# State of Tennessee v. Joshua Hunter Bargery

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · October 6, 2017

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4210191

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** October 6, 2017
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4210191

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing a conviction obtained after a Secret Service agent, in an ex parte communication, advised a defense witness of possible prosecution if he testified
- noting that the victim’s statement was not hearsay because it was offered for its effect on the hearer, the defendant, and established evidence of his motive in returning to the scene of the crime later in the day and threatening the victim

## Opinion text

10/06/2017
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
May 2, 2017 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSHUA HUNTER BARGERY

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County
No. 11-CR-9586 R. Lee Moore, Jr., Judge
___________________________________

No. W2016-00893-CCA-R3-CD
___________________________________

Joshua Hunter Bargery (“the Defendant”) appeals his Lake County Circuit Court
convictions for two counts of first degree felony murder and two counts of especially
aggravated robbery, for which he received a total effective sentence of two consecutive
life sentences. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) his rights under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee
Constitution were violated by the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence
obtained during the search of the Defendant and his automobile; (2) the trial court
erroneously excluded as hearsay the Defendant’s testimony regarding statements made by
Mr. Hill, Mr. Hernandez, and “the three Mexicans”; (3) the trial court erred in excluding
relevant and material testimony from the Defendant’s crime scene expert; (4) the
Defendant is entitled to a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct; (5) the trial court
erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on law
enforcement’s intentional destruction of exculpatory evidence; (6) the Defendant’s due
process rights were violated by the State’s failure to disclose Mr. Hernandez’s complete
criminal record and the State’s agreement not to treat him as a “suspect”; (7) the trial
court erred by admitting a copy of a letter written by the Defendant, which was not
produced by the State during discovery; (8) the trial court erred in its instructions to the
jury; (9) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; (10) the trial court erred
when it imposed consecutive sentences; (11) the trial court erred in denying the
Defendant’s motion for recusal; (12) the Defendant is entitled to a new trial based on
violations of the trial court’s order of sequestration; and (13) cumulative error deprived
the Defendant of due process and a fair trial. Following a thorough review of the record
and applicable law, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand for a new trial.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circuit Court Reversed
and Remanded for a New Trial
ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E.
GLENN and J. ROSS DYER, JJ., joined.

J. Houston Gordon (on appeal and at trial); Lyle Reid (on appeal and at trial); Amber
Griffin Shaw (on appeal and at trial); Charles Brasfield (at trial); and Samuel L. Ivy (at
trial), Covington, Tennessee; and Curtis F. Hopper (at trial), Savannah, Tennessee for the
appellant, Joshua Hunter Bargery.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; James E. Gaylord, Senior
Counsel; C. Phillip Bivens, District Attorney General; and Lance E. Webb, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Factual and Procedural Background

In July 2011, the Lake County Grand Jury indicted the Defendant on two counts
each of first degree premeditated murder, first degree felony murder in the perpetration of
a robbery or theft, and especially aggravated robbery, all in connection with the killing of
Clarence and Sue Shell (“Mr. and Mrs. Shell” or “the victims”). The State subsequently
filed a Notice of Intention to Seek the Death Penalty and of Aggravating Circumstances.

State’s Case-in-Chief

At a trial conducted April 20, 2015, to May 9, 2015, Ashleigh Shell, the victims’
granddaughter, testified that she last saw the victims at their home on Owl Hoot Road on
the evening of March 3, 2011. She was there with her boyfriend for an hour, and they
left at 9:18 p.m. At the time they left, the victims were still in their “day clothes” and
were not dressed for bed.

Will Shell, the victims’ grandson, testified that he went to the victims’ residence
the following morning—March 4, 2011. When he arrived, he found that the blinds were
drawn, both the front and back doors were locked, and there was blood on the front door.
He looked into a window and saw Mr. Shell lying on the floor. When his father, Paul
Shell, arrived at the residence, Will1 kicked in the front door. He went about three steps
inside the front door but then exited the house and waited for police to arrive. Will

1
Because several witnesses share the same surname, we will refer to some witnesses by their first
name. We intend no disrespect.

-2-
testified that the victims usually went to bed around 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. He stated that
Mr. Shell was seventy years old at the time of his death and had open heart surgery
several years before the murder. He agreed, however, that Mr. Shell had been a strong
man for his age.

Paul Shell, the victims’ son, testified that family members had asked the victims to
move into the residence on Owl Hoot Road in October 2010 to “watch over the place,”
after Paul’s aunt, who had been living in the residence, went to live in a nursing home.
Paul stated that the victims’ residence was located on the same tract of land as the house
where the Defendant’s great-grandmother, Carlene Smith, used to live. He explained that
Mrs. Smith had been married to Paul’s great-uncle, before he passed away in September
2010.

Paul testified that the victims normally went to bed around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m.
He went to the victims’ residence on the morning of March 4, 2011, after learning that
Will was at the residence and could not get inside. After trying unsuccessfully to pry
open the back door, Will kicked in the front door. When they walked inside the
residence, Paul saw Mr. Shell lying on the floor in the living room in front of a chair. He
then walked into the kitchen where he found Mrs. Shell. He exited the house and called
911.

Robin Surratt, the victims’ daughter, testified that Mrs. Shell was sixty-eight years
old and Mr. Shell was seventy years old at the time of their deaths. Both were retired.
Mr. Shell had “heart issues” and had undergone bypass surgery, and Mrs. Shell retired
just before her death because of her declining health. Ms. Surratt testified that Mrs. Shell
had undergone one knee replacement surgery and was “a month away from having a
second knee replacement,” and she used a walker to assist her mobility.

Jason Allison testified that he was Chief Deputy at the Lake County Sheriff’s
Department in 2011. On the morning of March 4, he responded to the victims’ residence
with two other officers. When he arrived, Paul and Will Shell were in the driveway,
“sobbing” and becoming “physically ill.” Paul told him, “They’re dead. They’re both
dead.” When he entered the front door of the residence, Deputy Allison saw Mr. Shell’s
body, but he could not initially see Mrs. Shell. During a sweep of the residence, Deputy
Allison noticed that the house had been “ransacked.” Inside the victims’ bedroom, he
saw that “there was stuff just thrown on the bed, looked like jewelry and maybe
drawers[.]” There was a wallet in the floor of the bedroom and another in the floor of the
master bathroom. After securing the residence, Deputy Allison called the Tennessee
Bureau of Investigation (TBI) to the scene.

-3-
Deputy Allison testified that, after the discovery of the victims’ bodies, he
received a phone call from Assistant Chief Kenny Lee with the Ridgely Police
Department, who stated that he had received a tip that the Defendant was “selling some
guns.” Because he knew from the victims’ family members that there were guns missing
from the victims’ residence, Deputy Allison instructed his deputies that if they saw the
Defendant while out on patrol they should “ask him if he was selling any guns[.]”

Later that evening, Deputy Allison responded to the residence of Dennis Chisholm
after a deputy located the Defendant at the residence. The Defendant was standing in the
driveway with deputies when he arrived. Deputy Allison read the Defendant his Miranda
rights and asked the Defendant if he had been selling guns. When the Defendant
indicated that he had not, Deputy Allison asked for consent to search the Defendant’s
vehicle. The Defendant responded, “Go ahead, it’s fine. There’s nothing in there.” The
Defendant also asked, “[I]s this about the murders on . . . Owl Hoot Road[?]” During the
search of the vehicle, Deputy Allison found a knife that appeared to have blood on it in
the area of the console, and another deputy discovered costume jewelry in the trunk.
Deputy Allison knew that the victims had likely been stabbed and that costume jewelry
had been taken from the scene. Deputy Allison arrested the Defendant and placed him in
the back of a patrol car. The Defendant was later interviewed at the Lake County Jail by
TBI agents. The following morning, the Defendant’s mother came to the jail to visit him.
However, when Deputy Allison informed the Defendant that his mother was there, the
Defendant said that he did not want to see her. The Defendant said, “Just tell her I’m
sorry for everything.”

On cross-examination, Deputy Allison testified that he was given the Defendant’s
cell phone after the Defendant’s arrest but that, after leaving the Chisholm residence, he
turned the phone over to Investigator Joseph Vernon of the Lake County Sheriff’s
Department. Deputy Allison acknowledged that he had known the Defendant since the
Defendant was approximately nine years old and stated that he had not known the
Defendant to be violent. The Defendant had no prior criminal record, but Deputy Allison
had heard that the Defendant smoked marijuana and dealt drugs. Deputy Allison
acknowledged that Shondell Hill was a known drug dealer in Lake County.

Investigator Joseph Vernon testified that he responded to the victims’ residence on
the morning of March 4, with Deputy Allison. He and Deputy Allison cleared the home,
where the victims were “obviously deceased.” Investigator Vernon began taking
photographs of the scene. In the kitchen, he saw blood on the floor and several
shoeprints in the blood.

Investigator Vernon stated that he did not go to the Chisholm residence but stayed
at the crime scene until the TBI technicians finished processing the scene. He later took
-4-
possession of the Defendant’s cell phone from Deputy Allison. Investigator Vernon
testified that, in his experience, drugs dealers often communicate through text messages
but that they “usually delete [the text messages] after they follow through with the deal or
make arrangements for the deal.” Investigator Vernon testified that he allowed defense
counsel access to the cell phone on two occasions at the TBI office in Jackson. The
Defendant’s cell phone was also sent to the TBI crime lab in Nashville for forensic
testing, where the TBI conducted a “phone dump” and pulled “all the information off the
phone.” The information from the “phone dump” was later provided to the Defendant.
Investigator Vernon recalled that, a few days after the Defendant’s arrest, Mr. Chisholm
contacted him about a laptop computer that Mr. Chisholm found in his son’s bedroom.
Investigator Vernon took possession of the laptop, which was identified as belonging to
Mrs. Shell. Investigator Vernon also recovered a digital camera belonging to the victims,
which the Defendant sold after the murders.

On cross-examination, Investigator Vernon recalled that the television was on
when he entered the victims’ residence, but the screen was blue. He testified that a gun
cabinet in the master bedroom had “a red liquid smeared” on the handle and that the
cabinet was “ajar.” He took photographs of several areas of blood. There were blood
smears on the front door and storm door. Investigator Vernon stated that, several weeks
after the Defendant’s arrest, he learned that Lake County Sheriff Bryan Avery had gone
to Boyette’s Resort on Reelfoot Lake (“Boyette’s”) as part of the investigation.
Investigator Vernon went to Boyette’s and spoke to people there, including the
housekeepers. Investigator Vernon learned that, in the days leading up to the victims’
murders, there had been “an unknown male . . . either a mixed or Mexican with short
hair” staying in a cabin rented by the Defendant. The housekeepers stated that they found
a bloody towel in the bathroom of the cabin when they cleaned up the room on the
morning of March 4. They also found “marijuana shake,” fruit juice cans, and potato
chips in the cabin. On redirect examination, Investigator Vernon explained that by the
time he spoke to the housekeepers, they did not have the bloody towel, and the cabin had
been cleaned.

Susan Lee testified that on March 4 the Defendant came by her residence to talk to
her husband, Andy Lee, at about 3:00 p.m., and Mr. Lee went outside to meet the
Defendant. After this meeting, Mrs. Lee called her father-in-law, who was Assistant
Chief of the Ridgley Police Department, and told him that the Defendant had “some guns
and stuff that he was trying to sell.” Mrs. Lee agreed that the Defendant was laid back,
quiet, and had a passive personality. She never saw him violent or angry.

Andy Lee testified that the Defendant came to his house on the afternoon of March
4, 2011. He went outside and got inside the Defendant’s vehicle because it was raining.
Mr. Lee and the Defendant smoked marijuana together, and the Defendant showed him
-5-
several items of property, including some jewelry in a Crown Royal bag and a digital
camera. The Defendant also had four or five “long barrel guns, rifles, shotguns” in the
trunk of his car, which the Defendant was trying to sell. Mr. Lee was not interested in
purchasing the guns, so the Defendant left. Mr. Lee then told his wife about the
conversation with the Defendant.

Mr. Lee testified that he had purchased marijuana from Mr. Hill in the past. He
testified that the Defendant was not a violent person and that he had never seen the
Defendant angry or agitated. He agreed that the Defendant was not very strong or tough
and generally avoided conflict. He testified that, when he spoke with the Defendant that
afternoon, he never discussed the details of the crime scene with the Defendant.

Kenneth Lee testified that he was the Assistant Chief of the Ridgely Police
Department in March 2011. He stated that Mr. Hill lived on North Main Street in
Ridgely, about a block from the police department, and that Mr. Hill was known for
selling drugs. He testified that he had no idea if his son, Andy Lee, had a relationship
with Mr. Hill. He did not know who his son bought drugs from but agreed that his son
“used to” use drugs. He stated that he did not learn until March 2015 that his daughter-
in-law had called in the anonymous tip regarding the Defendant’s attempting to sell guns.

Laquisha Tyler testified that she purchased a digital camera from the Defendant on
March 4, 2011, for $35. She recalled that the Defendant was also attempting to sell a
laptop. She later turned the camera over to the Lake County Sheriff’s Department. Ms.
Tyler stated that she had not known the Defendant to be a violent person and agreed that
he was “a laid[-]back kind of person.”

Curt Chisholm testified that the Defendant was his best friend and that the
Defendant often stayed at his home. He stated that the Defendant was “never the type to
argue” and that the Defendant had never been violent. On the evening of March 4, the
Defendant came to his home with a laptop. The Defendant was “bagging marijuana” in
Curt’s bedroom when a deputy knocked on the door to the residence. At that time, the
Defendant walked out the back door of the residence with the marijuana in his pockets.

Deputy Patrick Leake from the Lake County Sheriff’s Department testified that on
March 4, 2011, he was instructed by Deputy Allison to try to locate the Defendant
because the Defendant had attempted to “sell some guns.” That evening, he saw the
Defendant’s vehicle at the Chisholm residence. Deputy Leake knocked on the side door
under the carport and was greeted by Dennis Chisholm. Deputy Leake asked if the
Defendant was there, and Mr. Chisholm responded, “Yeah, he’s in.” Deputy Leake then
asked for permission to enter the residence, and Mr. Chisholm stated, “Yeah, come on
in.” Deputy Leake saw Curt Chisholm inside the residence and asked him about the
-6-
Defendant’s location. Curt responded, “He just ran out the back door.” Deputy Leake
went to the back door, which was standing wide open. He looked out the door and saw
the Defendant standing by a shed in the backyard with his hands in his pockets. Deputy
Leake said, “Hunter, come here,” and the Defendant “walked right to [him].” He told the
Defendant that he wanted to talk to him and asked the Defendant to “come out front.” He
and the Defendant walked back through the residence and out the door and then stood in
the driveway in front of the house. Deputy Leake stated that the Defendant did not
appear intoxicated. He asked for permission to pat down the Defendant for weapons, and
the Defendant consented. During the pat down, Deputy Leake found a digital scale with
marijuana residue on it and a cell phone, which Deputy Allison took into his possession.
While other officers searched the Defendant’s car, Deputy Leake obtained permission
from Mr. Chisholm to search his backyard where he found numerous baggies of
marijuana.

Deputy Jason Tubbs testified that he responded to the Chisholm residence after
hearing Deputy Leake’s radio transmission that the Defendant’s vehicle was in the
driveway of the residence. A few seconds after the initial report, Deputy Leake
announced that the Defendant was “running out the back door” of the residence. Deputy
Tubbs arrived at the residence a few minutes later as Deputy Leake and the Defendant
were walking out the front door. Deputy Tubbs asked the Defendant for consent to
search his vehicle, and the Defendant said, “Go ahead.” However, Deputy Tubbs waited
for Deputy Allison to arrive before beginning a search. After Deputy Allison obtained
additional consent from the Defendant, Deputy Tubbs assisted in the search of the
vehicle. Inside the trunk, Deputy Tubbs found a Crown Royal bag containing jewelry.
When he informed Deputy Allison what he found inside the trunk, Deputy Allison
instructed Deputy Tubbs to stop the search. In his interactions with the Defendant, the
Defendant did not appear to be intoxicated.

Dennis Chisholm testified that he was at home on March 4, when deputies arrived.
He recalled that deputies asked for his consent to search his backyard, and he provided a
lantern to help in the search. There, they found baggies containing marijuana. After the
Defendant’s arrest, Sheriff Avery instructed Mr. Chisholm to look through his house and
“see if there’s anything there that didn’t belong[.]” Mr. Chisholm found a pistol “right
outside the back door” that did not belong to him and gave it to Sheriff Avery. Several
days later, Mr. Chisholm contacted Investigator Vernon and turned over a laptop that he
had found in his son’s bedroom. Mr. Chisholm stated that he knew the Defendant well
and that the Defendant came to his house “[a]bout every day.” He stated that the
Defendant was “[m]ild mannered. Nice. Courteous.” He never saw the Defendant angry
or acting in a violent manner.

-7-
Lake County Sheriff Bryan Avery testified that he responded to the crime scene on
March 4 with Investigator Vernon and Deputy Allison, where he was advised that several
items of property were missing from the residence, including a camera, laptop, and guns.
Sheriff Avery also responded to the Chisholm residence that evening. The Defendant
was standing in the driveway with several deputies “standing around.” After Deputy
Allison obtained permission from the Defendant to search the Defendant’s vehicle,
Sheriff Avery opened the driver’s side door of the car and noticed a knife in the front
console. He took the knife out of its sheath and noticed that the knife had what appeared
to be a dry, red substance where the handle met the blade. Sheriff Avery recalled that he
collected a .22 caliber pistol with white paint on it from Mr. Chisholm, which was later
identified as belonging to the victims.

On cross-examination, Sheriff Avery stated that between September and March of
2011, he was not aware of any Mexican gangs, cartels, or the Mexican Mafia operating in
rural West Tennessee. Sheriff Avery testified that, on March 5 or 6, he received a phone
call from Judy Capps, who informed him that the Defendant “had rented a room from
her” at Boyette’s. Sheriff Avery went to the resort and spoke to Ms. Capps and two
housekeepers. The housekeepers said that a “Hispanic person, maybe Puerto Rican” had
stayed in Cabin 9—the cabin rented by the Defendant. Sheriff Avery went inside Cabin 9
and saw that it had been cleaned. Although he did not preserve the cabin, take
photographs, or take a formal statement from the housekeepers, Sheriff Avery informed
the TBI about Cabin 9. Sheriff Avery acknowledged that he did not file a written report
about having been to Boyette’s until October 2013, after the defense asked about Cabin 9.
He stated that, when he wrote the report, he was aware that there had been the “largest
single marijuana farm in the history of Tennessee” located on a bluff above Reelfoot
Lake in Obion County. Sheriff Avery testified that the marijuana had been found on a
farm leased for hunting purposes by a trooper with the Tennessee Highway Patrol, Brian
Wright. Sheriff Avery stated that Trooper Wright was being investigated but had not
been charged with anything related to the marijuana grow.

Special Agent Julian Conyers testified that he was a forensic scientist with the TBI
and was a member of the Violent Crime Response Team (“the Response Team”). He
testified that the Response Team arrived at the victims’ residence at 2:54 p.m. on March
4. Agent Conyers videotaped the crime scene and collected evidence. He collected a
bloody shoeprint on the linoleum floor in the kitchen by cutting out the piece of linoleum.
He also collected evidence from the Defendant’s vehicle, including a knife in a sheath
from the gear shift area of the vehicle. The Response Team released the crime scene to
the TBI agents in charge of the investigation at 8:40 p.m.

Special Agent Lawrence James testified that he was a forensic scientist, who
supervised about twenty other forensic scientists at the TBI crime lab in Memphis. Agent
-8-
James responded to the crime scene with the Response Team on March 4. He testified
that his job at the scene was to perform screening tests for potential blood stains. He
recalled that the victims appeared to have “had their throats cut” and that there were large
amounts of blood at the scene. He collected a bloody washcloth found in the master
bathroom. Agent James also took swabs of what appeared to be blood stains from the
inside of the front door and door knob, the exterior screen door, the handle to a gun
cabinet in the master bedroom, and off of the surface of Mr. Shell’s body. He explained
that Mr. Shell was lying face down, and there were what appeared to be “essentially
vertical blood drops . . . on his skin[.]” Agent James cut out a stained area from a sheet
on the bed in the master bedroom and took a cutting from the love seat in the living room
because it contained a blood stain that “was a little bit suspicious” because it was
“removed . . . by ten feet or so from . . . the rest of the activity[.]”

Dr. Marco Ross, the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner for Shelby County, testified
that he conducted the victims’ autopsies. Mrs. Shell had multiple “sharp force[] injuries”
that were the result of stabbing or cutting motions with a sharp instrument. He identified
seven sharp force injuries to her head and neck area, a stab wound just above her breast
bone, and another stab wound in her right upper arm. Additionally, Mrs. Shell suffered
stab wounds to her left temple and left upper cheek and a “v-shaped wound” “right
behind the angle of the jaw.” He noted that there was an “incised wound” to the lower
front part of Mrs. Shell’s neck which was a “zigzag wound” that penetrated three inches
and completely transected the larynx. Dr. Ross explained that this wound “completely
cut across the right carotid artery on the right side of the neck,” and it cut across the left
jugular vein, esophagus, and into the “spine itself.” He testified that the cutting of the
jugular vein and carotid artery would result in a “tremendous amount of blood loss.” He
stated that this wound would have caused death quickly. Dr. Ross identified an area of
hemorrhage in the scalp on the back of Mrs. Shell’s head which was likely the result of
“blunt force[] impact” and was consistent with Mrs. Shell hitting her head on the
linoleum floor. He noted scratches on the underside of her left wrist that could have been
defensive wounds.

Regarding Mr. Shell, Dr. Ross testified that he had “multiple sharp force[]
injuries.” Mr. Shell suffered multiple stab wounds in the head, neck, left chest, and back,
and he had an incise wound to his right hand. Dr. Ross described the injuries to Mr.
Shell’s neck as four sharp force injuries on the right side that combined features of stab
and incise wounds and another stab wound towards the front of the neck that penetrated
three inches and cut across the carotid artery. Dr. Ross stated that this injury alone was
sufficient to cause Mr. Shell’s death. However, Dr. Ross found additional stab wounds
behind Mr. Shell’s left ear and on the back of his neck which penetrated four inches; two
stab wounds at the base of the neck; a stab wound to the left upper chest area that went
into the upper part of the left lung and was sufficient to cause death; a stab wound to the
-9-
left upper back; and another stab wound to the right upper back. Dr. Ross also found an
incise wound on Mr. Shell’s right hand, which was “potentially a defensive wound.” He
stated that, in both victims, he found that the hyoid bone had been cut.

Special Agent Donna Nelson, a forensic scientist with the TBI, testified that she
responded to the crime scene on March 4, 2011, as the leader of the Response Team. In
that role, she directed other team members in their collection of items of evidence. Agent
Nelson stated that sixteen pieces of evidence were collected at the crime scene and that
twenty-seven items of evidence were collected in total. Agent Nelson explained that
subsequent testing showed that the blood stains from inside the front door, on the gun
cabinet handle, the washcloth in the bathroom, and on the sheet in the master bedroom
were a mixture of DNA from both victims. The swab of the front door knob failed to
indicate the presence of human DNA, and no DNA profile was obtained from the stain on
the exterior screen door due to insufficient or degraded DNA. Agent Nelson explained
that the testing of the items collected did not reveal the presence of DNA from someone
other than the victims.

Agent Nelson also tested the Defendant’s boots and bib overalls, but a
presumptive test failed to indicate the presence of blood. However, a presumptive test
did indicate blood on the Defendant’s sweatshirt. Further DNA testing on two areas of
the sweatshirt revealed a mixture of genetic material, in which Mr. Shell was the major
contributor. She stated that she tested the sleeve and the chest area of the sweatshirt and
found Mr. Shell’s DNA profile. Additionally, the knife from the console of the
Defendant’s vehicle was tested, and Agent Nelson found a DNA profile consistent with a
mixture of both victims’ DNA. Agent Nelson testified on cross-examination that the
knife from the Defendant’s vehicle was not checked for fingerprints, and the Response
Team did not have a blood spatter expert. Agent Nelson agreed that what appeared to be
a fingerprint in blood on Mrs. Shell’s walker was not collected or swabbed. However,
she stated that the crime scene documentation and analysis, photographs, and narrative
descriptions complied “with the standards that we have.” On redirect, the following
exchange took place:

Q. In your experience as a crime scene technician was there any
evidence with any apparent evidentiary value that was not collected at the
Shell residence?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Special Agent Suzann Lafferty, a forensic scientist with the TBI and expert in
fingerprint analysis, testified that she received a glass light cover from the front porch of
the victims’ residence, two wallets, a jewelry box, and jewelry from the Defendant’s
- 10 -
trunk; she tried to lift latent prints from the items but found none. She also attempted to
lift and identify latent prints from the .22 pistol but was unable to identify any latent
prints. Agent Lafferty stated that the following items were not tested for latent prints: the
victims’ gun cabinet, front door and doorknob, exterior storm door, the knife from the
Defendant’s car, and the victims’ laptop.

TBI Special Agent Linda Littlejohn testified that she compared the tread designs
of the boots the Defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest to the linoleum cuttings
of the bloody shoeprints taken from the crime scene. The tread design appeared to be
similar, so she made a test impression. She found that three of the four partial
impressions from the crime scene were “consistent with the right boot . . . with size,
shape and tread design; and, therefore, that right boot or another right boot with those
same class characteristics could have made that impression.”

Alaina Kring testified that, in March 2011, she worked as a special agent with the
TBI in the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. On March 4, she responded to the crime scene
with the lead investigator, Special Agent Nathan Bishop. She later assisted Agent Bishop
during his interview with the Defendant. The Defendant said that he had been drinking
beer and had taken Xanax earlier that day, but Agent Kring saw no signs that the
Defendant was intoxicated at that time. The Defendant indicated that he understood his
Miranda rights and was willing to answer questions. Agent Kring took four pages of
notes of the interview. She reviewed the notes with the Defendant, and he initialed each
page, and signed and dated the notes. She recalled that the Defendant was “very calm”
during the interview and that Agent Bishop only asked him a few questions. She stated
that the Defendant never indicated that anyone else was involved in the murders.

TBI Special Agent Cathy Ferguson testified that she also responded to the crime
scene to assist Agent Bishop and participated in the Defendant’s interview. The
Defendant told the agents that he “knew what happened out on Owl Hoot Road, but [the
agents] didn’t know if he was involved unless he told us.” The Defendant said that “he
thought it happened during a black-out, and then went on to say that maybe it was during
a dream.” The Defendant “gave specific details about the crime scene[.]” Agent
Ferguson stated that no one told the Defendant about the positioning of the victims’
bodies inside the residence, and no one told him that the victims had been killed with a
knife. However, the Defendant said that “it must have been a knife,” and he mentioned
that Mr. Shell was “lying in the living room or near the kitchen.” The Defendant
correctly described the linoleum kitchen floor, which he said “look[ed] like tile.” When
Agent Bishop specifically asked the Defendant if anyone else was involved, the
Defendant stated that “he was alone.” On cross-examination, Agent Ferguson stated that
Agent Bishop never specifically asked the Defendant if he had killed the victims.

- 11 -
Special Agent Nathan Bishop of the TBI testified that, after learning of the tip that
the Defendant was attempting to sell weapons, he instructed officers to find the
Defendant and ask him about the information. Agent Bishop responded to the Chisholm
residence after the Defendant was located there. Agent Bishop informed the Defendant,
who was in the back of a patrol car, that he was being arrested on drug-related charges
and that deputies had found a knife while searching his vehicle. Agent Bishop asked the
Defendant if he would be willing to talk to him, and the Defendant agreed. The
Defendant did not appear to be intoxicated.

While at the sheriff’s office, the Defendant executed a written waiver of his
Miranda rights. At the beginning of the interview, the Defendant said to Agent Bishop,
“Look, I know you know what happened, but you don’t know I was involved unless I tell
you.” According to Agent Bishop, the Defendant then acknowledged involvement in the
murders. He did not seem to be afraid, and he never mentioned that other people were
involved in the murders.

A few days after the murders, Agent Bishop learned that the Defendant had rented
a cabin at Boyette’s and that “a Puerto Rican[] had been there with him.” Although he
considered that it was potentially a secondary crime scene, Agent Bishop stated that he
did not have the scene processed because it was “two or three days after the homicide[s],
and . . . it was already cleaned.” On cross-examination, Agent Bishop explained that no
one from the Response Team dusted for fingerprints at the victims’ residence. He stated
that the crime scene was “released” to the victims’ family at 8:45 p.m. on March 4. He
said that, in looking at the kitchen and living room of the victims’ residence, he did not
see any indication of a violent struggle between multiple people. He explained, “[T]he
furniture was not overturned or anything like that.” Agent Bishop opined that the crime
scene appeared to be a drug-related robbery and murder. He acknowledged, however,
that there was still a one hundred dollar bill in Mr. Shell’s wallet at the crime scene.

Defendant’s Proof

David Eddlemon testified that in the late afternoon of March 2 or March 3, 2011,
he was at a store near Boyette’s when he was approached by a Hispanic man, who asked
Mr. Eddlemon if he knew the Defendant, if he could “get in touch” with the Defendant,
and where the Defendant lived. Mr. Eddlemon stated that the Hispanic man got out of a
gold or tan Jeep Grand Cherokee, and there were two other people in the vehicle.

Judy Capps testified that she was the owner and operator of Boyette’s, located on
Reelfoot Lake. Ms. Capps recalled that on March 1, 2011, the Defendant came to the
resort to ask about the cost of renting a cabin for three nights. Ms. Capps provided the
Defendant a total, and the Defendant said, “[L]et me go talk to my buddy to see if that
- 12 -
was okay with him.” The Defendant went outside, but Ms. Capps did not see the
individual mentioned by the Defendant. The Defendant came back in and rented Cabin 9
for three nights, paying in cash. Ms. Capps explained that Friday, March 4 would have
been the day that the Defendant was expected to check out of the cabin. She stated that
she did not see the Defendant the rest of the week, and she did not know who stayed in
Cabin 9 between March 1 and March 4. Ms. Capps stated that, when a cabin was
cleaned, housekeepers collected the trash, towels, and sheets from the cabins. The trash
was placed in a dumpster at the end of the row of cabins, and the dumpster would not
have been emptied until it was full. When housekeeping collected the towels and sheets,
the items would be “[a]ll lumped together” in a large bag and stored at a laundry shed
until the laundry service collected them every Thursday. She stated that there was not a
separate laundry bag for each cabin but that all of the resort’s sheets and towels went into
the same large bag. Ms. Capps explained that it was not unusual for housekeeping to
remove bloody towels from the cabins because guests would use the cabins to clean fish.
She recalled that, at the time the Defendant rented Cabin 9, a fishing tournament was
being held at Reelfoot Lake. Ms. Capps recalled that she spoke to Sheriff Avery several
days after she learned of the Defendant’s arrest. Ms. Capps stated that Cabin 9 was next
rented on Monday, March 7, 2011.

Dorothy Patterson testified that in March 2011, she and her daughter, Connie
Nugent, worked as housekeepers at Boyette’s. She recalled that from March 1 to March
4, Cabin 9 was rented. During that week, she knocked on the door to the cabin to ask if
the occupants needed any towels. A man opened the door just far enough that she could
see his face. Ms. Patterson described the man as “maybe Mexican or part Mexican” with
a “real full face and black hair.” She stated, however, that this man did not have “much
of an accent.” Ms. Patterson also recalled seeing a “tannish-gray” car parked between
Cabin 9 and Cabin 8, but Cabin 8 was not rented at the time. Ms. Patterson testified that
on Friday, March 4, two men exited Cabin 9 and got into the tannish-gray car. She only
saw the men from the back but described the driver as heavy-set man wearing tan pants
and a striped shirt and the passenger as a taller, white man, wearing a light blue shirt and
tan pants.

When Ms. Patterson and Ms. Nugent entered Cabin 9 to clean it later that day, it
appeared that two of the three beds had been used. They also found about “a cup-full” of
“marijuana seed” all over the floor of the cabin and three half-gallon containers of fruit
punch, one of which had not been opened. Inside the bathroom, Ms. Patterson saw a
towel laying in the floor that had “a little blood on it.” She rolled all the towels up and
put them into a large laundry bag along with the sheets. Ms. Patterson recalled that
Sheriff Avery came out to Boyette’s to interview her the day after she learned of the
Defendant’s arrest. She told Sheriff Avery that she had not seen the Defendant at Cabin
9 the whole week. On cross-examination, Ms. Patterson agreed that she had not been
- 13 -
suspicious of anything she found while cleaning Cabin 9. She stated that finding a towel
with a small amount of blood on it was not unusual.

Connie Nugent testified that she worked as a housekeeper at Boyette’s. Ms.
Nugent recalled that Cabin 9 was rented for the week of March 1, 2011. She recalled
that, during that week, she knocked on the door to Cabin 9 to ask the occupants if they
needed any towels. A “black-Mexican” man with a “round face” answered the door and
said that they did not need anything. During the week, a “golden-champagne color” Ford
car with a Texas license plate was parked between Cabin 8 and Cabin 9. Ms. Nugent
testified that after the occupants checked out of Cabin 9 on Friday, March 4, she cleaned
the cabin. Inside the cabin, Ms. Nugent found marijuana seeds all over the floor, along
with two “big jugs” of fruit punch. On Saturday, Sheriff Avery came to Boyette’s and
asked Ms. Nugent if she had seen any blood in Cabin 9. Sheriff Avery then went into the
cabin and looked around.

Cousins, Brandon and Brian Jines, testified that in March 2011, they participated
in the Crappie Masters Tournament on Reelfoot Lake and stayed at Boyette’s during the
fishing tournament. On Saturday morning, March 5, they saw a Jeep Cherokee enter a
grassy area next to Brandon’s truck and boat with its headlights turned off at about 4:45
a.m. The jeep went through the grass and back onto the road and then moved behind a
boat shed. The jeep stayed behind the boat shed for five or ten minutes. It then pulled
out in reverse and with its headlights on and drove down the road, in reverse, at a high
rate of speed. Brandon saw two people in the jeep but could not tell what they looked
like. He thought that the driver was “shorter” and that passenger was “a little bit taller.”
He also noticed that the passenger wore a beanie or sock cap on his head. Brian testified
that he saw two occupants in the vehicle but that he could not identify them.

Callie Hinson testified that she was the Defendant’s friend and had known him for
fifteen years. She testified that she would occasionally go with the Defendant to Mr.
Hill’s residence to buy marijuana. Ms. Hinson stated that Mr. Hill had the reputation as a
drug dealer in the community. Ms. Hinson recalled that on March 3, 2011, the Defendant
picked her up in Tiptonville at Decker’s gas station around 6:00 p.m., and the Defendant
eventually picked up two other friends, Matt Corum and Chelsey Windsor. Ms. Hinson
explained that they rode around, smoking marijuana and drinking beer, for about four and
a half hours. She recalled that they went to the fire department so that the Defendant
could look at a four-wheeler. They then went to Ridgely to get gas for the Defendant’s
vehicle sometime before 9:00 p.m. and then went to Tobacco Dock, a tobacco store.
They also went to Denver Harris’ house to pick up a CD. They rode “out by the river, in
the country[.]” Ms. Hinson stated that the Defendant did not seem angry or disturbed
when he dropped her off at Decker’s gas station around 10:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. She
stated that she had never seen the Defendant become violent or lose his temper, even
- 14 -
when he was drinking and using marijuana and Xanax. She recalled that the Defendant
was wearing a pair of camouflage bib overalls, blue jeans with torn ends that dragged on
the ground, a black shirt, a white hat, and boots.

On cross-examination, Ms. Hinson agreed that she had previously signed two
affidavits in which she stated that the Defendant dropped her off at Decker’s gas station
sometime between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. She agreed that the Defendant was using his
phone while in his vehicle and recalled that he was “texting.” Ms. Hinson acknowledged
that they also went to Mr. Hill’s residence that night, where the Defendant purchased
marijuana.

Matthew Corum, the Defendant’s friend, testified that he had known the
Defendant his entire life and that he had never seen the Defendant lose his temper or act
in anger. On the evening of March 3, 2011, the Defendant picked up Mr. Corum at his
residence sometime between 6:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Mr. Corum recalled that the
Defendant was wearing “[h]unting bibs,” which the Defendant wore often. After picking
up Ms. Windsor, they rode around smoking marijuana, drinking beer, and taking pills.
They went to the river, Pat’s service station, Tobacco Dock, to Andy Lee’s residence, to
Denver Harris’ house, and stopped by the fire station. Mr. Corum recalled that they also
stopped at a bank. Mr. Corum testified that the Defendant dropped him off at his
residence about 10:00 p.m. or 10:30 p.m. He stated that the Defendant did not act
unusual that night and did not appear angry about anything.

Joseph Jones and Sherry Price testified that they were working at the Tobacco
Dock on the night of March 3 when they received a phone call from the Defendant about
9:00 p.m. The Defendant said that he would be at the store in two minutes and asked that
Mr. Jones not close the store. When the Defendant arrived, Mr. Jones and Ms. Price
unlocked the front door and let him in. Mr. Jones noted that Mr. Corum, Ms. Hinson, and
Ms. Windsor were with the Defendant. The Defendant wore “some bibs and a long
sleeve dark shirt.” The following day, March 4, the Defendant came into the store
between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. when Mr. Jones and Ms. Price were working. The store
was full of people, and Mr. Jones and Ms. Price were talking about the victims’ murders
at the time the Defendant entered the store. Mr. Jones said that “a lot of rumors [were]
going around” and that he had heard that the victims had been shot. Ms. Price said that
she had heard that the victims had been “murdered, and stabbed, and Mr. Shell was by
the recliner and Ms. Shell was in the kitchen . . . .” Mr. Jones testified that the Defendant
had on what appeared to be the same clothing from the previous night.

Denver Harris testified that he lived in Ridgely on Poplar Street with his parents.
On the evening of March 3, the Defendant’s brother, Caylan Bargery, was spending the
night with Mr. Harris when Caylan received a phone call from the Defendant. Caylan
- 15 -
then went outside and placed the keys to his truck in the mailbox between 9:30 p.m. and
10:00 p.m.

Michael Reynolds and Katherine Jones testified that on the evening of March 3,
2011, they saw the Defendant and his “gold-ish . . . tannish” colored Nissan Altima at the
Regions Bank ATM in Tiptonville at about 10:00 p.m. They recalled that the Defendant
obtained money from the ATM machine and then got back into his vehicle, which
contained two or three other people.

Caylan Bargery, the Defendant’s youngest brother, testified that on the morning of
March 3, 2011, the Defendant drove him to school. That morning, the Defendant was
wearing his bib overalls and boots. Caylan recalled that the Defendant owned only one
pair of bib overalls and one pair of boots. Later that night, the Defendant retrieved a CD
from Caylan’s truck after he called Caylan from Ms. Hinson’s cell phone around 9:30
p.m. or 10:00 p.m. The following morning, Caylan went into the Defendant’s bedroom
and asked for the keys to his truck back. The Defendant appeared to have been sleeping
but told Caylan that the keys were either in his bib overalls or pants. The Defendant did
not get up, and Caylan pulled the keys out of the pants. Caylan acknowledged that he
had previously smoked marijuana with the Defendant and that he had gone with the
Defendant to Mr. Hill’s residence to purchase marijuana. Caylan explained that Mr. Hill
was a known drug dealer in Lake County. He testified that he had never seen the
Defendant lose his temper or get angry at anyone and stated that the Defendant was
always “laid back.”

Rhonda Strube testified that she worked as an adjunct instructor at Dyersburg
State Community College and that the Defendant had been one of her students. She
recalled that, on the morning of March 4, the Defendant took a make-up test, which he
finished in about fifteen or twenty minutes. After taking the test, the Defendant asked to
leave class early.

Matthew Knox, the Defendant’s cousin, testified that he met the Defendant around
lunchtime on March 4 at the levee. Mr. Knox explained that he and the Defendant had
previously decided to take a boat ride on the river. He recalled that, when he pulled up at
the levee, the Defendant and his car were on top of the levee. There was a small fire that
looked like the Defendant may have been “burning some trash out of his car, like bottles
and paper, stuff like that.” Mr. Knox said that, while he put the boat into the water, the
Defendant met with someone at the bottom of the levee, but he did not see the individual.
Mr. Knox testified that he and the Defendant were in the boat on the river for about an
hour or hour and a half. While on the water, the Defendant drank beer and smoked
marijuana. Mr. Knox thought that the Defendant “seemed a little stressed about money”
because the Defendant “kept counting his money[.]” Mr. Knox stated that, later that day,
- 16 -
the Defendant stopped by his home. Mr. Knox got into the Defendant’s vehicle, and they
went to a carwash in Tiptonville, where they met Tony Hayes, and the Defendant sold
Mr. Hayes a gun. After this meeting, the Defendant and Mr. Knox went to their
grandfather’s2 shop where the Defendant “put a couple of other guns out there in an old
trailer.” He recalled that he had previously seen the Defendant put a push mower and a
couple of chain saws in the trailer. He testified that he thought the Defendant had
obtained the items from “crack heads.” Mr. Knox said that, by this time, he had heard
about the murders but did not know that there were guns missing from the crime scene.
He stated that, when he went back out to the trailer three weeks later, the guns were gone.
Mr. Knox testified that he had never seen the Defendant angry or lose his temper.

Regina Bargery, the Defendant’s mother, testified that the Owl Hoot area where
the murders occurred was a “little community” close to the Dyer County line. She
explained that the Defendant’s great-grandmother, Mrs. Smith, lived in a house in the
Owl Hoot community until the “first part of 2010.” Mrs. Bargery explained that Mrs.
Smith’s home was located across a field from the victims’ residence. Mrs. Bargery
explained that the Defendant was twenty years old in March 2011. She described the
Defendant’s personality as “[f]un-loving, outgoing, laid back” and “[v]ery
compassionate.” The Defendant showed no tendency toward violence. She recalled that
the Defendant was living at home in March 2011. She saw the Defendant on the
mornings of March 3 and 4, and on both mornings, the Defendant was wearing a pair of
camouflage bib overalls, jeans, a pair of boots, and a black long-sleeve, insulated shirt.
On the morning of March 4, the Defendant spoke to Mrs. Bargery in her hair salon,
located at the back of their residence before he went to school at Dyersburg State
Community College.

Around 11:00 a.m. on March 4, Mrs. Bargery called the Defendant and told him
that she had heard that the victims had been shot and killed. Sometime before midnight
on March 4, she received a phone call from someone saying that the Defendant had been
arrested. When she arrived at the jail, she learned that the Defendant had been arrested
for marijuana possession. She went back home without seeing the Defendant. Minutes
later, several deputies arrived at her home. Deputy Allison told her that the Defendant
had been arrested for the victims’ murders. She gave them permission to search the
home, and deputies seized various items belonging to the Defendant. Mrs. Bargery
testified that the Defendant did not need money. He worked and had access to additional
money from his grandparents if he needed it. Mrs. Bargery recalled that the Defendant
called her from jail the day after his arrest and told her that he was sorry. The Defendant
was crying and upset. During the call, the Defendant spoke to his brother and said,
“Caylan, I’m sorry, I F’d up[.]”

2
Mr. Knox testified that he and the Defendant had the same grandfather.
- 17 -
Rachelle Chisholm testified that she lived on Headden Drive in Tiptonville in
2011 with her husband and son, Curt. Mrs. Chisholm explained that Curt and the
Defendant were best friends and that the Defendant spent time at their residence most
days. Mrs. Chisholm described the Defendant as a “tender-hearted, kind, [and]
considerate[.]” She recalled that she saw the Defendant twice on March 3, 2011, and that
the Defendant was wearing bib overalls, a long sleeved black shirt, blue jeans, and boots.
The Defendant was also at her residence on March 4, the evening of his arrest. She
testified that the Defendant “didn’t seem himself” that evening. She stated, “I didn’t
smell any alcohol on him, but he seemed like he had taken something.” Mrs. Chisholm
recalled that the Defendant bumped into a cart in their kitchen twice, knocking items to
the floor. She further recalled that the Defendant was wearing the same clothing as the
previous day.

Ryan Bargery, the Defendant’s younger brother, testified that in March 2011, the
Defendant owned one pair of camouflage bib overalls and one pair of boots. Ryan
admitted that he used to smoke marijuana with the Defendant. He further stated that he
knew Mr. Hill and that Mr. Hill was a drug dealer in the community. Ryan explained that
he had never seen the Defendant in a fight, get angry, or lose his temper.

The Defendant testified that he graduated from high school in 2008. He explained
that he began using marijuana and “experimenting with pills” while in high school. After
graduation, the Defendant worked at a boat dock, Cypress Point Resort, until the time of
his arrest in March 2011 when he was twenty years old. The Defendant testified that, at
that time, he was enrolled in Dyersburg State Community College and needed two
additional classes for his degree. The Defendant testified that by the time of his arrest he
was using marijuana “several times a day, every day[,]” and he took Xanax. He
explained that the marijuana and Xanax made him “real mellow” and calm. The
Defendant said that he smoked marijuana with several friends, including Andy Lee. He
stated that he met Shondell Hill, “[t]he drug dealer there in Ridgely,” through Mr. Lee in
2007 or 2008 when the Defendant was seventeen or eighteen years old. The Defendant
recalled that he would buy marijuana from Mr. Hill “almost every day.” The Defendant
often went to Mr. Hill’s residence in Ridgely, where he would “hang out” and play video
games with Mr. Hill. The Defendant stated that he believed that he and Mr. Hill were
“good friends.” They would “ride around and smoke” in the Defendant’s vehicle because
Mr. Hill did not have a driver’s license and did not want to drive. The Defendant
explained that he eventually began taking Mr. Hill to various locations in Lake County
for Mr. Hill to sell drugs and deliver marijuana. The Defendant stated that he knew that
Mr. Hill was affiliated with a gang, but he never asked Mr. Hill which gang. He stated
that he benefitted from driving Mr. Hill around to sell marijuana because the Defendant
“was basically getting free marijuana from [Mr. Hill]” for driving. Regarding Mr. Hill’s
- 18 -
client base, the Defendant stated that it was “[a]nywhere from Dyersburg to Union City
and Lake County.”

The Defendant recalled that, by 2010, he was at Mr. Hill’s residence playing video
games and using marijuana “close to every other day[.]” The Defendant recalled a time
in 2010 when he and Mr. Hill were out riding on Owl Hoot Road when he pointed out his
great-grandmother’s house. The Defendant stated, “When we passed by my great-
granny’s house I just off-hand said that’s where my great-grandmother lived. That’s
where she lives, just pointing it out.” The Defendant explained that the Owl Hoot
community consisted of five or six houses and that only two houses were close to one
another—the victims’ residence and the house where his great-grandmother had lived
before she moved closer to town. However, the Defendant testified that he had not
known the victims and had been unaware that they lived in the residence. He believed
that Doris Spence, his great-grandmother’s sister-in-law, lived in the home.

The Defendant explained that he occasionally sold items for Mr. Hill, such as
electronics, phones, and guns, and that Mr. Hill would split the proceeds from such sales
with him or pay him in marijuana. The Defendant explained that he would smoke some
of the marijuana and also bag some of it to sell to friends. The Defendant stated that Mr.
Hill would sometimes place items in his vehicle for the Defendant to sell.

The Defendant testified that the first time he saw Joel Hernandez was at the
Greyhound bus station in Memphis in 2010. He explained that Mr. Hill had asked him to
drive to Memphis and pick up Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Hernandez’s girlfriend and bring
them to Lake County. When he and Mr. Hill picked up Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Hernandez
had two suitcases with him. Mr. Hill did not introduce the Defendant to Mr. Hernandez
at that time.

The Defendant recalled that he picked up Mr. Hernandez from the Greyhound bus
station in Memphis a second time on March 1, 2011. He explained that he had rented
Cabin 9 at Boyette’s the day before. He explained that he rented the cabin in his name
because Mr. Hill “didn’t want the cabin to be in his name.” Mr. Hill told the Defendant
that he would give the Defendant marijuana and cash for picking up Mr. Hernandez and
renting the cabin. According to the Defendant, Mr. Hernandez was supposed to be at
Cabin 9 from Tuesday, March 1 through Friday, March 4. Mr. Hill rode to Memphis
with the Defendant to pick up Mr. Hernandez. When they arrived, the Defendant went
into the bus station to get Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Hernandez had two suitcases and a duffle
bag. He helped Mr. Hernandez with the luggage and stated that they each weighed about
forty to fifty pounds. The Defendant drove to Cabin 9 to drop off Mr. Hernandez, but he
did not go inside with Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Hill. The Defendant recalled that, when
Mr. Hill exited the cabin, he had a tote bag full of marijuana.
- 19 -
The Defendant and Mr. Hill then drove to the Kentucky state line where Mr. Hill
met with some men in a car around midnight to sell marijuana. The Defendant recalled
that Mr. Hill initially approached the other car and spoke to the occupants. He then took
out one of the bricks of marijuana from the tote bag and showed it to the occupants. A
few minutes later, Mr. Hill called Mr. Hernandez. During the call, Mr. Hill was
“vehemently explaining to [Mr. Hernandez] what he was trying to tell him in the phone
call.” After speaking to Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Hill grabbed the tote bag and handed it to
the people from Kentucky. When Mr. Hill returned to the Defendant’s vehicle with the
tote bag, the bag was empty. The Defendant then drove Mr. Hill to Cabin 9.

The Defendant testified that on the morning of March 2, he put on a black shirt,
camouflage bib overalls, a pair of blue jeans, white hat, and boots before going to school.
He stated that he owned only one pair of bib overalls and that the cuffs of his blue jeans
dragged the ground when he walked. He testified that he wore the same clothing the rest
of the week. After class, the Defendant picked up Mr. Hill, and they drove back to Cabin
9. Mr. Hill went inside the cabin and came out with Mr. Hernandez’s duffle bag, which
was full of marijuana. The Defendant then drove Mr. Hill to several locations where Mr.
Hill sold the marijuana to various individuals. At one location, Mr. Hill delivered
anywhere from five to nine bricks of marijuana. When Mr. Hill returned to the car, he
pulled out “an amount of money folded over.” The Defendant stated that it was “a lot of .
. . bills.” He then drove Mr. Hill to Peach Tree Apartments where Mr. Hill again
delivered a quantity of marijuana in exchange for cash. They drove from Dyersburg to
Union City, and Mr. Hill delivered more marijuana. After leaving Union City, the
Defendant heard a phone call between Mr. Hill and Mr. Hernandez. He then drove Mr.
Hill back to Cabin 9, and they both went inside. The Defendant testified that there was
“an intense discussion” between Mr. Hill and Mr. Hernandez at that time and that it
looked like the men were going to fight. Mr. Hernandez was angry and scared and
“wasn’t happy with the way things were going.” The Defendant explained that, although
the agreed-upon sale price for the marijuana had been between $1100 and $1300 per
pound, Mr. Hernandez was “getting considerably less” from Mr. Hill—around $700 to
$800 per pound. The Defendant testified that Mr. Hernandez got his marijuana from
Texas “[f]rom the people that sent him down.” The Defendant stated that he was only in
Cabin 9 on March 2.

The Defendant recalled that he went to school early the next day to take an exam.
About thirty minutes before the exam, Mr. Hill called the Defendant and told him that
Mr. Hernandez was going to be leaving that day. Mr. Hill wanted the Defendant to drive
Mr. Hernandez to a different Greyhound bus station in Jackson. Mr. Hernandez left his
duffle bag with Mr. Hill for Mr. Hill to finish selling the marijuana. Mr. Hill was

- 20 -
“supposed to get the money and send it on to [Mr. Hernandez] after he got through
selling it.”

The Defendant drove Mr. Hernandez alone to Jackson, and they smoked marijuana
on the way there. The Defendant recalled that, during the drive, Mr. Hernandez began
shaking, rubbing his face, and mumbling to himself. Mr. Hernandez seemed “real
stressed out.” Mr. Hernandez told the Defendant that, “from now on,” the Defendant
would be picking up him and the marijuana in Texas instead of Mr. Hernandez’s taking a
bus. Mr. Hernandez also stated that the Defendant was “gonna be selling more
marijuana, a lot of . . . large amounts of marijuana.” The Defendant testified that this was
when he “realized [he] was in way over [his] head,” and he explained to Mr. Hernandez
that he could not do that. However, Mr. Hernandez did not accept the Defendant’s
refusal. Mr. Hernandez asked the Defendant for his phone number because he wanted to
be able to contact the Defendant. Mr. Hernandez then stored his phone number in the
Defendant’s cell phone under the name “Lobo.” The Defendant stated that, rather than
arguing with Mr. Hernandez, he decided to talk to Mr. Hill about the plan. He believed
that Mr. Hill would “be reasonable” about the situation because Mr. Hill knew that the
Defendant lived at home with his mother. The Defendant recalled that Mr. Hernandez
made several phone calls during the drive and that he spoke in Spanish during the calls.
At one point, he heard Mr. Hernandez say, “Mi cholos,” but he did not know what that
meant.

The Defendant stated that he called Mr. Hill as soon as he dropped off Mr.
Hernandez in Jackson. The Defendant explained that, when he called Mr. Hill about his
conversation with Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Hill initially told him to “calm down” and that
“[i]t’s not gonna be that often[.]” During a second phone call with Mr. Hill, Mr. Hill was
angry and would not listen to the Defendant. Mr. Hill was mad at Mr. Hernandez “for
approaching [the Defendant] to sell marijuana.” The Defendant drove to Mr. Hill’s
residence to further discuss the situation. When he arrived, Mr. Hill was “very mad” at
the Defendant and began “grilling” him about what the Defendant had said to Mr.
Hernandez. The Defendant assured Mr. Hill that he had “take[n] up” for Mr. Hill and
told Mr. Hernandez that he could not sell marijuana or drive for Mr. Hernandez.
However, Mr. Hill did not believe the Defendant. The Defendant stated, “I thought at
any moment [Mr. Hill] was just gonna rear back and . . . smack me.” He said that he was
scared of what Mr. Hill was accusing him of and felt threatened by Mr. Hill. The
Defendant testified:

Because what we were talking involved way, way, way more than what I
was prepared to do and it was on so many levels on top of what I was, what
I could ever be. And I knew that there was [sic] some serious people
involved and I couldn’t -- I didn’t want to be involved in this. And they
- 21 -
were -- they were telling me that I was involved, that I was gonna be
involved, that I didn’t have any choice about it.

The Defendant attempted to talk to Mr. Hill about driving back and forth to Texas. He
explained why he could not do it, but Mr. Hill did not accept his explanation. Mr. Hill
said that the Defendant did not have any choice about whether to drive Mr. Hernandez.
The Defendant testified that, when he left Mr. Hill’s residence around 5:30 p.m., he
intended to “cut[] ties as best as [he] could[.]”

The Defendant recalled that he picked up Ms. Hinson at Decker’s gas station
around 6:00 p.m. and then picked up Ms. Windsor. They “rode around for a little while”
until Mr. Coram got off work, and then the Defendant picked up Mr. Coram. The
Defendant recalled that he drove to the fire station and several other places, like the
Tobacco Dock and the bank. The Defendant testified that he was smoking marijuana,
taking Xanax, and drinking beer that night. He dropped Ms. Hinson off around 10:30
p.m. and then took Ms. Windsor and Mr. Coram to Mr. Coram’s house. The Defendant
then went home and got in bed. He was watching television and was about to go to sleep
when Mr. Hill called him at 11:42 p.m. After the call, the Defendant put the same clothes
back on and went to Mr. Hill’s residence because he did not want Mr. Hill to continue to
be angry with him.

When he arrived at Mr. Hill’s residence, there was a gold-colored car already
parked in the driveway. Mr. Hill was standing by the vehicle talking to two other people
and one man was sitting in the driver’s seat of the car. Mr. Hill walked over to the
Defendant’s vehicle and got in the passenger seat. As a result of what Mr. Hill told him,
the Defendant drove up to Highway 78 headed towards Dyersburg and turned onto
Highway 79. When the Defendant asked Mr. Hill “why [they] were going up there,” Mr.
Hill did not have a friendly response. When he got to Owl Hoot Road, the Defendant
drove towards his great-grandmother’s old house. When he pulled into the driveway, no
one was there. The Defendant told Mr. Hill that his great-grandmother no longer lived at
the residence and “had been gone for a[]while.” However, Mr. Hill did not believe the
Defendant. Mr. Hill cursed at the Defendant and was angry.3 The Defendant testified
that he was scared and that he did not know what Mr. Hill intended to do. Mr. Hill then
told the Defendant to do something else, and as a result, the Defendant pulled back out
onto the road and stopped in front of the driveway to the victims’ residence. The gold-

3
During a defense proffer, the Defendant testified that when he questioned Mr. Hill about where
they were going, Mr. Hill responded, “Just drive man! Just go!” The Defendant said that Mr. Hill was
not “talking in a normal voice.” The Defendant further testified that Mr. Hill instructed him to pull into
the victims’ driveway, saying, “Just pull in the f***ing driveway. Just get in the driveway.” When Mr.
Hill told the Defendant to turn off his headlights, Mr. Hill said, “You dumb a**, turn the g** d**n lights
off.”
- 22 -
colored car pulled into the driveway, and the Defendant followed the vehicle. The
Defendant recalled that, as he was pulling in behind the gold-colored car, he saw that the
car was a Ford with Texas plates. Three “Mexican men” stepped out of the car wearing
gloves on their hands. The “short one” that had been sitting in the back of the gold-
colored car signaled for the Defendant to turn off his headlights, and Mr. Hill cussed at
the Defendant for pulling into the driveway with the headlights on. Mr. Hill then said
something to the Defendant, and as a result, the Defendant got out of the car. The
Defendant testified that, based on Mr. Hill’s tone of voice, he did not believe that he had
a choice but to get out of the vehicle. He stated that he was afraid of Mr. Hill. When Mr.
Hill exited his vehicle, Mr. Hill pulled a pair of gloves out of the pocket of his hoodie.
The Defendant continued to ask Mr. Hill why they were there, but Mr. Hill did not
respond.

The Defendant recalled that the front porchlight of the victims’ residence was on.
He noticed that, when “the three Mexicans” stepped onto the porch, they “all three had
knives in their hands.” The “tall Mexican” then opened the front door and walked inside
the residence. The Defendant explained that he was “rooted to the spot” as soon as he
saw the knives, and he started crying. Mr. Hill walked up onto the porch and opened the
storm door. He motioned for the Defendant to follow, but the Defendant shook his head
at him. The Defendant stated that, as Mr. Hill was motioning for him, he heard “a really
loud sound” coming from inside and then the sound of “gurgling.” When Mr. Hill
entered the residence, the Defendant heard a woman screaming. The Defendant testified
that he “couldn’t move.” He recalled that the “tall Mexican” came back outside and said,
“Come on, white boy.” However, he turned away from the “tall Mexican” and continued
to stand in the driveway. The “tall Mexican” then walked over to the Defendant, grabbed
his shoulder, turned him around, and slapped the Defendant on the side of the head. The
“tall Mexican” told him, “Quit crying like a little bitch.” He told the Defendant they
were “going into the house,” and he grabbed the back of the Defendant’s neck and right
arm and directed him into the residence. When he entered the residence, the Defendant
saw a body lying across the room, and he turned and ran back out the front door and into
the yard. The “tall Mexican” and Mr. Hill followed the Defendant out of the house. The
“tall Mexican” asked him, “What’s wrong, white boy, you can’t handle a little blood?”
The “tall Mexican” then said, “This is what happens to people who think that they can
f*** with us.” He told the Defendant, “You are going to do every[thing] and anything
that you’re told to do or this s*** [will] happen again.” The “tall Mexican” told the
Defendant to come inside the house.

When he entered the residence, the Defendant went into the master bedroom
where Mr. Hill was going through a drawer. The “fat Mexican” had two guns in his
hands, and he pointed a gun at the Defendant and said, “Bang, bang.” The “short
Mexican” then walked out of the bathroom, wiping his hands off on a towel. The
- 23 -
Defendant testified that they were no longer wearing gloves. Mr. Hill grabbed a laptop
off the floor and handed it to the Defendant and told him to take it to his car and then
come back in and “grab some more stuff.” When the Defendant returned, the “tall
Mexican” was coming out of the kitchen. He had blood on his shirt, on both of his hands,
and on a knife that he held in his hand. The “tall Mexican” approached the Defendant,
pointed the knife at his chest, and said, “Take it. Take it. Take it. Take it.” The
Defendant took the knife, and the “tall Mexican” wiped both of his hands on the
Defendant’s. The “tall Mexican” said, “Now their blood is really on your hands.” The
“tall Mexican” then took the knife back from the Defendant, and the Defendant “broke
down” again.

Mr. Hill told the Defendant to wash his hands in the bathroom. He then instructed
the Defendant to grab the guns and put them in his car. Once outside, the “tall Mexican”
put the gloves inside a McDonald’s bag and tossed the bag to Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill then got
into the passenger seat of the Defendant’s car with a knife in his hand. Mr. Hill took a
camera and pistol out of his pocket and put them in the glove box. The Defendant
testified that he never saw the knife that Mr. Hill had again. The Defendant stated that he
did not know if he ever handled the knife found in his car and that he did not know if it
was the same knife the “tall Mexican” handed him. The “tall Mexican” approached the
Defendant, put his hands on the Defendant’s shoulders, and said, “You gonna be okay,
white boy? This is good fun, huh? Just remember, you do everything you’re . . . told or
this - this will happen again.” The Defendant testified, “They thought that they had just
killed my great-granny and [Mr. Hill] knew where my mama lived, where my brothers
lived.” He stated that he “wasn’t gonna let that happen to [his] family.”

After leaving the crime scene, Mr. Hill turned on the victims’ laptop but could not
get into it. As they pulled into the driveway of Mr. Hill’s home, the Defendant asked
what to do with the victims’ property. Mr. Hill stated that the victims’ property was to be
left in the Defendant’s car for the night. Mr. Hill told the Defendant that he needed to
return the following morning and that he needed to “find a way to get into the laptop.”
The Defendant returned home and went to bed, but he did not sleep. He stated that he felt
that he “couldn’t tell what happened because [he] didn’t want what happened to the
[victims] to happen to [his] family.” The Defendant explained that he did not call the
police because he “wasn’t gonna do anything to get [his] family killed.” He stated that he
first told his attorneys what happened the night the victims were murdered about a month
and a half before trial.

The Defendant stated that he went to school to take a make-up mid-term exam at
10:00 a.m. and that he was dressed in the same clothing that he had worn the previous
night. After class, the Defendant called several people about accessing the laptop and
then drove to Mr. Hill’s residence where Mr. Hill gave the Defendant “the rest of the
- 24 -
marijuana that he [] owed [the Defendant] from the week and some cash[.]” The
Defendant asked Mr. Hill about the previous night, but Mr. Hill did not answer his
questions. The Defendant asked Mr. Hill what he wanted to do with the victims’
property, which was still in the Defendant’s car. Mr. Hill gave the Defendant directions
in a “forceful” demeanor. The Defendant explained that, as a result of Mr. Hill’s
response, he understood that he had to “sell all the stuff off quick[.]”4

The Defendant recalled that he went on a boat ride with his cousin, Mr. Knox,
later that day. When he got to the boat dock, the Defendant took the McDonalds bag
containing the gloves out of his car. He stated that he burned the bag and its contents
because of his conversation with Mr. Hill. While on the boat with Mr. Knox, the
Defendant smoked marijuana, took Xanax, and drank beer. The Defendant testified that
he pulled out his money and “started trying to calculate for the [victims’] guns and the
cameras and stuff how much [he] could just give to [Mr. Hill] and just tell [Mr. Hill] that
he sold all the stuff and not sell it.” While on the boat, the Defendant received several
text messages from Mr. Hill about the Defendant “selling the stuff.” The Defendant
denied that he deleted any text messages from his phone that day. The Defendant
testified that he later sold the victims’ camera, and then he called Mr. Lee. He asked Mr.
Lee what he had heard about the murders and told Mr. Lee that he had “come across
some guns” and wanted to sell them. According to the Defendant, Mr. Lee told him that
Mr. Shell had been found in the living room but that Mrs. Shell was in the kitchen. Mr.
Lee said that “they were both cut real bad” and that “[t]heir throats had been cut.” Mr.
Lee told the Defendant that there was “blood everywhere” and that it “looked like a lot of
people had [gone] in and just ransacked the place.” The Defendant went to Mr. Lee’s
residence around 3:00 p.m. and showed Mr. Lee the guns; however, Mr. Lee “didn’t want
any.” The Defendant stated that, after leaving Mr. Lee’s residence, he and Mr. Knox
drove out to a trailer on the Defendant’s grandfather’s property where the Defendant
stored the victims’ stolen guns. Later, the Defendant and Mr. Knox met a man at a car
wash in Tiptonville, and the man bought one of the victims’ guns. The Defendant
testified that he had been unaware of the jewelry in his trunk.

The Defendant explained that, later that night, he went to the Tobacco Dock.
When he approached the counter, there were customers and employees talking about the
murders. The Defendant stated that one man was “talking about all the details” of the
murders. The man said that Mrs. Shell “had the phone in her hand and she’d been trying
to run out the back door and that she was on her back.” He also stated that the victims’
throats had been cut and that there was “[a] lot of blood.” The Defendant testified that he
4
During another defense proffer, the Defendant testified that Mr. Hill threatened him by saying,
“Because we know where your family’s at. We know where you’re all at out on the highway. We know
where your granddaddy lives over in the Ville. We know where your grandparents live. You know
what’ll happen.”
- 25 -
left the Tobacco Dock and went to the Chisholm residence. He stated that he took the
laptop and a pistol belonging to the victims into the home because he wanted everything
out of his car. While in Curt’s bedroom, the Defendant began “bag[ging] some more
marijuana up.” The Defendant explained that he made plans with a friend, Amber, to
meet her in Dyersburg and sell her the laptop. Regarding his interaction with police
while at the Chisholm residence, the Defendant explained that after he got off the phone
with Amber, Curt ran into the bedroom and said, “[T]he cops are here.” The Defendant
had a “big stack of marijuana in [his] lap and then a bigger stack sitting [] on the bed with
scales and everything.” The Defendant gathered up the marijuana and went out the back
door of the house. He put the bigger bag of marijuana into a cooler and then “bent down
like [he] was petting the puppies” in the backyard. At that time, Deputy Leake came to
the back door and yelled at the Defendant, saying he wanted to talk to the Defendant.
The Defendant asked, “What’s this about, Owl Hoot?” The Defendant stated that he
asked the question because everyone in the community was talking about the murders,
and the Defendant wanted to see what the police would say about the crime. The
Defendant testified that he did not delete text messages from his cell phone before
Deputy Leake removed the phone from his pocket.

The Defendant stated that, between noon and the time of his arrest that night, he
smoked ten blunts of marijuana, took fifteen Xanax pills, and drank beer. Regarding his
interview with Agent Bishop, the Defendant stated that Agent Bishop “wanted to know
what [he’d] heard” about the murders. The Defendant told Agent Bishop what
“everybody in town had been talking about[.]” They then discussed the Defendant’s drug
use, and the Defendant agreed with Agent Bishop that someone in a “constant state of
inebriation” was “not really in reality” and everything has a “dreamlike quality.” The
Defendant admitted that he lied to Agent Bishop when he said he did not go to the
victims’ residence. He stated that he could not tell Agent Bishop the truth, explaining:

If I told somebody [-] I wasn’t gonna let that happen to my - I was keeping
my family out of it. I - I was ready to go to jail. I was ready to die to keep
my family out of this. I didn’t want anything to happen to my mama like
what happened . . . [t]o the [victims].

The Defendant testified that he was not at the victims’ residence that night of his
own free will and that he did not want to enter the house. He went in because the “tall
Mexican” made him. The Defendant denied that he killed the victims and denied telling
Agent Bishop that he had done so. The Defendant also testified that he was not acting of
his own free will when he sold the items taken from the victims’ residence and stated that
he had not wanted to sell the items. He testified that he did not tell Agent Bishop the
truth because he did not want anything to happen to his family.

- 26 -
On cross-examination, the Defendant stated that he had “plenty of marijuana” and
Xanax on March 4, 2011, explaining that Mr. Hill had given him $500 and a quarter of a
pound of marijuana. The Defendant admitted that he received $35 for the victims’
camera, and he sold the victims’ guns for a total of about $100.

Shondell Hill testified that he graduated from high school in 1998, and from that
time until June 2011, he made money by selling marijuana and crack cocaine. He
explained that he joined the Black Gangster Disciples when he was fourteen or fifteen
years old and that he had two previous felony convictions for selling crack cocaine. He
agreed that he beat up a man that had testified before a grand jury regarding one of the
crack cocaine charges. Mr. Hill stated that, before March 2011, he had known the
Defendant for about five or six months and that he met the Defendant through a mutual
friend. He stated that the Defendant would call him almost every morning on the way to
school, wanting to purchase “either a blunt or a dime sack.” He recalled that the
Defendant also sometimes called in the afternoons and sent him text messages about
coming to purchase marijuana. Mr. Hill recalled that the Defendant would occasionally
come over to his house where they would play video games.

Mr. Hill testified that he knew Joel Hernandez, whose nickname was “Lobo.” He
explained that Mr. Hernandez would bring him marijuana from Texas on a Greyhound
bus. Mr. Hill stated that, in February 2011, he asked the Defendant to drive him to
Memphis to the Greyhound bus station to pick up Mr. Hernandez. He stated that this was
the only time that the Defendant drove for him. Once at the bus station, Mr. Hill sent the
Defendant inside to find Mr. Hernandez. Mr. Hill explained that they were in the
Defendant’s car and that he remained in the car while the Defendant went inside the bus
station. The Defendant then drove the men back to Lake County. Mr. Hill stated that
Mr. Hernandez brought about ten pounds of marijuana with him from Texas and
explained that a pound of marijuana could sell for $800 to $1,000 or more, depending on
the quality. Mr. Hill recalled that, when Mr. Hernandez’s business was completed in
Lake County, the Defendant drove Mr. Hernandez back to the bus station, but Mr. Hill
did not go with them. Mr. Hill explained that he paid the Defendant in marijuana; he
gave the Defendant four ounces to pick up Mr. Hernandez and another four ounces to
take Mr. Hernandez back to the bus station. Mr. Hill explained that, during this time, he
did not have a driver’s license. He stated that this was the only occasion in which the
Defendant was around Mr. Hernandez.

Mr. Hill recalled that, before Mr. Hernandez’s arrival, he asked the Defendant to
rent a room for Mr. Hernandez at Boyette’s. He explained that he paid for the cabin but
that it was rented in the Defendant’s name. He stated that he did not know anything
about a pot farm in Obion County. Mr. Hill testified that Mr. Hernandez stayed alone at
Cabin 9 during the week of March 1. Mr. Hill never saw a gold-colored car or anyone
- 27 -
else with Mr. Hernandez at the cabin. Mr. Hill recalled that Mr. Hernandez came to
Memphis about every three weeks and that, between trips, he communicated with Mr.
Hernandez “[p]robably once a week.” He stated that he did not know whether Mr.
Hernandez belonged to a prison gang. Mr. Hill recalled that, on the morning of March 2,
the Defendant drove him to Cabin 9 to pick up the marijuana. The Defendant drove Mr.
Hill around Tiptonville while he tried to sell the marijuana. Mr. Hill noticed that the
marijuana was “real seedy and sticky” and smelled like dryer sheets. Around 9:00 or
10:00 a.m., Mr. Hill attempted to sell the marijuana to two African-American men at the
Kentucky state line, but the men did not want the marijuana. Mr. Hill recalled that Mr.
Hernandez left Cabin 9 on March 3, 2011, rather than stay until March 4 because “the
weed he brought was garbage and it wasn’t selling[.]” Mr. Hill told Mr. Hernandez that
the marijuana was “terrible,” but Mr. Hernandez responded, “Come on . . . you’ve got to
be able to do something for me. I know you can make it happen.” Mr. Hill told Mr.
Hernandez that people would pay for the marijuana but not at the price Mr. Hernandez
wanted. He told Mr. Hernandez to take the marijuana back to Texas with him, but Mr.
Hernandez did not want to risk it so the marijuana remained with Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill
admitted that he eventually sold the marijuana. He stated that he paid Mr. Hernandez
$1,500 for about two pounds’ worth of marijuana. He stated that, had he paid Mr.
Hernandez what he was asking for it, he would have paid between $4,000 and $5,000.

Mr. Hill was unaware of the Defendant’s discussions with Mr. Hernandez on the
way back to Jackson. The Defendant never told Mr. Hill that Mr. Hernandez had offered
him the opportunity to deal directly with him. Mr. Hill stated that he had no reason to
call the Defendant at 11:42 p.m. on March 3, 2011. He stated that he was at home on the
night of March 3 and the early morning hours of March 4 and that he never left his
residence. He further stated that no one visited his house during that time. Mr. Hill
testified that it was only after the victims were murdered that he learned that the
Defendant’s grandmother had lived on Owl Hoot Road. He said that it was his
understanding that the victims were the Defendant’s grandparents.

Mr. Hill said that, after the Defendant dropped off Mr. Hernandez at the bus
station in Jackson, the Defendant called him to let him know that Mr. Hernandez made it
to the bus station. Mr. Hill denied that the Defendant came by his residence that night.
Mr. Hill testified that the following morning, March 4, he woke up to find that the
Defendant had called him five or six times around 4:00 a.m. and sent a text message at
6:30 a.m., asking him to call the Defendant. The Defendant then came over to his
residence. Mr. Hill explained:

I opened up my back door, [the Defendant] walked in, he said,
“What’s up, my guy?” That’s how he talked to me -- every time he
enter[ed] my house and we talk[ed] on the phone, he’d say, “My guy.” He
- 28 -
came on in. He had a laptop and he had like a jewelry bag or some type of
Crown Royal bag or something. He began to pour the jewelry out in his
hand. And I told him he could -- he was wasting his time with that. I told
him it looked oldish. I said it looked old-timey, my exact words to him.
He put that up. I told him I was interested in the laptop. He opened -- he
flipped the laptop open, he proceeded to try to power it on. He powered it
on, it had a lock code in it. Then, after he couldn’t get through the code he
made a phone call to somebody. And I don’t know they [sic] name. He
asked them, he said, “I got a laptop.” He said, “You think you can get it
open for me?” I don’t know what the reply was over the phone. But he got
off the phone, he said, “Hey, I think I know somebody that can open it.”
He put that -- he put it up. And he let -- When he first came in he also said
he had a -- he said he had a trunk full. I asked him where he got that from.
He said, “We hit a lick last night.” He never said who we were or none of
that. I didn’t ever ask who “we” were. But he said, “We hit a lick last
night.”

Later that afternoon, when he learned about the victims’ murders, he called the
Defendant. Mr. Hill explained:

Because he had just left my house with a computer and some
jewelry, and I -- because when he said, “We hit a lick,” like I said, when
my friend came over and was telling me about, “Did you hear about the
double murder,” it instantly made me call [the Defendant]. I said, “That
stuff you got, did that belong to them people that got killed?” His exact
words, he said, “No. Them [sic] was my kin people.” And I said, “Why
you didn’t tell me this while you was here?” He didn’t reply or nothing . . .
I told him, I said, “Make sure you get my fingerprints off that laptop,”
because I had just been looking at it.

Mr. Hill could not explain why his phone records did not show that the Defendant called
him five or six times on the morning of March 4.

Mr. Hill recalled meeting a man named Luis Mendez while incarcerated at the
Lake County Jail. Mr. Mendez was in jail for trafficking marijuana. About six or seven
months after Mr. Hill got out of jail, Mr. Mendez called him. Mr. Mendez stayed at Mr.
Hill’s residence, and Mr. Hill provided him with money to return home to Texas. When
Mr. Mendez later returned to Lake County on a Greyhound bus, he brought Mr.
Hernandez with him.

- 29 -
Joel Hernandez, Jr., testified that he was born in Laredo, Texas, that he was thirty-
three years old, and that he was serving a sentence in the United States Penitentiary in
Allenwood, Pennsylvania for “smuggling illegal aliens.” Mr. Hernandez stated that Mr.
Mendez was a friend from high school in Texas. He stated that he had “no idea” if Mr.
Mendez was a gang member. Mr. Hernandez denied that he was a member of the Texas
Mexican Mafia or “Mexikanemi”; rather, he stated that he was a gang “associate” while
in prison, which meant that he was under the gang’s protection and “[j]ust hangs around”
gang members. Mr. Hernandez denied that he ever worked for the Mexikanemi. He
acknowledged, however, that he signed a document from the Allenwood, Pennsylvania
prison, which stated that he had been a member of the gang since 2009. Mr. Hernandez
identified several photographs of his tattoos but denied that the tattoos were gang
insignia. He stated that they had “nothing to do with . . . the Mexican Mafia” but that
they were simply art denoting “Aztec culture.” Mr. Hernandez testified that the
Mexikanemi was a criminal gang consisting of “[b]ig bad boys from prison.” He stated
that to become a member of the Mexikanemi an individual must “kill somebody.” He
said that he had never been asked to join the gang. He identified several photographs of
himself and other prison inmates that his aunt had posted on his Facebook page and
admitted that two individuals in the photographs were Mexikanemi members.

Mr. Hernandez stated that he met Mr. Hill through Mr. Mendez when he
accompanied Mr. Mendez to Tennessee while Mr. Mendez was transporting marijuana on
a bus. Mr. Hernandez admitted that he later came to Tennessee by bus to bring Mr. Hill
marijuana three or four times. Mr. Hernandez recalled that he stayed in a cabin for two
days in March 2011, while in Lake County. He stated that he never left the cabin except
to go out to eat with the Defendant and Mr. Hill. He recalled that the Defendant was
“driving [Mr. Hill] around.” He denied that anyone in a gold or champagne-colored car
with Texas tags came to see him or that he went anywhere in this car. He recalled that,
when Mr. Hill and the Defendant picked him up from the bus station, he had a duffle bag
and a backpack. He stated that he had about five pounds of marijuana inside the
backpack, which he sold to Mr. Hill for between $800 and $900. Mr. Hernandez testified
that he had “a couple” of marijuana suppliers and that he believed his marijuana came
from Mexico. During the last trip to Lake County, Mr. Hill informed Mr. Hernandez that
the marijuana was not selling for the price Mr. Hernandez requested. Mr. Hernandez
testified that he did not have a problem with Mr. Hill not paying him the money he
requested for the marijuana. He explained, “I knew it was, you know, no good like it had
too much seeds. I knew it was a struggle because I got it very cheap, so I knew he was
gonna have a hard time. But I just thought I could take the risk and bring it.” He recalled
that he told Mr. Hill to keep the marijuana because Mr. Hill “had a wedding coming.”

Mr. Hernandez stated that the Defendant gave him a ride to the bus station in
Jackson on March 3. Mr. Hernandez agreed that, when the Defendant drove him to
- 30 -
Jackson, he and the Defendant smoked marijuana together. He denied that he and the
Defendant discussed the amount of money Mr. Hill gave him for the marijuana. Mr.
Hernandez stated that he never called the Defendant, and he did not know the
Defendant’s phone number. Mr. Hernandez stated that, if the Defendant had his cell
phone number, Mr. Hill must have provided it to the Defendant.

Mr. Hernandez testified that on March 1, 2011, the Defendant and Mr. Hill picked
him up at the bus station. Once at Cabin 9, he and Mr. Hill discussed the marijuana and
how much Mr. Hill would sell it for. The following day, Mr. Hill informed him that he
was having trouble selling the marijuana and that it was “no good.” Mr. Hernandez
responded, “[C]ome on man[,] just do what you can do.” At the end of the day, he told
Mr. Hill, “[Y]ou know what, keep it.” He stated that Mr. Hill was supposed to pay
$1,300 for the drugs but that Mr. Hill gave him only $800 because Mr. Hill could not sell
it. Mr. Hernandez recalled that the Defendant came inside Cabin 9 twice—when he and
Mr. Hill took Mr. Hernandez to buy food and when the Defendant picked up Mr.
Hernandez to take him to the bus station. On those occasions, the Defendant watched
television and smoked marijuana. Mr. Hernandez said that he probably called Mr. Hill
on the afternoon of March 3 to let Mr. Hill know he was on the bus. He denied that he
and Mr. Hill talked about the Defendant during this call. He stated that there was no one
other than Mr. Hill that he would have been calling in West Tennessee.

Regarding phone calls from Mr. Hill on March 5, Mr. Hernandez testified that the
calls were likely about Mr. Hill having trouble selling the marijuana. Although he
initially testified that he knew the marijuana was of poor quality, Mr. Hernandez later
stated that Mr. Hill was “making up stories about [how] the weed [wa]s no good.” He
stated that he received a phone call from Mr. Hill after returning to Texas, during which
Mr. Hill told him about the Defendant “murdering people.” Mr. Hernandez denied that
he and Mr. Hill ever discussed having the Defendant transport marijuana from Texas to
West Tennessee. He stated that he continued communicating with Mr. Hill after leaving
for Texas because Mr. Hill still owed him money. Mr. Hernandez testified that the
prosecutor told him that, if he did not testify, he would “be a suspect” in the murders. He
stated that he knew nothing about a bloody towel being found in Cabin 9.

Mitchell Davis testified that he was a licensed private investigator who provided
forensic examination services of electronic devices, including cell phones. Mr. Davis
examined the Defendant’s cell phone in order to download and obtain information, such
as text messages sent and received, deleted text messages, and phone calls made and
received. When he received the cell phone, he placed it in a Faraday bag5 and connected

5
Mr. Davis explained that a Faraday bag was a bag made out of copper or other specialized metal
that keeps an electronic device from being able to transmit out or receive a signal.
- 31 -
the cell phone to a computer. Mr. Davis then utilized special software, which generated
an extraction report of the data on the Defendant’s cell phone. Based on the data he
retrieved from the Defendant’s cell phone, Mr. Davis testified that the cell phone
contained only ten text messages with the first message being received on March 4, 2011,
at 9:11 p.m. Mr. Davis explained, however, that there had been a forty-minute delay
between when the text message was sent and when the Defendant’s cell phone received
the message. Mr. Davis stated that the device was “either busy or shut off” and then
turned back on, which would explain the delay in receiving the message. Mr. Davis
opined that, based on the extraction data and the Defendant’s cell phone records, text
messages sent and received were missing from the cell phone. He said that “[a] missing
message can come up by somebody using the delete function on the phone, and the
message can be deleted if it’s part of a time cycle.” Mr. Davis testified that during the
gap of time between when the first text message was sent and when it was received—
from 9:31 p.m. to 10:11 p.m.—“there [was] a possibility that some messages were
deleted from that device.” He testified that text messages could not be accidently deleted
from the Defendant’s cell phone based on the steps required for deletion of a message.

Mr. Davis reviewed the phone calls between the Defendant and Mr. Hill and found
that between February 27, 2011, and March 4, 2011, there were forty-one texts messages
sent between the Defendant and Mr. Hill and sixty-two phone calls. Mr. Davis explained
that he could not retrieve the substance of the text messages shown on the Defendant’s
cell phone records, except for the ten messages left on the phone. Mr. Davis also
reviewed the cell phone records of Mr. Hernandez and located numerous text messages
and phone calls between Mr. Hill and Mr. Hernandez between February 27, 2011, and
March 5, 2011. Additionally, Mr. Hernandez’s cell phone records showed that he called
“West Tennessee numbers” fifty-one times during this time period.

On cross-examination, Mr. Davis stated that there were several possible
explanations for the forty-minute time gap. He said that someone could have turned off
the cell phone, or it was in an area with no reception. Mr. Davis testified that the text
messages could be deleted off the phone either individually or by group. Regarding how
text messages could be deleted from the cell phone, Mr. Davis stated:

You could physically delete it by having the device in your hand;
there’s one. If there’s a calendar built into the device that allows for
messages to be deleted after a certain period of time; there’s two. That’s a
manufacturer option. The third way would be because some type of
spyware or something remote could delete those messages. And if you
want to go on to number four, it could be because there’s a glitch in the

- 32 -
system, something could have happened to the phone that caused
catastrophic damage to something that was holding that text information.

He agreed that, if officers arrived at Mr. Chisholm’s residence at 9:17 p.m. and the
Defendant received a text message at 9:20 p.m., that the Defendant could have deleted all
of his prior text messages in less than a minute. Mr. Davis agreed that some drug dealers
will delete their text messages shortly after the messages are received so that no record of
the text messages existed. He stated that it was “[j]ust as possible” that the Defendant
deleted his messages shortly after they were received as it was that someone else deleted
the messages off of the cell phone after his arrest.

Dennis Waller, an expert in police investigation policies and procedures, testified
that he owned a licensed private detective agency and that he consulted and provided
expert testimony on police-related litigation. He explained that he had been asked to
review evidence in the Defendant’s case, including the TBI lab reports and narratives,
photographs of the crime scene, transcripts of testimony from prior hearings, and the
tangible evidence collected by the TBI. Additionally, Mr. Waller reviewed the TBI’s
policy and procedures manual. He stated that there were minimum standards for
investigative policies and procedures, which were accepted across the country, and that
the investigation of the victims’ murders had been deficient in multiple ways. Mr. Waller
testified that there should have been a crime scene log created to document who went in
and out of the victims’ residence, but no such log existed. Additionally, he said that an
attempt should have been made to collect samples from all of the different pools of blood
around the residence. He stated that the large pools of blood should have been “sectioned
or quartered [] off” and samples taken from different areas of the blood in order to
determine if it came from the victims or a perpetrator. Mr. Waller stated that the tangible
evidence collected at the crime scene did not comply with the accepted standards for
investigating a double homicide. He said that the investigation was “minimal” and that it
would “[a]bsolutely not” meet the minimum standards of a police investigation as
expected in a double homicide case. He identified blood stains in crime scene
photographs that should have been collected and explained that standard procedures
would require officers to collect this evidence. He testified that a blood spatter expert
should have been at the crime scene and that a technician should have dusted for
fingerprints on a variety of surfaces inside the residence. Mr. Waller further testified
that, upon the discovery of the “secondary crime scene” at Cabin 9, it should have been
treated “the same way . . . you would [treat] the primary crime scene.” He stated that
investigators should have attempted to collect the bloody towel from Cabin 9 after it had
been taken to the laundry shed and to collect the fruit punch cans from the dumpster.

Additionally, Mr. Waller criticized the Defendant’s interview by the TBI,
explaining that the recording of the notes by Agent Kring did not comply with the
- 33 -
accepted standards required of such an interview. He stated that the interview should
have been recorded, and if a video camera was not available, Agent Kring’s notes should
have recorded the questions asked by Agent Bishop, as well as any “qualifiers,” in order
to “have the total context” of the Defendant’s statements. He noted that Agent Bishop
failed to ask the Defendant if he had killed the victims or whether the Defendant had been
present at the crime scene. Mr. Waller described such questions as “basic questions that
you would want answered.”

Janice Johnson testified as an expert in the areas of crime scene investigation and
analysis and blood spatter analysis. Ms. Johnson explained that she was a “[f]orensic
specialist” and owner of the Florida-based business, Forensic Pieces, where she taught
courses in forensics for law enforcement officers and crime scene investigators. Ms.
Johnson testified that she reviewed the forensic evidence collected by the TBI in the
Defendant’s case. In reviewing the crime scene photographs taken by the TBI, Ms.
Johnson noted that many of the photographs did not comply with accepted standards for
crime scene documentation. She stated that it was important to measure blood spatter at a
scene and that the “height of the stains and the size of the stains could be crucial.”
However, with the exception of a few photographs of the front door, the TBI failed to
photograph blood stain patterns at the scene with a proper scale. Regarding DNA
collection and analysis of blood spatter patterns, Ms. Johnson stated:

You would want to do proper collection of these spatter patterns to
determine whose blood is where. Obviously, in this case we have two
people that have received injuries. So you’d want to know whose blood is
where. And perspective in the violent attack[,] perhaps the perpetrator
injured themselves and in doing so sometimes they will leave blood stains
behind.

....

Oftentimes again, the violent attack will result in the perpetrator
injuring themselves and some of these stains may be displayed as passive
stains. When you look at blood stain pattern analysis you look at the stains
that are passive versus dynamic and a passive stain could be a drop of blood
or a couple of drops of blood from an injury. But without proper sampling
sometimes those blood stains from the perpetrator could be missed.

Ms. Johnson testified that insufficient blood samples were collected from the
crime scene for a reconstruction. She said that she had been asked to determine who may
have been injured first during the attack but stated that “[i]f sufficient samples had been
collected and sufficient photographs taken [she] may have been able to sort that out. But
- 34 -
based upon four samples from that scene there’s no way [she could] sort that out.” She
stated that all blood patterns should have been sampled and that there were multiple areas
of blood that were not sampled. She stated that the failure to collect these samples
violated the minimum standards for crime scene analysis and processing. Ms. Johnson
further testified that areas of the crime scene should have been examined for latent
fingerprints, latent blood, and “touch DNA.” Ms. Johnson stated that “[t]he end result is
that we perhaps had forensic evidence that was not detected, collected or preserved that
could help us with the reconstruction of the case.” She identified multiple pieces of
evidence and areas of the crime scene that were not properly documented, collected, and
tested. She further stated that the TBI did not conduct any analysis of the blood spatter at
the crime scene. Regarding Cabin 9, Ms. Johnson testified that the fruit punch cans and
the towel with blood on it should have been collected and tested. She also noted that tire
impressions in the victims’ driveway were not preserved by the TBI.

Ms. Johnson testified that she analyzed the Defendant’s shirt for blood and found
one blood stain on the upper right shoulder and a second blood stain on the cuff of the
shirt. She sprayed the shirt with BlueStar Forensics, “a reagent that detects blood that’s
invisible to the naked eye.” She stated that the blood stains were “very small stains like
the size of . . . the head of a pin.” She further stated that the Defendant’s shirt was not
properly wrapped and packaged in butcher paper; rather, it was “just wrapped together in
a ball.” She also examined the Defendant’s camouflage overalls, blue jeans, and boots,
as well as the Defendant’s vehicle. She used BlueStar on the Defendant’s boots and
found that there were no areas of the boots that tested positive for possible blood.
Additionally, she stated that she found nothing on the Defendant’s boots that indicated
they made the tracks in blood on the victims’ kitchen floor. She stated that the
Defendant’s boots appeared not to have been washed as they still had dirt embedded in
the tread. Ms. Johnson stated that she would have expected to find blood residue on the
boots even if they had been washed because “when people scrub it’s impossible to
remove all the blood.” Ms. Johnson testified that no blood was found in the Defendant’s
vehicle, on his cap, camouflage overalls, or blue jeans. Regarding the blue jeans, Ms.
Johnson stated that, based on the crime scene, she would have expected blood on the
cuffs because they dragged the ground when the Defendant walked.

Dr. Alfonzo Valdez testified that he was a professor at the University of California
where he taught “gang classes.” He explained that he was also a retired police officer
with twenty-eight years’ experience, and he had a doctorate in psychology. Dr. Valdez
explained that he had previously worked as a narcotics investigator. He explained that, as
an investigator, he had “hundreds of hours of courses involving the histories, modus
operandi and characteristics of all the major street gangs.” Dr. Valdez testified that he
was familiar with Hispanic gangs, including the Mexikanemi out of Texas. He explained
that the Mexikanemi was an inmate-run prison gang. He stated, “All prison gangs
- 35 -
operate in and outside the prison and many prison gangs have a relationship with the
local street gangs that they kind of adopted.” Dr. Valdez explained that “street gangs
have become the primary distributors and retailers of drugs that come from our prison
gangs. And the prison gangs get their drugs from the cartels.” He testified that gang
members can work with non-gang members to carry out the gang’s business.

Dr. Valdez reviewed Mr. Hernandez’s tattoos, criminal record, and prison records
and determined that Mr. Hernandez was a member of the Mexikanemi. He testified that
Mr. Hernandez would be killed in prison because of his tattoos if he were not a member
of the Mexikanemi. He testified that Mr. Hernandez likely had a “lower ranking
position” in the Mexikanemi and stated that a prison gang member “will not tell you in
court that he’s a prison gang member.” He explained that the Mexikanemi primarily
funded itself through drug sales, contract killings, extortion, and “home invasion
robberies[.]” Dr. Valdez explained that the term “mi cholos” meant “[m]y home boys,
my fellow gang members.” Dr. Valdez testified that the Mexikanemi operated in West
Tennessee at the time of the murders. He explained that the gang used the I-35 corridor
from Laredo to deliver drugs to the “eastern or mid part of the United States.” He stated
that the Mexikanemi used “extreme forms of violence to intimidate you and to control
you.” Dr. Valdez testified that, based on his review of the case, he believed that the
violence inflicted upon the victims was consistent with the violence of the Mexikanemi.

Dr. Valdez explained that he had also studied the Gangster Disciples, of which Mr.
Hill was a member. He stated that the Gangster Disciples were “one of the country’s
more violent gang[s].” Dr. Valdez explained that the victims’ murders were “very
consistent” with the operations of both the Mexikanemi and the Gangster Disciples. He
testified that the gangs use “hyper violence” for intimidation purposes. He stated, “They
come in numbers. They overpower you. They will . . . do brutal things to you to send a
message of fear and intimidation.” Dr. Valdez opined that the victims’ murders were
consistent with the Mexikanemi’s modus operandi. He explained that there was a lack of
a major struggle in the residence; he stated, “This was a very quick overpowering attack.
The [victims] had very little time to defend themselves.” He testified, based on his
experience, that a single person could not have committed the murders.

Dr. Richard Ofshe, an expert on police interrogations tactics and on the reliability
of suspects’ statements, testified that he had reviewed Agent Kring’s notes of the
Defendant’s interview with Agent Bishop. The notes, signed by the Defendant, read:6

6
Some words in Agent Kring’s handwritten notes are indiscernible to the court. As such, we
have attempted to reproduce the notes for the purposes of this opinion to the best of our ability.
- 36 -
Last night I was riding around drinking[.] I took drugs. Don’t
remember much between 10 pm-midnight. Cannot remember where I was.
I was alone. I was with my buddies earlier. Made it to Owl Hoot. What
happened happened. Woke up during the night seeing that thinking it was
too real to be a nightmare. Literally scared me. Waking up this morning
and Owl Hoot and being shot in the head. First I heard [two people] shot at
Owl Hoot[.] [D]id not think about it until I got to my car and worked
through it. Put two [and] two together. The nightmares were more than
real. Feel that my conscience was telling me what I had done. The only
thing I have been in court for is a traffic stop. I don’t do things like that.

Here lately I have been taking pills. This is not me. I don’t rob you
know. I am well off family. I smoke weed since 13. Pills off and on hydro
freshman [year of] high school. I have never been on drugs. Never done
cocaine. I do drugs and I don’t think I have a [] problem. The dream is
realer than real. The only thing it wakes me up-jerk up in a cold sweat. I
see him laying on the floor-cannot tell where on his stomach in a pool of
blood. No stab wounds. When I see her it might be in the kitchen-tile floor
next to a table laying on her back. It had to be a knife that I used. I could
have used a gun. I didn’t know I was taking one pistol when I took it. I
was by myself. I don’t know which knife I used. There[’]s 2-a hunting
knife-you might check in the middle consol[e]. There are 2 sections. I
don’t know maybe one in . . . the bottom. There are 2 hatchets in the back
area used for chopping wood. Curt-the guy where I was. I have not told
anyone about my dream. 10 pm-12 am no recollection of what happened.
Started drinking at 6 pm and riding around. Got home about 12 am.
Watched an episode of South Park . . . . At the house in his bed. Went to
sleep about 1 am. Woke up this morning like usual and went to school at
DCC. Have 1 class from 10-11 am. Taking 13 hours. The guns I might
have taken [and] thrown the guns in the river. There ain’t no telling where
it is. If I did take pills from the house I probably did not take any. If I did
take any pain medication it would be in my car. I took a shower this
morning. I cannot remember if I had any blood on them. I was going to
wear my Jordans this morning and I did not see anything on them. Did not
remember having blood on them. I did not even know that they moved out
there. Still thought [] my great grandmother’s husband who passed away.

Dr. Ofshe testified stated that Agent Kring’s notes of the Defendant’s statement
were “clearly not complete.” He explained:

- 37 -
It doesn’t tell us everything that was said. It doesn’t tell us anything
about what tactics may have been used in order to facilitate getting
whatever it is that was written down from the suspect. These notes don’t
add up to anything. And even by the admission of the interrogators, they’re
not – they don’t add up to an admission to participation in the crime.

Dr. Ofshe noted that the Defendant’s statement was “couched as a dream” and was not “a
statement about something that happened.” He stated that, when looking at Agent
Kring’s notes, the context of the Defendant’s statements was unknown. Dr. Ofshe
testified that, if the details of the crime scene were known in the community at the time of
the Defendant’s statement, his statement could have been contaminated by that
information. Based on his analysis of the Defendant’s statement, Dr. Ofshe testified that
the statement was “worthless.”

State’s Rebuttal Proof

Matt Sipes of the Tennessee Highway Patrol testified that, in January 2011, he
began working with the DEA investigating large scale drug trafficking cases in northwest
Tennessee. Trooper Sipes stated that drug dealers who used buses to transport marijuana
would not transport more than about fifteen pounds because of the smell. He testified
that, in October 2011, he investigated “a sizeable outdoor grow” of marijuana in Obion
County. He explained that approximately eight Hispanic individuals were suspected for
their involvement in the grow and that two Hispanic individuals were identified and
arrested. Investigators found no connection between the two arrested men and Texas.
Additionally, he found no connection between the marijuana grow in Obion County to
anyone in Lake County.

Defendant’s Rebuttal Proof

Dr. Valdez testified that, based on his research and experience, a member of the
Mexikanemi would not travel by bus from Texas to Tennessee to sell only three to five
pounds of marijuana.

At the conclusion of proof, the Defendant moved for a judgement of acquittal,
arguing that no reasonable jury could find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. The trial court determined that the issue of the Defendant’s guilt was a “question
of fact for the jury” and denied the motion. Following deliberations, the jury convicted
the Defendant of two counts of second degree murder, as a lesser-included offense of first
degree premediated murder; two counts of first degree felony murder; and two counts of
especially aggravated robbery.

- 38 -
Sentencing

At sentencing, Paul Shell delivered a victim-impact statement on behalf of his
family, requesting that the Defendant receive consecutive life sentences.

Captain Dennis Dean, the jail administrator for the Obion County Jail, testified
that the Defendant was under his supervision from March 2011 through 2015. Captain
Dean explained that the Defendant had been kept in “solitary” for the entire time he was
in the “maximum security unit.” He described the Defendant as “respectful” and stated
that the Defendant followed the procedures and policies of the jail. He explained that the
Defendant read two or three books a week. Captain Dean recalled that the Defendant had
warned officers on more than one occasion of another inmate’s plans to “do harm” to a
staff member at the jail. Captain Dean testified that the Defendant gave no indication that
he would be an especially dangerous prisoner and that he never saw the Defendant lose
his temper when confronted by other inmates.

David Gray, the pastor at Abundant Life Fellowship, and his wife, Tammy Gray,
testified that they had known the Defendant since the Defendant was about a year old.
Pastor Gray described the Defendant as “very nice. Kind.” He testified that he had never
seen the Defendant lose his temper or act violently. Pastor Gray stated that the Defendant
was not a dangerous person and that he believed that the Defendant could be
rehabilitated. Mrs. Gray described the Defendant as “[s]weet” and stated that she did not
believe that the Defendant was especially dangerous.

Regina Bargery, the Defendant’s mother, testified that the Defendant was loving,
very respectful, and had a “[b]ig heart.” She stated that she had not known the extent of
the Defendant’s drug use until the trial. She said that there had never been any indication
that the Defendant might be violent towards another.

The Defendant then made an allocution statement to the court, during which he
reiterated that he did not kill the victims but expressed remorse that he involved himself
with drugs and Mr. Hill and Mr. Hernandez.

The trial court merged the Defendant’s second degree murder convictions into his
convictions for first degree felony murder and sentenced the Defendant to consecutive
life sentences. For his convictions for especially aggravated robbery, the trial court
sentenced the Defendant to fifteen years on both counts and ordered the sentences to run
concurrently with the life sentences. In ordering consecutive sentences, the trial court
found that the Defendant was a dangerous offender whose behavior indicated little or no
regard for human life and that the Defendant had no hesitation about committing a crime
in which the risk to human life was high. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4). The
- 39 -
trial court stated that the victims’ murders were “the bloodiest, most gruesome murders”
that the court had seen and recalled that the victims were “stabbed repeatedly and cut
repeatedly. Mrs. Shell’s throat was so violently sliced almost to the point of
decapitation.” The trial court found that the Defendant was “a danger to the public,”
citing State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995). The court further noted that,
although the Defendant had no prior convictions, he had a history of criminal behavior
that included selling and delivering drugs. Regarding the Defendant’s allocution
statement, the trial court stated:

You do state that you’re sorry that the Shells were killed but, you
accept no responsibility at all for what has happened other than the fact that
you were present and that you - that this might not have happened had you
not been using drugs. You don’t, however, accept direct responsibility for
the crime. This bothers me. Your statement today bothers me.

The trial court found that the Defendant’s “lack of candor and . . . lack of remorse”
suggested that consecutive sentencing was appropriate.

Motion for New Trial Hearing

The Defendant filed a timely motion for new trial. At a hearing on the motion,
Officer Mason McDowell of the Dyersburg Police Department testified that he worked
mainly narcotics investigations, and in those cases, he occasionally needed to recover text
messages from suspects’ phones. He explained that many cell phone providers, including
Verizon Wireless, had preprinted preservation letters which law enforcement could use to
request that the company preserve the content of text messages. Officer McDowell
explained that Verizon “loosely guarantee[d] three to five days” worth of text messages
prior to the date the request for preservation was made. He stated that no subpoena was
needed for a preservation letter but that officers would typically obtain a subpoena after
filing the letter with the cell phone company. He said that the procedure was available in
March 2011.

On cross-examination, Officer McDowell stated that it was possible to delete
information from a cell phone remotely and that “it would not be difficult for one of [the
Defendant’s] associates, a family member, anyone else that would have the same interest
as him in getting rid of the messages” to delete them in this manner. Officer McDowell
agreed that law enforcement could have filed a preservation letter with the Defendant’s
cell phone company to preserve his text messages. However, he noted that, as the
account holder, the Defendant could have requested them at any time.

- 40 -
Sergeant Dennis McCaig, with the Dyer County Sheriff’s Office, testified that he
had been responsible for developing the security protocol for the sequestered jury. He
stated that the officers working the security detail followed two rules—jurors were not
left alone unless they were in their particular hotel room and jurors were to have no
contact with anyone outside the jury. Regarding the jurors’ phone calls, Sergeant
McCaig stated that he instructed court officers to listen to jurors’ conversations and to
stay within two feet of the jurors during the calls. Sergeant McCaig explained that the
guidelines for the family member visitations were “very strict,” and the visits were “for a
very short period of time and with immediate family members only.” He stated that he
could hear the conversations between jurors and their visitors, and he did not hear anyone
discussing the trial. Sergeant McCaig instructed court officers to listen for “key words”
like “evidence” and “trial” while listening to the conversations between jurors and
visitors.

Eight deputies and two lieutenants of the Dyer

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4210191. Public record. Not legal advice.