were corded, were the same color, and were made from the same material.

On cross-examination, Special Agent Davis testified that the yellow rope was a

plastic-type rope that is made throughout the world. He noted that the ropes were made from

the same material, had the same weave, and had the same black tape on them. He

acknowledged that he had seen people put electrical tape around the end of a rope to keep

it from unraveling.

TBI Special Agent Randall Nelson was assigned to the trace evidence unit at the TBI

crime laboratory and had specialized training in the area of paint evidence and ignitable

liquids. The trial court admitted Special Agent Nelson as an expert in the field of paint

analysis and flammable materials. Special Agent Nelson testified that in October 2002, he

was asked to examine several paint samples and determine their composition. He was also

asked to determine whether the samples taken from a container matched samples taken from

a residence. Finally, he was asked to examine samples of liquid and to identify them.

Special Agent Nelson explained that when he analyzed paint, he examined the color,

texture, layer structures, and the type of paint. He determined the “binder composition” or

the portion of the paint that holds the “paint stuff” together and acts as an adhesive to the

surface upon which the paint is applied. He also examined the pigment composition or the

material that gives the paint a particular color or characteristic.

Special Agent Nelson stated that he analyzed a sample of white paint that was

removed from milky glass taken from one of the containers in the storage unit, a sample of

white paint removed from a piece of carpet found in the container, and a sample of white

paint removed from milk glass that was collected from the back of the Brentwood Drive

-28-

residence. He concluded that the white paint taken from the milky glass found in the

container had the same color, texture, type, binder composition, and pigment composition as

the white paint sample collected from the residence. He explained that as a result, the paint

sample from the milky glass found in the container could have come from the same source

as the white paint from the residence or another source with the same paint history. Special

Agent Nelson also concluded that the white paint from the carpet had the same color, texture,

type, binder composition, and pigment composition as the white paint sample collected from

the residence. He stated that as a result, the paint sample from the carpet could have come

from the same source as the white paint from the residence or another source with the same

paint history.

Special Agent Nelson testified that he was asked to analyze two cans of liquid. He

said his analysis of both containers revealed the presence of kerosene range dissilient.

Liquids in the kerosene range include, but are not limited to, kerosene, number one fuel oil,

jet aviation fuel, some types of charcoal starters, some types of torch fuels, some types of

paint thinners, some types of solvents for insecticide, and some types of lamp oils. Special

Agent Nelson stated that the liquid samples were flammable.

On cross-examination, Special Agent Nelson testified that the paints did not appear

to have been applied to a surface but were more likely the result of a spill. He stated that

because the texture of the paint was rough and bumpy, it was difficult to determine whether

the paint was glossy or flat. He also stated that all of the paint cans that were filled with that

one batch during the manufacturing process would be the same and that the amount of paint

cans filled with that batch would be numerous.

Dr. Arpad Vass, a senior research scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was

admitted as an expert in “time of death” methodology. Dr. Vass testified that he was

provided tissue samples related to the investigation into the victims’ homicides. The samples

were in plastic zip-lock bags and were on ice. Dr. Vass noted the importance of storing the

tissue on ice, explaining that the cold temperatures slowed down the decomposition process.

He stated that his role was to determine the length of time since the victims died based upon

a chemical analysis of the tissues.

Dr. Vass testified that the soft tissue of the human body is composed of four classes

of compounds. The first category is proteins, which make up about 40% of the body mass

in terms of soft tissue. The building blocks of protein are amino acids. The second category

is nucleic acids, which is genetic material in the cells of the body. The third category is

polysaccharides, which are long carbon structures such as sugar or glucose. The fourth

category is lipids or fats, which are more varied in the body. Dr. Vass explained that

decomposition tended to break large complex macromolecules, proteins, and polysaccharides

-29-

into their building blocks. This decomposition is completed through enzymatic action using

the same types of enzymes that digest food.

Dr. Vass stated that he searches for and identifies the building blocks of the cytoplasm

of the cell and quantifies the amount of building blocks in each cell. He explained that each

organ has a unique ratio of these building blocks and that the amount of building blocks

present is dependent upon three things: temperature, the type of tissue, and the water

content. Dr. Vass noted that because the liver has many enzymes, the rate of decomposition

in the liver will be faster than heart or kidney tissue. He also noted that the higher the water

content in the organ, the faster the decomposition rate.

Dr. Vass testified that he took a small portion of the tissue sample that he received and

ground it in a tissue grinder. He stated that this grinding broke down the membranes in the

cells and released the cytoplasm where the building blocks were located. Using a centrifuge,

he then spun out all of the cell membranes and cell components that were not useful. He

siphoned off the fluid that contained the building blocks. The building blocks then went

through a chemical process where they were prepared to be injected onto a gas metagraph

mass spectrometer. The instrument identified and quantified the amount of building blocks

in the sample.

Dr. Vass said he generally chose five organs in the body on which to conduct the

analysis. In this case, however, he only received liver and kidney samples from each victim.

He believed additional samples were not collected due to the trauma to the victims’ bodies.

He said this did not affect the results except that the postmortem interval was not quite as

narrow as it could have been.

Dr. Vass testified that Samantha’s kidney and liver samples were identical in terms

of the number of building blocks for which he was searching. Once he analyzed the identity

and number of building blocks, he compared the different building blocks to each other

within each organ. Dr. Vass said that the liver has high enzymatic content, which is

important in analyzing early decomposition events, and that kidney tissue does not have as

many enzymes or water, which is important in analyzing later decomposition events. Dr.

Vass identified the amino acids that were important and determined the range value, which

corresponded to cumulative degree hours (“CDH”). He explained that CDH is on a

twelve-hour time scale and is more sensitive than a daily time scale. He then compared the

building blocks of the various organs to the CDH values to determine a range. Dr. Vass said

the ranges of Samantha’s liver and kidneys were identical. He estimated that Samantha’s

time of death was between October 6 and October 8, 2002.

-30-

Dr. Vass testified that the values of Adam’s kidney were essentially identical to

Samantha’s values. Dr. Vass stated that these identical values established that his

temperature calculations were correct. It further established that the trauma in the area of the

liver and kidneys was relatively insignificant. More severe trauma would have affected the

result. Dr. Vass noted that Adam’s liver results were much higher than any of the other

samples. Dr. Vass explained that the liver is a good indication of the earliest time since death

and that Adam’s liver was more decomposed than the other tissue samples that he analyzed.

Dr. Vass stated his analysis of Adam’s liver sample revealed that Adam died much sooner

than Samantha. Dr. Vass estimated Adam’s time of death as between October 4 and October

8, 2002.

On cross-examination, Dr. Vass testified that his report included temperatures that

were collected at the storage facility in January 2003. He stated that he needed to know the

temperatures at the crime scene. Because the time in which the victims had been discovered

had passed, he had to collect the data regarding the temperatures at that time from the

National Weather Service Station. Dr. Vass used the temperatures collected at the crime

scene and compared them to the National Weather Service data to obtain a collection factor.

He applied the collection factor to what he believed to be the temperatures at the storage unit

at the time in which the victims were discovered based upon the National Weather Service

data.

Dr. Vass testified that the high and low temperatures for each day were recorded. He

considered the temperatures in the storage facility beginning on October 4 because that was

the day on which the victims were last seen alive. Dr. Vass stated that the fact that the

storage facility was not rented until October 10 had no bearing on his conclusions. He did

not know how or where the victims’ bodies were stored prior to October 10.

Dr. Vass stated that three groups of temperature data were used: (1) the temperatures

from the storage unit; (2) the temperatures from the morgue where the victims’ bodies were

maintained following their discovery; and (3) the temperatures of the samples after Dr.

Stephens collected and froze them. Dr. Vass said that enzymatic activity essentially ceased

at the temperature at which Dr. Stephens froze the samples and that as a result, the freezing

of the samples had no influence in the decomposition rate. Dr. Vass also said that “as far as

[he was] aware,” the temperature data in the storage facility was correctly adjusted for

changes that might have occurred.

Dr. Vass testified that if the victims were killed in north Georgia rather than Johnson

City, he believed that they were killed together since the kidney samples were identical. The

CDH range would have been the same but the dates may have been different. He said the

data would have continued to show that Adam was killed first. Dr. Vass stated that it was

-31-

highly unlikely that Adam died within a few hours of Samantha due to the large difference

between Adam’s liver sample and kidney sample. Dr. Vass also stated that the fact that

Adam’s kidney sample matched Samantha’s kidney and liver samples indicated that they

tracked each other in terms of the environmental temperatures in the place where their bodies

decomposed.

Dr. Vass testified that he could not determine how his report would differ had the

victims been seen in north Georgia on October 6 without temperature data. He said the CDH

values would not have changed.

Dr. Erin Watson, an entomologist, was accepted by the trial court as an expert in

entomology and estimation of time of death. Dr. Watson studied flies to estimate the time

of death. She testified that blow flies, flesh flies, and musket flies generally arrived the

earliest. She stated that those specimens that arrived the earliest in theory would be

established with the corpse the longest and would be the closest estimation of the minimum

amount of time since death. This amount of time relates to the minimum amount of time that

those insects could have gotten to the body and associated themselves with the body or laid

eggs.

Dr. Watson testified that if flies arrived first, they laid their eggs in natural orifices

such as the eyes, the ears, the nose, the mouth, the anal or vaginal regions if exposed, and any

bodily wounds. Once the flies laid eggs, the life stages attached to temperature because they

are cold-blooded organisms. Dr. Watson said the temperatures are referred to as ambient

temperatures because the rate of development of the flies is associated with their micro

habitat and temperature.

Dr. Watson stated that in analyzing the time since death, she first identified the

specimen. She then referred to published data regarding the specimen’s development rates.

She next determined the life stage of the specimen. Dr. Watson said that once a fly lays eggs,

the eggs become larvae or maggots, then pupae, and finally a mature fly. The flies have three

feeding “instars” and then bed down to form pupae. Once they become pupae, they undergo

a coloring or tanning of the outer skin. Finally, she examined the ambient temperature

associated with the crime scene. When conducting her analysis, Dr. Watson needed

specimens that were both alive and dead. She said it is easier to identify the species and

stage of development if the specimen is alive. Dr. Watson spoke to Special Agent

Drolshagen prior to and during the collection of the evidence.

Dr. Watson viewed photographs of the house on Brentwood Drive and stated that due

to the trash and potentially leftover food, a small fly infestation was likely. Dr. Watson

viewed another photograph of the residence that she said showed blow fly pupae and

-32-

dehydrated fly larvae. She said blow flies are most often associated with decaying animal

material. Rotting food attracts smaller flies such as the phorid.

Dr. Watson testified that the storage unit was very well-sealed for the most part. Rope

was coming out of one of the containers, and the lid had lifted just enough that a few fly

larvae had exited. Live fly larvae were collected and sent to Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson stated

that she allowed the larvae to mature into adults and discovered that they were blow flies.

She noted that the floor of the storage unit was clear and that only five larvae were collected

from the floor. She explained that if the storage unit did not have a fairly well-sealed door,

flies would have entered the unit because they have a very keen sense of smell. Dr. Watson

believed she would have seen more insect activity on the cement floor had they been able to

get in and out of the unit. She noted blood spatter coming out of the container where Adam’s

body had been found. She stated that if the flies had been able to readily enter the storage

unit, they would have been “lapping up” those fluids.

Dr. Watson testified that the fly specimen in the container with Adam’s body

originated from the house. She explained that this did not mean that the blow flies were in

the house prior to Adam’s death. Rather, it meant that before the container was sealed, the

insect evidence associated with the body was in the container. Dr. Watson said the rate of

decay or the amount of tissue that had been consumed was very minimal. No empty pupae

casings or newly emerged adults were found. If they had emerged from the pupal case but

could not get out of the container, officers would have noted dead flies in the container at the

time of collection.

Dr. Watson stated that when fly larvae are feeding on tissue, they are in a

developmental stage and will remain close to the tissue to continue to feed. When the larvae

are ready to migrate away in the prepupal stage, they are still in the third instar but have

stopped eating. They try to find somewhere to bed down and form the pupal case. Dr.

Watson said there were pupae all within the container with Adam’s body, and the pupae were

in different stages. There were prepupal and third instar larvae feeding, but they were in all

the layers of the fabric.

Dr. Watson said the majority of the flies in the container with Samantha’s body were

still in the feeding stage. She stated that the container with Samantha’s body did not have

the same collection of insect evidence as the other container. Dr. Watson said this indicated

that the insect evidence in the container with Samantha’s body was in a younger

developmental stage. When the lid of the container with Samantha’s body was removed, the

fabric did not have the obvious fly larvae migrating around the top surface, and the container

had no evidence of the presence of pupae developing into the adult fly. Dr. Watson noted

that the center layer of the container with Samantha’s body had blow fly larvae that were

-33-

actively feeding. Some blow fly prepupal that were migrating were collected in another layer

of fabric.

Dr. Watson testified that a great amount of soft tissue was remaining on Samantha’s

body. She explained that one of the key forces for decomposition of tissue is the

consumption of the tissue by fly larvae. Tissue in the head region will normally be seen if

no additional flies are arriving and the maggot mass is not increasing. Dr. Watson said that

if there had been no barrier to those flies, the head would have been skeletonized, and more

tissue would have been consumed.

Dr. Watson testified that the lack of pupae in the container with Samantha’s body

demonstrated a time difference between the two containers. The bodies were in the same

storage unit, were in the same type of container, and had wounds to the head. Dr. Watson

said that as a result, she would have found numerous similarities in the containers had there

not been a time difference between when the bodies were available to the insects.

Dr. Watson stated that Samantha’s body and the fabric above her body had Phoridae

pupae, which are small flies associated with different types of organic, vegetative, or animal

material. Blow fly pupae in different colors and ranges of different days were in the

container with Adam’s body. Dr. Watson said no blow fly pupae were in the container with

Samantha’s body. Dr. Watson also said the blow fly pupae associated with the house most

likely migrated from a soiled food source.

Dr. Watson testified that the ambient temperatures were obtained from the Tri-Cities

Airport, which was twelve to fifteen miles away. Internal temperature data was recorded

from the storage unit, and Dr. Watson made a correction factor based upon the ambient

temperature provided by the Tri-Cities Airport. She said the correction factor was

approximately seven degrees warmer in the container in the storage unit than outside the

storage unit. She noted that it was October and much cooler outside. She stated that the

fluctuation from outside the storage unit was less than it would have been in the summer

when the inside of the metal storage unit would have been much warmer.

Dr. Watson estimated Adam’s time of death as between October 6 and October 8,

2002. She said Adam possibly could have died as early as October 5. Dr. Watson estimated

Samantha’s time of death as between October 7 and October 10, 2002. Dr. Watson said,

“There is no doubt in my mind that Adam was killed before Samantha.” She also said there

was approximately one and one-half days difference between the time that Adam was killed

and Samantha was killed.

-34-

On cross-examination, Dr. Watson testified that when she spoke to Special Agent

Drolshagen in 2002, she instructed him to collect temperatures at the storage facility. She

said that the storage unit was already sealed off and that the container had been removed

from the unit. Dr. Watson stated that the unit was not re-opened until January 2003 and that

Special Agent Drolshagen was able to enter the unit at that time and record the temperatures.

Dr. Watson was unaware that the storage unit was not rented until October 10, 2002.

She believed that the victims’ bodies were placed in the containers shortly after their deaths

due to the limited amount of insect activity. The containers were physical barriers against

additional flies getting near the bodies and laying eggs.

Dr. Watson testified that had the victims been seen alive in north Georgia on October

6, this factor would not have had a great bearing on her opinions regarding temperature

conversions. She used a correction factor for the difference between the temperature inside

the storage unit and the temperature from the airport. She did not take into account the

containers resting on concrete because she did not feel that was an issue. On redirect

examination, Dr. Watson testified that Special Agent Drolshagen recorded temperatures at

the storage unit at 3:00 p.m. each day from January 9 to January 12, 2003.

TBI Special Agent Don Carman, a forensic scientist in the firearms identification unit,

was accepted by the trial court as an expert in the field of ballistics. Special Agent Carman

testified that he received one box of Winchester .32 automatic caliber ammunition. The box

contained thirty-nine .32 caliber automatic full metal jacket cartridges. All but two of the

cartridges were manufactured by Winchester, and the remaining two cartridges were

manufactured by Remington.

Special Agent Carman testified that he examined the ammunition in conjunction with

three other unfired cartridges found at another location to determine whether any linkage or

possible similarities in the manufacturing marks existed. Special Agent Carman examined

the bunter mark impressions on the base of the cartridges. He explained that bunter marks

appear in different forms and that the bunter marks on the cartridges that he examined were

parallel markings. He stated that Winchester could produce more than 100,000 cartridges

per day before changing out the bunter. He also stated that the bunter markings change over

a period of time as the bunter is working. He determined that the cartridges found with the

pistol and the cartridges in the box were hit by the same bunter tool.

Special Agent Carman testified that he analyzed a semi-automatic pistol and a

magazine that held approximately nine cartridges. He said the pistol was very old and that

he was unable to identify the manufacturer. He believed the pistol was of Spanish origin but

acknowledged that he was unsure. He said he loaded the gun with four Winchester .32

-35-

caliber cartridges and shot them into a test tank. Special Agent Carman identified the bullet

retrieved from Samantha’s body. He examined the bullet in conjunction with the test bullets

that he fired with the pistol. He determined that the bullet found in Samantha’s body was

fired from that pistol.

TBI Special Agent Bradley Everett testified that he was assigned to the serology/DNA

unit. The trial court accepted him as an expert in the fields of forensic serology and forensic

DNA testing. Special Agent Everett conducted DNA testing on a cigarette butt collected

from the residence at the Brentwood Drive address and found that the DNA profile on the

cigarette butt was consistent with the DNA of a female offspring of Patty Leming.

Special Agent Everett stated that he conducted DNA testing on three other cigarette

butts from the Brentwood Drive address. He designated the cigarette butts as A, B, and C.

He said that the DNA profile on cigarette butt A was consistent with the DNA profile of the

female offspring of Patty Leming. The DNA profile from cigarette butt C was a mixture of

more than one person. The major contributor was consistent with the DNA profile of a male

offspring of Teresa Chrismer. Special Agent Everett did not have sufficient information to

identify the second contributor. The DNA profile from cigarette butt B was also a mixture

of more than one person. The DNA profile was consistent with a mixture of the contributor

from cigarette butt A and the major contributor from cigarette butt C.

Special Agent Everett testified that he received a Sears Craftsman sixteen-inch electric

chainsaw for testing. He swabbed different areas of the saw in an attempt to collect a

sample. He stated that the presumptive test indicated the presence of blood and that

additional tests indicated the presence of human DNA. He did not obtain a DNA profile due

to an insufficient amount or degraded DNA. He noted that the chainsaw was rusty and that

the same environmental factors that rusted the chainsaw also degraded the DNA. He

explained that dirt or grease also will inhibit the process of obtaining a DNA profile and

stated that the swabs that he collected were very dirty.

On cross-examination, Special Agent Everett testified that he tested the red Jeep and

did not find anything linking appellant to the Jeep. He also tested the blue Jeep and

determined that stained fabric on the driver’s side had appellant’s blood on it. Special Agent

Everett said he did not find anything in either Jeep linking them to the victims.

Special Agent Everett testified that he conducted DNA testing on an envelope

addressed to Betty Hawk. The DNA profile obtained from the envelope was consistent with

the DNA of a female offspring of Patty Leming. Special Agent Everett noted that the

envelope was postmarked October 8, 2002.

-36-

Special Agent Everett said that debris was on the chainsaw but that he did not visually

identify any of the material as tissue. He did not find any of the victims’ blood on appellant’s

shoes or clothing or on any of the items that he tested from the Brentwood Drive address.

TBI Special Agent Linda Littlejohn testified that she was employed in the

microanalysis section and examined evidence related to fiber comparisons, physical

comparisons, and shoe print comparisons. The trial court accepted Special Agent Littlejohn

as an expert in these areas. Special Agent Littlejohn stated that she compared a sample of

a jacket removed from a body that was in a container with a piece of fabric that was collected

from the floor of a garage. She determined that the characteristics of the two samples were

consistent and that they had a common origin.

Special Agent Littlejohn examined numerous pieces of fabric and fiber bundles that

were on a chainsaw. She determined that the material had characteristics that were consistent

with the jacket from the container and that they could have had a common origin.

Special Agent Littlejohn compared a piece of carpet collected from the Brentwood

Drive address with a piece of carpet collected from inside a container. She determined that

they had consistent characteristics. She stated that the pieces could have had a common

origin or could have come from another type of carpet.

Special Agent Littlejohn analyzed a partial shoe print found on a tarp. She compared

it to a pair of shoes from Betty Willis and a pair of shoes from appellant. Special Agent

Littlejohn said that the shoes were inconsistent with the partial shoe print with respect to

tread design. She also said that as a result, neither pair of shoes could have made the print.

Defense Proof

Dr. Robert Allen testified that Betty Willis was his patient and was hospitalized on

September 15, 2002. Dr. Allen said that Betty felt that she was being watched, was very

anxious, and was not sure where she was. He referred to Betty’s behavior as “psychotic.”

Dr. Allen testified that in 2002, he lived two houses down from Betty. He said that

in mid-September, he entered her home and saw that it had been “ransacked.” Slogans were

spray painted on the wall in a foreign language. The appliances were turned over, and the

toilets were damaged. The refrigerator had been turned over, and there were food particles,

insects, and maggots on the floor. Dr. Allen stated that the house was not livable and that

Betty was having trouble getting the insurance company to cover the damage. She had Dr.

Allen look at the house and write a letter to the insurance company describing its condition.

-37-

On cross-examination, Dr. Allen testified that although Betty had anxiety issues, she

usually was not as paranoid or as irrational as she was during her hospitalization. He stated

that Betty had issues with many of her neighbors but that he seemed to get along well with

her.

Appellant recalled Special Agent Drolshagen as a witness. Special Agent Drolshagen

testified that Dr. Watson requested that he record temperatures at the storage unit in January

2003. He did not recall her asking him to record the temperatures when he collected the

larvae in October 2002.

Special Agent Drolshagen testified that he purchased a thermometer that measured

temperature and humidity and placed it on the floor of the storage unit where the containers

had been. He left the thermometer there for twenty-four hours, went to the storage unit for

four straight days, and noted the high and low temperatures for each twenty-four-hour period.

The thermometer was not removed from the storage unit, and Special Agent Drolshagen had

the only key to the padlock and was the only person who had access to the unit.

Dr. Neal Haskell, an international forensic entomology consultant, was accepted by

the trial court as an expert in forensic entomology. Dr. Haskell testified that a “major fatal

flaw” in Dr. Watson’s analysis was her attempt to correlate the temperatures from the

weather station with the temperatures from the storage unit during a completely different

season of the year with different temperatures, solar inputs, and other environmental

considerations. Dr. Haskell stated that as a result, he did not know at what temperatures that

the insects were growing.

Dr. Haskell testified that Dr. Watson erred in using only four data points of

temperature measurements from the storage unit when a full weather cycle had not been

completed. He explained that the temperatures were taken when the ambient temperatures

were declining. A cold front had moved through, and insufficient data was collected to

obtain the upswing of the temperatures after the cold front had passed.

Dr. Haskell stated that Dr. Watson used a correction factor in calculating the

temperature that the victims’ bodies were subjected to in the storage unit for days during

which the bodies were not actually in the storage unit. Dr. Haskell explained that an

entomologist needs to know the temperatures at the micro-environment where a body is

stored and not just the weather station ambient temperatures. He further explained that if an

entomologist does not know where the body was stored and the range of temperatures to

which the insects were subjected, he or she cannot estimate the length of time that the body

was there. He was unsure that there was any evidence of where the victims’ bodies were

-38-

stored prior to being placed in the storage unit. He said that as a result, the analysis could not

be completed.

Dr. Haskell said Dr. Watson used the specific species Megaselia scalaris data for an

unidentified fly of that family. Dr. Haskell noted 250 or more species of that family existed.

He said it was inappropriate for Dr. Watson to use a data set for a specimen when she did not

identify the specific species. He also said that it was important to have the species identified

so that the correct growth data tables would be used. If the entomologist does not know the

species, he or she cannot use the data from another species of the same group.

Dr. Haskell testified that when Dr. Watson recorded the hatching of new flies, she did

not record the temperatures at which the flies grew and development progressed. He said

that as a result, he had no way of determining how far along into the stages of development

that they were. He estimated that they were at the earlier part of the puparia stage. He stated

that at eighty degrees, it would take fourteen and one-half to fifteen days for a black blow fly

to develop from an egg to a fly. At sixty degrees, it could take twenty-eight to thirty days.

He said that as a result, temperatures are critical in judging the rate of growth. He stated that

while he did not view the specimens collected, he was confident that Dr. Watson correctly

identified two blow flies and assessed their life stages.

Dr. Haskell testified that Dr. Watson calculated 104.8 degree days for assessing the

life stage of the puparia of the black blow fly. Dr. Haskell stated that degree days are

generally given in ranges. He also stated that the range of degree days for the puparia was

between 130 and 140 and up to 160 to 180. Dr. Haskell said that Dr. Watson was “way off”

from what the calculated numbers should have been and that he did not know how she

calculated her value.

Dr. Haskell testified that Dr. Watson assumed that the phorid fly arrived immediately

following death. Dr. Haskell stated that extensive research has established that the phorid

fly arrives later in the progression of decomposition. He said several days would have had

to have passed before the fly arrived. He explained that there can be a difference between

the time of death and the time of insect colonization. Dr. Watson, however, assumed

immediate colonization. Dr. Haskell stated that “it is absolutely impossible to give a reliable

and trustworthy estimate of when these bodies were colonized based on temperatures and the

insects that are involved.” He testified that if the insects had colonized on meats and other

food from the refrigerator prior to the victims’ deaths, he did not believe that an entomologist

could differentiate between the flies that originated from the meat and other food and the

flies that originated from the bodies. Dr. Haskell disagreed with Dr. Watson’s statement that

even if the bodies were only in the storage unit since October 10th, it did not have any effect

on her analysis.

-39-

On cross-examination, Dr. Haskell acknowledged that he did not examine any of the

evidence other than the reports and did not view the samples that were collected. He said

that had he viewed the samples, he may have been able to provide an opinion regarding the

intervals between the deaths of the victims.

Dr. Haskell testified that his primary issue with Dr. Watson’s analysis involved the

temperatures. He said it would have been more important to take the temperatures in October

2002 when the bodies were discovered. When he finds temperature discrepancies, he

generally waits until the anniversary date or close to it to take temperatures. As a result, he

would have waited until the following October and a number of additional Octobers to

measure the temperatures.

Dr. Haskell stated that Dr. Watson did not use ambient temperatures in her analysis.

Rather, he said she used ambient temperatures and a correction factor based upon the

temperature readings in January and for the entire period without taking into account the days

that the victims’ bodies were not in the storage unit. Dr. Haskell acknowledged that he was

not provided with everything that Dr. Watson had provided to the jury in explaining her

analysis, including a table regarding temperatures in October 2002. He stated that had he had

access to all of the tables that Dr. Watson prepared, it could have made a difference in his

opinion regarding her analysis. Regardless, Dr. Haskell did not believe that he could say that

the victims were killed at different times.

Dr. Haskell testified that the metal walls in the storage unit could have made the

temperatures in the unit considerably warmer than the ambient temperatures. He also

testified that if the victims’ bodies were in the house where flies were present due to the

decaying food, the flies would have reached the bodies quicker.

Dr. Haskell testified that Dr. Vass’s work was also dependent upon the temperatures.

Dr. Haskell said that if the temperatures were flawed, Dr. Vass’s analysis also would have

been problematic. Dr. Haskell stated that he knew Dr. Vass and respected his opinion.

On redirect examination, Dr. Haskell testified that in determining the temperatures in

the storage unit, various factors must be considered, including the type of roof, the location

of the unit in the facility, whether the unit faces north or south, any insulation, the flooring,

and whether the renter in the next unit operates a heater. Dr. Haskell said that as a result, Dr.

Watson could not properly calculate the temperature to which the bodies were exposed using

the temperatures at the airport.

Pamela Marsh testified that she was a manager of a trailer park and rented a trailer to

the victims on or about September 23, 2002. A few days after the victims moved in, Mrs.

-40-

Marsh and her husband helped them move a sofa bed into the trailer. Mrs. Marsh said that

around 6:30 p.m. on October 4, 2002, Adam came to her house and used the telephone.

Adam was standing outside on the porch talking on the telephone when Mrs. Marsh heard

him say, “[M]omma, I want to come home.” Mrs. Marsh shut the door so that Adam could

have his privacy. Mrs. Marsh stated that at approximately 10:30 p.m. that evening, Adam

came to her house and turned in the keys to the trailer. Adam told her that he had a sick

grandmother in Virginia and that they planned to move in with her. Mrs. Marsh said she later

learned from Adam’s mother that Adam did not have a grandmother in Virginia. Mrs. Marsh

stated that while Adam was talking to her and her husband outside on the porch, their

security light came on. A vehicle pulled up, and the security light shined into the window

of the vehicle. Mrs. Marsh said she saw appellant sitting in the vehicle. She told an

investigator that the vehicle was either blue or gray and that she did not know whether the

vehicle was a truck, van, or Jeep.

On cross-examination, Mrs. Marsh testified that she was unsure of the date on which

the victims moved the sofa bed into the trailer but that she believed that it was September 28.

When she assisted them in moving the sofa bed, she saw that the victims had quite a few

things inside the trailer. Following the victims’ disappearance, Mrs. Marsh returned to the

trailer to clean it out so that she could rent it to someone else. She said the sofa bed, a chair,

a mattress, and “little knick-knack things” were still in the trailer.

Mrs. Marsh testified that she told officers that appellant was with the victims when

they rented the trailer. She also told officers that they looked at the trailer and said they

wanted to rent it. She said she learned from the victims that they were married and instructed

them to return to sign a contract. Mrs. Marsh informed officers that while the victims

reviewed and signed the lease, appellant walked around the trailer and inspected the property.

Appellant walked behind the dumpster and into the woods. Mrs. Marsh also informed

officers that Samantha went outside and got $190.00 for the deposit from appellant. Adam,

Samantha, and appellant then left together.

Mrs. Marsh stated that while she had said that Adam was at her house around 10:30

p.m., she noted that it was dark outside. She noted that in early October, it becomes dark at

around 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. When Adam left with appellant, Mrs. Marsh did not see anyone

else with them. Mrs. Marsh said that although she later learned that the vehicle that appellant

was driving did not belong to him, she saw appellant’s face twice inside the vehicle.

Investigator Keith Fretwell with the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office testified that in

October 2002, he came to Washington County to assist other investigators from Bradley

County and to serve a federal warrant on appellant. Investigator Fretwell stated that if he had

previously testified that appellant was arrested on the night of October 11, 2002, he does not

-41-

disagree. He did not recall hearing that appellant asked for an attorney at the time of his

arrest.

Brandon Chancy testified that in 2002, he worked on Betty Willis’s jeep and observed

her ability to pick up heavy objects. He saw Betty pick up a container filled with tools,

chains, and ropes. Mr. Chancy said the container was so heavy that he could not lift it. He

also said that Betty was approximately seventy-one years old at the time.

Mr. Chancy stated that in 2002, his name was on the title to a blue Jeep Cherokee,

which was impounded by Detective Efaw around the same time that appellant was arrested.

Mr. Chancy said that it took approximately five years for the officers to release the Jeep and

that they did not find any evidence in the Jeep to use in their case. He stated that around the

time that the Jeep was impounded, a large side window was broken out of it. He used a blue

tarp to cover up the “busted” window. When the tarp was not used, he folded it and kept it

in the cargo area.

On cross-examination, Mr. Chancy testified that the window in the Jeep was broken

out in August 2002. He only covered the window when it was raining. He acknowledged

that the tarp was exposed to dirt, wind, and other environmental elements. Mr. Chancy said

the tarp remained in the Jeep until it was impounded. He further acknowledged that he was

married to appellant’s daughter.

Appellant recalled Larry Scott Miller as a witness. Mr. Miller examined a letter and

an envelope in 2003 at the request of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. He stated that

the letter was authored by Samantha and identified the writing on the envelope as belonging

to Samantha.

On cross-examination, Mr. Miller testified that he was unable to determine when the

letter was written. He explained that such a determination required ink dating, which is

highly unreliable. He also did not know who mailed the letter. He stated that according to

the postmark, it was mailed on October 8, 2002, from Chattanooga.

Thomas John Hathcock testified that he last saw Samantha on Tuesday, October 8,

2002, three days before the victims were reported missing, at the trailer that he, Daniel

Foster, and Alisha Foster had rented in Hunter Hill Trailer Park in Rossville, Georgia. On

cross-examination, Mr. Hathcock testified that he was not present when the victims’ parents

completed missing person reports. Rather, he learned that the victims were missing from a

news report. Mr. Hathcock stated that when he saw Samantha, her hair was blondish-brown

with more blonde than brown. He said that Samantha dyed her hair often and that it could

have been light brown.

-42-

Steve Holmes, appellant’s cousin, testified that the majority of his contact with Betty

Willis was unpleasant. He said that when Betty moved in with his grandmother, he did not

allow his daughter to visit his grandmother when Betty was there. Mr. Holmes stated that

Betty was a very violent person and that he had to disarm her on two prior occasions. He

recalled that when he was in his late teens, Betty threatened to kill his mother and

grandmother. Mr. Holmes and his father went to the apartment where Betty was living to

disarm her. The second occasion occurred at the Brentwood Drive address when Mr. Holmes

was twenty-four or twenty-five years old. Mr. Holmes said Betty put both him and his father

against the wall before they were able to disarm her.

Mr. Holmes testified that Betty’s behavior never changed. He recalled when appellant

moved away from the area for a short time. Mr. Holmes said that when appellant came to

visit, appellant avoided Betty. Mr. Holmes also said that Betty was prescribed medicine for

schizophrenia but did not take it often.

Brenda Holmes, Mr. Holmes’s wife, testified that one to five days following

appellant’s arrest in October 2002, Betty Willis came to her house and said that appellant had

asked for a few items. Betty requested a television set, bolt cutters, a saw, and a dolly to load

heavy items. She also wanted to borrow Mr. Holmes’s tool box. Mrs. Holmes believed that

Betty needed many of the items to clean her house. Mrs. Holmes said she did not allow Betty

to borrow anything because she knew that Betty would not return them.

Mrs. Holmes testified that Betty’s arms were scratched and that Betty appeared to be

in shock and scared. Betty was in a hurry to complete the tasks requested by appellant. Mrs.

Holmes described the scratches as bloody and scabbed over. Betty told Mrs. Holmes that

before appellant’s arrest, she and appellant were arguing over something that she did not

want appellant to do. Betty also told Mrs. Holmes that appellant had a “hot temper.”

Mrs. Holmes stated that two large gas cans that they kept in the garage were found to

be missing. One can contained gasoline, and the other can contained kerosene. Mrs. Holmes

did not see Betty take them. Mrs. Holmes testified that Betty was paranoid and schizophrenic

and that she never saw Betty take medication.

On cross-examination, Mrs. Holmes testified that Betty did not specifically request

bolt cutters but requested “big wire cutters.” Betty also said she wanted to move her

refrigerator. Betty told Mrs. Holmes that there was blood on her carpet and that she did not

know how it got there. Betty also stated that maggots were on the carpet. Mrs. Holmes said

this conversation occurred around the same time that the news reported the discovery of body

parts at a lake.

-43-

On redirect examination, Mrs. Holmes testified that appellant called her a few times

while he was incarcerated. Mrs. Holmes said appellant was able to use a telephone where

the calls were not recorded. She stated that when he called, the telephone number of an

office appeared on her caller “ID.” Most of appellant’s calls to her were after October 2002.

Appellant also had friends call and leave messages.

Marc Caudel, the defense investigator, testified that he contacted Mrs. Holmes the

night prior to her testimony. Mrs. Holmes told him that Betty came to her home one or two

days following appellant’s arrest. Mrs. Holmes stated that Betty appeared disheveled and

anxious and had scratches on her arms. Betty wanted to borrow multiple items, such as a

dolly, a power saw, bolt cutters, and an assortment of other tools. Betty also mentioned that

she wanted to get a television for appellant. Mrs. Holmes said she called her husband, who

was working in Alabama, and he told her not to give Betty any of the items. Mr. Caudel

testified that Mrs. Holmes did not tell him that Betty stated that she was there at appellant’s

direction or that Betty said appellant had a bad temper. Mrs. Holmes did not mention to Mr.

Caudel how Betty got the scratches. Mrs. Holmes just described the scratches to Mr. Caudel

and said that Betty had blood on her.

Mr. Caudel stated that Mrs. Holmes expressed her displeasure in testifying. She told

Mr. Caudel that she would not testify to help the defense. As a result, Mr. Caudel had to

subpoena her to secure her presence at trial.

Appellant recalled Investigator Todd Hull who testified that appellant was

incarcerated beginning October 11, 2002. On October 14, Sergeant Phillips and a detective

from Bradley County monitored telephone calls, and recordings of the calls were obtained

later in the month. Investigator Hull said telephone calls made in the holding cell area were

recorded. He did not believe that inmates would be allowed to make telephone calls from

the booking desk. He did not recall any telephone calls that appellant made from the jail that

were not monitored. Investigator Hull stated that during the calls that officers knew that

appellant made, he never heard appellant instruct Betty Willis to gather any tools.

On cross-examination, Investigator Hull testified that the padlock that was on the

storage unit was removed using a set of bolt cutters. He said that when officers did not have

a combination or key to a padlock, they generally used bolt cutters to cut through the lock.

On redirect examination, Investigator Hull stated that he was unaware of appellant’s asking

Betty to cut a lock off.

Officer Petty Allen testified that in 2002, he was employed at the Washington County

Detention Center. He stated that pod C9 was a lockdown pod where the inmates remained

on lockdown twenty-two hours per day. During the two hours that the inmates were not on

-44-

lockdown, they could use the telephone. Officer Allen stated that in 2002, the jail used an

Ever-Com telephone system and that most telephone calls were recorded. He also stated,

however, that the inmates found ways to manipulate the system so that their calls would not

be recorded. He said inmates could use the telephones in the office when they needed a

bondsman, there was a death in the family, or there was an immediate emergency.

On cross-examination, Officer Allen testified that the inmates were unable to make

a collect call to a cellular telephone number. As a result, the inmates would call someone on

a landline and have the person make a three-way call for them. Officer Allen stated that the

telephone system did not always record the third-party calls. It was a flaw in the system in

2002 that had since been corrected. He explained that when a third-party call was being

made, the caller “ID” of the third party would show a telephone number other than the

number from the jail. He said that as a result, it was possible that appellant could have talked

to people without being recorded.

State’s Rebuttal Proof

The State recalled Patty Leming as a witness. Ms. Leming testified that she last saw

Samantha on October 4, 2002. When Ms. Leming first saw Samantha that day, Samantha

had blonde hair. Samantha used Ms. Leming’s hair dye to dye it almond brown.

Following Ms. Leming’s testimony, the State rested. The jury convicted appellant of

premeditated first degree murder of Adam Chrismer, premeditated first degree murder of

Samantha Chrismer, and felony murder of Samantha in the perpetration of a kidnapping. The

trial then proceeded into the penalty phase.

Penalty Phase

Teresa Chrismer, Adam’s mother, testified that Adam was kind, did impressions, and

enjoyed painting. She said everyone loved him. Teresa stated that when she learned of

Adam’s death, her “world fell apart.” Following Adam’s death, she was unable to return to

her job as a vendor at flea markets and remained at home due to fear. Teresa stated that she

sought treatment from a psychiatrist and received counseling following Adam’s death. She

also stated that her other children were angry and frustrated.

Patty Leming testified that Samantha was her only daughter. She said Samantha was

happy, did well in school, and loved animals. When Ms. Leming learned of Samantha’s

death, she passed out and fell off of her porch. Ms. Leming stated that following Samantha’s

death, she received treatment from a psychiatrist and counseling on a monthly basis. She also

-45-

stated that she was schizophrenic and very depressed. Ms. Leming was not able to return to

her job cleaning houses.

The State also recalled Investigator Todd Hull to present photographs. The State then

rested. Appellant waived any presentation of mitigating evidence.

At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury found the following aggravating

circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to appellant’s conviction of

premeditated first degree murder of Adam Chrismer: appellant knowingly mutilated the

victim’s body after death. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-204(i)(13) (Supp. 2002). With

regard to appellant’s convictions of premeditated first degree murder and felony murder of

Samantha Chrismer, the jury found the following aggravated circumstances beyond a

reasonable doubt: (1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, in that it

involved torture or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to produce death; (2) the

murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful

arrest or prosecution of appellant or another; (3) appellant knowingly committed the murder

while having a substantial role in committing first degree murder of Adam Chrismer; and (4)

appellant knowingly committed the murder while having a substantial role in committing or

attempting to commit kidnapping. See id. at (i)(5), (6), (7). The jury also found that the

aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable

doubt and imposed a sentence of death for each conviction.

The trial court then merged appellant’s convictions of premeditated first degree

murder of Samantha and felony murder of Samantha. The trial court denied appellant’s

motion for new trial, and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Appellant asserts that: (1) the trial court erred in finding that appellant implicitly

waived and forfeited his right to counsel and requiring him to proceed pro se at trial; (2) the

trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements; (3) the searches of the

residence and the storage unit were unconstitutional; (4) the trial court erred in denying

appellant’s motions to continue the trial; (5) the trial court erred in staying appellant’s

funding and jail privileges used in preparation for trial after this court granted an

interlocutory appeal; (6) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions; (7) the trial

court erred in denying appellant’s ex parte motions for expert services for a crime scene

expert and a false confession expert; (8) the trial court failed to apply a higher standard of

due process in all aspects of the case; (9) the trial court erred in admitting certain

photographs; (10) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments in both

phases of the trial; (11) the trial court erred in instructing the jury during the guilt phase; (12)

-46-

the aggravating circumstances upon which the State relied were not stated in the indictment;

(13) the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to preclude for-cause removal of

jurors who were not death qualified; (14) Tennessee’s death penalty statute is

unconstitutional; (15) the trial court erred in failing to advise appellant with respect to his

testimony during the penalty phase; (16) the trial court failed to adequately inquire into

appellant’s competency to waive his right to present mitigating evidence; (17) the trial court

erred in instructing the jury during the penalty phase; (18) the trial court erred in admitting

victim impact evidence; (19) the proportionality review is unconstitutional; and (20)

cumulative error warrants reversal.

ISSUE I. FORFEITURE/WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL

Appellant contends that Judge Brown erred in finding in 2008 that appellant had

implicitly waived and forfeited his right to counsel. Appellant also contends that Judge

Blackwood erred in denying appellant’s pro se motion to appoint counsel, in denying

appellant the opportunity to present proof in support of his motion, and in finding that he did

not have the authority to appoint counsel following this court’s opinion affirming Judge

Brown’s ruling.

The circumstances leading to Judge Brown’s 2008 ruling were summarized by this

court on appeal as follows:

The trial court initially appointed two lawyers to represent the indigent

defendant. Lead counsel had practiced for 36 years and had handled

approximately 20 capital cases. None of his clients had been placed on “death

row.” In the defendant’s case, counsel filed numerous and extensive motions

supported by legal memoranda. The motions included a motion to suppress

upon which the trial court conducted a lengthy evidentiary hearing.

First change of counsel

With the trial scheduled for April 11, 2005, the defendant, acting pro

se, moved the court on March 14, 2005, to discharge his counsel and to appoint

new counsel. On the same day, both attorneys moved to withdraw, alleging

that the “attorney client relationship has deteriorated to such an extent that the

attorneys should be permitted to withdraw” and that they had “encountered

constant difficulty in obtaining the cooperation of the defendant in the

preparation of the defense.” Counsel further alleged:

-47-

The defendant has consistently refused to cooperate in providing

requested information. He has insisted that the attorneys pursue

factual investigations unrelated to this case; . . . that they file

unrelated lawsuits against individuals involved in this case. T he

defendant has insisted that the attorneys obtain evidence for him

to review and then refused to review the evidence. He had

demanded that he receive medical treatment and then refused to

accept the treatment when it was provided. He has instructed

defense investigators to conduct investigations not specifically

authorized by the attorneys and to withhold information from the

attorneys. He has accused some associated with the defense

investigation of working for the State. His conduct in regard to

the efforts of the attorneys to prepare this case can be best

described as “stone-walling.”

On March 15, 2005, the trial court conducted an extensive hearing in

which it reviewed each of the 55 complaints the defendant had leveled against

his attorneys. The court expressed concern that lead counsel and co-counsel

had worked on the case for one and one-half years. The court, after reviewing

the defendant’s complaints one by one, found them to be baseless and denied

the defendant’s motion to discharge counsel. At one point in the dialogue with

the defendant, the trial judge remarked that ultimately the defendant may be

“representing [himself] in this.” The judge opined that the defendant had

shown that he was “virtually impossible to communicate with.”

On March 18, the court conducted further hearing on counsels’ motions

to withdraw. The judge stated that both lead counsel and co-counsel were very

experienced, effective lawyers and indicated that “the whole problem [was]

caused by [the defendant].” The judge further commented,

[I]t appears to the court that what he is doing—he’s

manipulative. He’s looking—he’s come within less than a

month of a trial date, and he wanted things reheard [on the

motion to suppress] he couldn’t get heard. He managed to do

that through the back door. . . . But, he is coming close to

forfeiting his right to counsel. This court is not going to

continue appointing counsel forever. . . . [T]he court finds in this

case that [the defendant] has unreasonably requested counsel to

-48-

withdraw. At this point I don’t think the court has any option

but to allow [counsels’] motion to be relieved as counsel.

....

[If] I were the parent of . . . either of [the victims], . . . I would

think the system is absolutely crazy; that—that somebody in [the

defendant’s] shoes can manipulate the system; can refuse to

acknowledge what the law is; refuse to assist counsel; refuse to

answer questions; refuse to look at evidence; and refuse to

acknowledge the controlling authority in the law and—result

in—in manipulation of the system and his case being continued

because of new lawyers. The problem with the situation is that

the court finds that [counsel] just cannot under the requirements

of the ethics of the profession represent him, even though, it is

entirely his fault.

Thus, the trial court granted counsels’ motion to withdraw and

appointed the First District Public Defender to represent the defendant. The

trial court then had the defendant sworn and asked him, “[D]o you understand

that—that if you cause the conflict with your next set of lawyers that you may

very well [be] representing yourself?” The defendant responded, “I do.” The

court then addressed a series of questions to the defendant as a means of

assuring that he understood the implications of defending a capital murder case

without representation of counsel.

The trial court canceled the April 11, 2005 trial setting.

Second change of counsel

On April 4, 2005, the First District Public Defender moved to withdraw,

citing conflicts of interests among members of the defendant’s family and

assistant public defenders. On April 5, 2005, the trial court granted this

motion and appointed the Second District Public Defender to represent the

defendant.

Third change of counsel

On the same day, April 5, 2005, the Second District Public Defender

moved the court to vacate the appointment order on the grounds that the trial

-49-

court was not authorized to appoint “a district public defender outside of their

specific district.” The trial court agreed and appointed new lawyers to

represent the defendant.

Fourth change of counsel

On May 25, 2005, the newly appointed attorney moved to withdraw on

the basis of serious illness in his immediate family. On May 31, 2005, the trial

court granted the motion and appointed two other lawyers to serve as new

counsel.

In August 2005, the trial court reset the trial for January 30, 2006.

Fifth change of counsel

On September 28, 2005, the defendant’s lead counsel moved to

withdraw from the case on the ground that a conflict of interests had emerged

when the defendant filed a complaint against counsel with the Board of

Professional Responsibility (“BPR”). The court conducted a hearing on

November 7, 2005. Lead counsel, who had practiced law for 21 years, stated

that the defendant had claimed in a complaint to the BPR that counsel had not

read the discovery materials in the case. Counsel characterized the defendant

as “a blatant prevaricator” and added, “This is the type of behavior that [the

defendant] persists in. You try to get information out of him you can’t get

information out of him.” Co-counsel stated that the filing of the complaint

with the BPR had brought the case to a “standstill.” The trial judge

commented, “[I]t appears that [the defendant] is manipulating the system, but,

it still doesn’t leave the court any—any choice, at least, at this point. The

motion to withdraw is granted.”

The court then admonished the defendant that if he “create[d] another

conflict then [he was] going to be representing [himself].” In its order

granting the withdrawal motion, the trial court stated that “the attorney/client

relationship between lead counsel . . . and the [d]efendant . . . has deteriorated

to the point where lead counsel’s zealous representation of the [d]efendant is

extremely difficult if not impossible.” The court appointed new lead counsel.

The two lawyers then representing the defendant filed an extensive,

supplemental battery of motions.

-50-

The trial remained scheduled for January 30, 2006, but at some point,

the trial court reset the trial for September 19, 2006.

Sixth change of counsel

On August 8, 2006, lead counsel moved to withdraw citing

“irreconcilable conflict”; however, counsel apparently agreed to withdraw the

motion in consideration of the defendant’s dismissing a “complaint” he had

filed against counsel. The trial court ordered a mental health evaluation of the

defendant and continued the trial until October 24, 2006.

On October 9, 2006, the mental health evaluators in Kingsport filed

with the trial court a letter in which they reported that they were “unable to

properly evaluate [the defendant, who] did not cooperate with the evaluation

process as he insisted on speaking to his attorney prior to the assessments.”

The evaluators expressed “no confidence that rescheduling this evaluation

would yield a different outcome.” On October 13, 2006, the trial court ordered

that the defendant be sent to Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute in

Nashville (MTMHI). The October trial date was continued. In November and

December 2006, MTMHI reported to the trial court that the defendant “is

capable of adequately assisting in his defense in a court of law . . . [,] that he

does understand the charge pending [against] him . . . [,] and [that he] is able

to advise counsel and participate in his own defense.” MTMHI noted that the

defendant “was not willing to participate in some of the evaluation processes”

although the “evaluation staff did have a great deal of observational data

during the inpatient assessment.” Essentially, MTMHI concluded that a

defense of legal insanity was not supportable, that the defendant evinced no

evidence of organic brain damage, and that he was of average intelligence.

In March 2007, the trial court set the case for trial on October 29, 2007.

Seventh change of counsel

On March 19, 2007, both lead counsel and associate counsel moved to

withdraw from the case, citing “irreconcilable conflicts” and the defendant’s

filing a complaint against both attorneys with the BPR. The defendant also

moved the trial court to discharge his lawyers.

-51-

In the March 19, 2007 hearing, the trial court urged the defendant to

have “a prayer meeting” with his attorneys. The judge directed comments to

the defendant:

I’m not going to go on appointing one lawyer, after another

lawyer, after another lawyer. If I find that you’re the one

causing the conflict then you’re stuck, and you’re much more

likely to get the death penalty if you try to represent yourself. It

is an extremely stupid thing to do. But, we’ve been through the

law on this before. If the court finds that appointment of

additional counsel is futile then that’s where you are.

At this point, the court declined to rule on counsels’ motion to withdraw

and the defendant’s motion to discharge counsel.

On October 8, 2007, both attorneys filed motions to withdraw

indicating that the defendant had “fired” the attorneys and had, on October 4,

“refused to speak with counsel [or] co-counsel.” The record reflects no

immediate ruling on these motions.

Although the trial began on October 29, 2007, the proceedings were

suspended during jury selection when the jury pool was depleted.

On February 7, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to have his lawyers

removed. On April 16, 2008, the defendant’s lead counsel moved to withdraw

alleging that “the relationship between the [d]efendant and [c]ounsel has

deteriorated to such a degree that [counsel] can no longer act as a zealous

advocate.”

The trial court conducted a hearing on April 17, 2008. The defendant

informed the court that he had “mailed out” lawsuits against both lead counsel

and co-counsel to the United States District Court in Greeneville. The

defendant said, “And since this is filed I really don’t think there’s much

controversy. I don’t think they can continue—continue under any

circumstances.”

The defendant was then sworn and testified that his lawyers were

ineffective because they failed to file motions for “search warrants [and] for

expert witnesses” and that they had failed to “file[ ] for various other

investigative things to be done.” The defendant called witnesses, including

-52-

co-counsel on the case, to try to impugn the affidavit supporting a search

warrant. This effort, aimed at showing counsels’ ineffectiveness, was, in a

word, ineffectual.

Lead counsel explained that pursuing the motion to suppress sought by

the defendant would have been “a terrible mistake” because it tied him “to a

potential crime scene. We felt that—that the more we distanced him from that,

that would be the better strategy.” Counsel explained, however, that the

defendant had ceased talking to counsel about issues in the case.

Addressing counsels’ motions to withdraw, the trial court agreed that

the defendant’s filings against his attorneys both with the BPR and in the

federal district court posed conflicts for counsels’ continued representation of

the defendant. The trial court granted counsels’ motions to withdraw and held

that the defendant had forfeited his right to counsel. The court stated,

So, it appears he’s waived his right to counsel because he’s

persistently demanding counsel of his choice and he refuses to

cooperate. He refuses to talk to you all, refuses to communicate.

He has refused to talk to the experts to evaluation, and—this is

quite serious. [Denying the appointment of further counsel]

should be done only when it gets to the point that appointing

additional counsel would be futile. . . . [H]e knows how to put

[the case] off again. He knows to file a complaint to the Board

of Professional Responsibility about his lawyers, and he knows

he can sue his lawyers. But, he—he hasn’t shown the court that

[the lawyers] have even begun to do anything other than what

was in his best interest. So, the conclusion the court reaches . .

.is that [the defendant has] egregiously manipulated the

constitutional right to counsel resulting in delay, disruption and

it’s prevented the orderly administration of justice.

Willis, 301 S.W.3d at 646-50.

On July 9, 2009, this court filed its opinion affirming the trial court’s order on

interlocutory appeal. See id. at 652. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied appellant’s

application for permission to appeal on November 23, 2009. The mandate was issued on

December 9, 2009.

-53-

On January 27, 2010, appellant filed a pro se motion to appoint counsel. Judge Brown

subsequently recused himself, and Judge Blackwood was designated to hear the case. During

a hearing on March 16, 2010, the trial court denied the motion stating that the issue had

already been litigated in this court.

The State asserts that appellant’s claims are barred by the law of the case doctrine.

“[U]nder the law of the case doctrine, an appellate court’s decision on an issue of law is

binding in later trials and appeals of the same case if the facts on the second trial or appeal

are substantially the same as the facts in the first trial or appeal.” Memphis Publ’g Co. v.

Tenn. Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Bd., 975 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tenn. 1998). This

doctrine “applies to issues that were actually before the appellate court in the first appeal and

to issues that were necessarily decided by implication,” but the doctrine does not apply to

dicta. Id. (citation omitted). The doctrine “is not a constitutional mandate nor a limitation

on the power of a court” but “is a longstanding discretionary rule of judicial practice which

is based on the common sense recognition that issues previously litigated and decided by a

court of competent jurisdiction ordinarily need not be revisited.” Id. (citations omitted).

Application of the doctrine promotes finality, efficiency, consistent results, and obedience

to appellate decisions. Id.

There are three “limited circumstances” that may justify a departure from the law of

the case doctrine and subsequent reconsideration of an issue decided in a previous appeal:

(1) the evidence offered at a trial or hearing after remand was substantially

different from the evidence in the initial proceeding; (2) the prior ruling was

clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice if allowed to stand;

or (3) the prior decision is contrary to a change in the controlling law which

has occurred between the first and second appeal.

Id.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in requiring him to proceed pro se at trial

and that this court’s opinion upholding the trial court’s order was “clearly erroneous.” In

affirming the trial court’s order, this court reasoned:

The trial court found that the spate of conflicts with appointed counsel

was the defendant’s fault. It warned the defendant on multiple occasions that

his persistence in engendering conflicts that led to changes in counsel would

result in his representing himself in the case. When the trial court ordered the

first change of counsel, it engaged the defendant in an extensive voir dire of

his understanding of the imminence, difficulty, and risks of self-representation.

-54-

Despite the trial court’s warnings and explanations of the law, the defendant

persisted in intentional conduct that prompted the disqualification of counsel.

In these circumstances, the trial court was justified in holding that the

defendant had implicitly waived his right to counsel.

Furthermore, the record supports a finding of forfeiture. The trial court

found that the defendant used the tactic of suing his lawyers or filing

complaints against them with the Board of Professional Responsibility as a

means of coercing the court into discharging counsel and that the pattern was

for the tactic to be employed as trial dates approached. The trial court gave the

defendant ample opportunity to show via argument, documents, and testimony

that he was justified in complaining about counsel’s performance.

Nevertheless, the defendant neither articulated nor established any basis for

complaint against any of his attorneys. Additionally, the record shows that the

defendant refused to communicate with counsel and to cooperate with mental

health evaluators. His conduct was egregiously manipulative and abusive of

the judicial process; it warrants a finding that he forfeited his right to counsel.

Willis, 301 S.W.3d at 652. Appellant has failed to establish that this court’s holding was

“clearly erroneous.”

Moreover, after the case was remanded, appellant failed to allege evidence or

circumstances that were substantially different from the circumstances that existed during the

initial proceedings. On appeal, appellant failed to specify what change in circumstances

warrant reconsideration of this court’s initial holding. In his motions for appointment of

counsel filed after remand, appellant sought to reargue the alleged deficiencies of prior

counsel, raised issues of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and relied upon an

“interest of justice-oversight” argument for which he offered no supporting authority. None

of these claims constitute changed circumstances that qualify as an exception to the law of

the case doctrine.

Finally, appellant has not established that this court’s prior decision is contrary to a

change in controlling law. Rather, appellant relies upon the Tennessee Supreme Court’s

decision in State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn. 2000), the same case upon which this

court relied in affirming the trial court’s decision in appellant’s initial appeal. See Willis, 301

S.W.3d at 650-51. Accordingly, appellant’s claims are barred by the law of the case doctrine.

-55-

ISSUE II. DENIAL OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO

WILDA WILLIS

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his

statements to Wilda Willis. He maintains that his statements were obtained in violation of

the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article

I, sections 8 and 9 of the Tennessee Constitution.

A. Suppression Hearing on November 30 and December 1, 2004

On July 29, 2004, appellant filed a motion to suppress his statements to Wilda Willis

on October 15 and 16, 2002; his telephone calls to Wilda while he was housed in Washington

County; his telephone calls to Wilda while he was housed in New York; and his statements

to Sergeant Phillips and Investigator Hull on October 24 and 25, 2002. A suppression

hearing was held on November 30 and December 1, 2004, during which the following proof

was presented.

1. State’s Proof

Detective Efaw testified that she, Detective Keith Fretwell, and Detective Bill Coltree

traveled to Washington County on October 11, 2002, to serve a federal warrant on appellant.

When they arrived, they contacted officers with the Johnson City Police Department, and the

officers assisted them in serving the warrant. They arrested appellant on October 11 at the

home of his aunt, Marie Holmes. Detective Efaw stated that she was investigating a missing

persons case involving Sam Thomas, appellant’s stepfather. The officers were attempting

to locate the victims regarding their knowledge of Mr. Thomas’s whereabouts.

On cross-examination, Detective Efaw acknowledged that the warrant was issuedfrom

a federal district in New York and directed any federal law enforcement officer to arrest

appellant. She testified that to her knowledge, an officer with the U.S. Marshal’s Service

was not present when appellant was arrested. She did not contact federal authorities and was

unsure whether the U.S. Marshal’s Service was aware of the warrant. Detective Efaw stated

that Captain Burtt contacted the agency to obtain the warrant and that the warrant came

directly to the Bradley County Sheriff’s Office.

Detective Efaw acknowledged that the warrant indicated that Detective Fretwell

executed it. She was not aware of whether Detective Fretwell questioned appellant and said

that she was in the police vehicle at the time. She stated that appellant did not request

counsel in her presence. While she acknowledged that she traveled to Washington County

-56-

because she was interested in locating the victims, she did not believe that she showed

photographs of the victims to appellant shortly after his arrest.

On redirect examination, Detective Efaw testified that while investigating Mr.

Thomas’s disappearance, she learned that Mr. Thomas’s credit cards had been used. Mr.

Thomas’s family informed her that they did not believe that Mr. Thomas woul

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.