Joint Appendix — Richard Eugene Glossip, Petitioner v. Oklahoma
Supreme Court briefApr 23, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 22-7466
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Petitioner,
v.
OKLAHOMA,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
[PUBLIC COPY—SEALED MATERIAL REDACTED]
JOINT APPENDIX
VOLUME 1 (PAGES 1-451)
PAUL D. CLEMENT
Counsel of Record
CLEMENT & MURPHY, PLLC
706 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(202) 742-8900
paul.clement@clementmurphy.com
Counsel for Respondent
CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL
Counsel of Record
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
1300 I St. NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 538-8308
christophermichel
@quinnemanuel.com
Court-Appointed Amicus
Curiae in Support of the
Judgment Below
SETH P. WAXMAN
Counsel of Record
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 663-6000
seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com
Counsel for Petitioner
APRIL 23, 2024
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED MAY 4, 2023
CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 22, 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1
Page
Relevant Docket Entries in No. PCD-2023-267
(Okla. Crim. App.) ............................................................... 1
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244, Vol. 6 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 8, 1998)
[pp. 92, 94] ............................................................................. 7
Excerpt of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244, Vol. 7 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 9, 1998)
[pp. 128-129]........................................................................ 10
Transcript of Proceedings, Competency
Hearing, State v. Justin Blayne Sneed, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. July 31, 1998) ................... 13
Excerpt of Brief of Appellant, Richard Eugene
Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, No. D-98-948
(Okla. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2000) [pp. 32-33] .................. 16
Opinion, Glossip v. State, No. D-1998-948 (Okla.
Crim. App. July 17, 2001) ................................................. 20
Motion Requesting Production of All
Statements of Co-Defendant Justin Sneed, State
v. Glossip, No. CF-97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct.
June 17, 2002) ..................................................................... 40
State Response to Defendant Motion
Requesting Production of All Statements of CoDefendant Justin Sneed, State v. Glossip, No.
CF-97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 26, 2002) ........... 42
i
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 14, 2004), Vol.
4 of 17 [pp. 25, 34-44, 56-74, 97-104, 140-141] ................. 44
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 18, 2004), Vol.
6 of 17 [pp. 14-18, 45] ......................................................... 82
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 19, 2004), Vol.
7 of 17 [pp. 3-15, 26-50, 60-79]........................................... 89
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 20, 2004), Vol.
8 of 17 [pp. 12-17, 30-36, 59-66, 78-84, 120-124] ............ 143
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 21, 2004), Vol.
9 of 17 [pp. 15-27, 43-50, 100-104, 191-221, 231235]..................................................................................... 175
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF1997-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 25, 2004),
Vol. 11 of 17 [pp. 76-86, 114-121, 128-130, 136137, 167-203, 214] ............................................................. 235
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 26, 2004), Vol.
12 of 17 [pp. 12-13, 16-17, 45-69, 101-110, 122-132,
161-207] ............................................................................. 290
ii
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 27, 2004), Vol.
13 of 17 [pp. 13-19, 33-37, 56-61, 97-104] ....................... 382
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. May 28, 2004), Vol.
14 of 17 [pp. 3-9, 23-32, 40-50, 83-87] ............................. 408
Excerpts of Transcript of Proceedings, Jury
Trial, State v. Richard Eugene Glossip, No. CF97-244 (Okla. Cnty. Dist. Ct. June 1, 2004), Vol.
15 of 17 [pp. 14-19, 68, 73, 92-94, 151] ............................ 440
VOLUME 2
Excerpt of Brief of Appellee, Richard Eugene
Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, No. D-2005-310
(Okla. Crim. App. Apr. 14, 2006) [pp. 1-37] .................. 452
Excerpt of Original Application for Post
Conviction Relief in a Death Penalty Case,
Richard Eugene Glossip v. State of Oklahoma,
No. PCD-2004-978 (Okla. Crim. App. Oct. 20,
2006) [pp. 37-39] ............................................................... 487
Opinion, Glossip v. State, No. D-2005-310 (Okla.
Crim. App. Apr. 13, 2007) ............................................... 492
Excerpt of Response to Petitioner’s Original
Application for Post-Conviction Relief, Richard
Eugene Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, No. PCD2004-978 (Okla. Crim. App. June 11, 2007) [pp.
15-19] ................................................................................. 565
Opinion Denying Post-Conviction Relief,
Richard Eugene Glossip v. State of Oklahoma,
No. PCD 2004-978 (Okla. Crim. App. Dec. 6,
2007)................................................................................... 572
iii
Response to Petitioner’s Successive Application
for Post-Conviction Review, Emergency
Request for Stay of Execution, Motion for
Discovery, and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing,
Glossip v. State, No. PCD-2015-820 (Okla. Crim.
App. Sept. 16, 2015) ......................................................... 581
Opinion Denying Subsequent Application for
Post-Conviction Relief, Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing, Motion for Discovery and Emergency
Request for a Stay of Execution, Glossip v.
State, No. PCD-2015-820 (Okla. Crim. App.
Sept. 28, 2015) .................................................................. 625
Order, Glossip v. State, No. D-2005-310 (Okla.
Crim. App. Oct. 2, 2015) .................................................. 642
Successive Application for Post-Conviction
Relief, Glossip v. State, No. PDC-2022-589
(Okla. Crim. App. July 1, 2022)
Attachment 7: Transcript of January 14,
1997, Police Interview of Justin Sneed ................. 644
Atachment 25: Dr. Edith King, Determination of Competency to Stand Trial, July 1,
1997, Psychiatric Evaluation Re: Justin B.
Sneed .......................................................................... 698
Attachment 54: Affidavit of D-Anna Wood,
February 7, 2001 ....................................................... 704
VOLUME 3
Brief for State of Oklahoma, Glossip v. State,
No. PCD-2022-819 (Okla. Crim. App. Oct. 10,
2022)................................................................................... 708
iv
Opinion Denying Subsequent Application for
Post-Conviction Relief, Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing, and Motion for Discovery, Glossip v.
State, No. PCD-2022-819 (Okla. Crim. App. Nov.
17, 2022)............................................................................. 771
Successive Application for Post-Conviction
Relief, Glossip v. State, No. PCD-2022-819
(Okla. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2022) .................................. 785
Successive Application for Post-Conviction
Relief with Attachments, Glossip v. State, No.
PCD-2023-267 (Okla. Crim. App. Mar. 27, 2023)
[REDACTED] ................................................................. 883
Attachment 1: Smothermon/Sneed Interview
Notes—Image ........................................................... 927
Attachment 1: Smothermon/Sneed Interview
Notes—Transcribed Text ....................................... 929
Attachment 2: Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence
Trombka with Attachment [REDACTED] ......... 930
Attachment 3: Affidavit of Gary L. Ackley ......... 934
Attachment 7: Smothermon/Ackley Trial
Notes—Image ........................................................... 945
Attachment 7: Smothermon/Ackley Trial
Notes—Transcribed Text ....................................... 947
Attachment 8: Smothermon/Everhart Interview Notes—Image ................................................. 949
Attachment 8: Smothermon/Everhart Interview Notes—Transcribed Text .............................. 951
Attachment 9: Smothermon/Walker Memo
with Handwritten Notes—Image........................... 953
v
Attachment 9: Smothermon/Walker Memo
with Handwritten Notes—Transcribed Text......... 955
Attachment 10: Affidavit of Chuck Loughlin ......... 958
Attachment 11: Affidavit of Paul Melton................ 960
State of Oklahoma’s Response in Support of
Petitioner’s Successive Application for PostConviction Relief, Glossip v. State, No. PCD2023-267 (Okla. Crim. App. Apr. 6, 2023) ..................... 973
Opinion Denying Subsequent Application for
Post-Conviction Relief, Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing, Motion for Discovery, and Joint
Motion to Stay Execution, Glossip v. State, Nos.
PCD-2023-267, D-2005-310 (Okla. Crim. App.
Apr. 20, 2023) ................................................................... 980
SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX
[FILED UNDER SEAL]
Excerpt of Successive Application for PostConviction Relief with Attachments, Glossip v.
State, No. PCD-2023-267 (Okla. Crim. App. Mar.
27, 2023) [UNREDACTED version of J.A. 902904]..................................................................................... 999
Affidavit of Dr. Lawrence Trombka with
Attachment [UNREDACTED version of
J.A. 930-933] ................................................................... 1002
vi
1
GENERAL DOCKET
In the Court of Criminal Appeals
of the State of Oklahoma
OK Court of Criminal Appeal–Oklahoma
GLOSSIP V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Court of Criminal Appeals Docket #: PCD-2023-267
*
*
*
Date
#
Proceeding Text
03/27/2023
1
POST
CONVICTIONDEATH INITIAL FILING
03/27/2023
2
RECEIPT # 85792 ON
03/27/2023. PAYOR: WARREN GOTCHER TOTAL
AMOUNT PAID: $ 0.00.
LINE ITEMS: $0.00 ON
POST
CONVICTIONDEATH INITIAL FILING.
03/27/2023
3
ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF
APPEAL
03/27/2023
4
SUCCESSIVE APPLICATION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF DEATH
PENALTY-EXECUTION
SCHEDULED 05/18/2023
03/27/2023
5
PETITIONER’S NOTICE
OF CONFLICT AND REQUEST FOR RECUSAL
EXECUTION SHEDULED
05/18/2023
03/27/2023
6
PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY
2
03/27/2023
7
PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR
EVIDENTIARY
HEARING
03/27/2023
8
PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
UNREDACTED
VERSIONS OF ATTACHMENT
2 PROPOSITION ONE (B)
WHICH ADDRESS A WITNESS’S CONFIDENTIAL
MEDICAL RECORDS
03/30/2023
9
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF
CONFLICT
AND
REQUEST FOR RECUSAL
04/04/2023
10
JE:
ORDER; HUDSON
VPJ, LUMPKIN J, LEWIS
J, MUSSEMAN J, WINCHESTER, JUSTICE BY
SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT);
ORDER
ADDRESSING
NOTICE OF CONFLICT
AND
REQUEST
FOR
RECUSAL;
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
JUDGE
HUDSON’S
RECUSAL IS DECLINED.
THE CODE OF JUDICAL
CONDUCT HAS BEEN,
AND WILL CONTINUTE
TO BE, FOLLOWED IN
THIS CASE. LASTLY, PJ
ROWLAND’S
PRIOR
RECUSALS
IN
3
PETITIONER’S
CASES,
NOS PCD-2022-589 AND
PCD-2022-819, SUGGEST
RECUSAL IN THIS CASE
AND ALL FUTURE MATTERS RELATING TO PETITIONER’S
MURDER
CONVICTION IN OKLA
CO. DC NO. CF-1997-244 IS
WARRANTED.
JUDGE
ROWLAND IS HEREBY
RECUSED FROM ALL
MATTERS RELATING TO
THIS MURDER CONVICTION.
04/06/2023
11
JE:
ORDER; HUDSON
VPJ; COPIES TO ATTORNEYS; ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF
ATTACHMENTS UNDER
SEAL; WE FIND THE PETITIONER’S
MOTION
SHOULD BE GRANTED.
PETITIONER MAY FILE
UNREDACTED
VERSIONS OF THE ABOVEDESCRIBED
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL.
PETITIONER
SHALL
FILE THE DOCUMENTS
WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THIS
ORDER.
4
04/06/2023
12
STATE OF OKLAHOMA’S
RESPONSE IN SUPPORT
OF PETITIONER’S SUCCESSIVE APPLICATION
FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF DEATH PENALTY-EXECUTION
SCHEDULED 05/18/2023
04/20/2023
13
JE: OPINION DENYING
SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, MOTION
FOR
EVIDENTIARY
HEARING, MOTION FOR
DISCOVERY, AND JOINT
MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION~~~~~~ AFTER
CAREFULLY REVIEWING GLOSSIP’S FIFTH
APPLICATION
FOR
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, WE CONCLUDE
THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF, AND
RELATED
MATTERS
ARE DENIED.
THE
JOINT
APPLICATION
FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION IN CASE D-2005-310
IS DENIED.
~~~~~ ;
LEWIS J; CONCUR: HUDSON VPJ, MUSSEMAN J,
WINCHESTER J; SPECIALLY
CONCUR:
LUMPKIN J; COPIES TO
5
HON. HEATHER COYLE,
HON SUSAN STALLINGS,
DIST COURT CLERK,
MARK HENRICKSEN, JOSEPH PERKOVICH, DONALD KNIGHT, WARREN
GOTCHER, LEON WOODYARD, MARK OLIVE,
JOHN
MILLS,
AMY
KNIGHT,
KATHLEEN
LORD, DA OKC, AG,
PRESS, WEST, OIDS, OBJ,
LEXIS-NEXIS,
TERRI
CALLOWAY, DOC LEGAL
DEPARTMENT,
DOC
RECORDS OFFICE, GOV.
KEVIN STITT, US DIST
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT, CRYSTAL KENNEDY RECORDS OFFICE, PITTSBURGH COUNTY COURT
CLERK, U.S. COURTHOUSE, OKLA PARDON
& PAROLE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR,
WESTERN
DISTRICT
OF
OKLAHOMA, BYRON WHITE
US COURTHOUSE, US
SUPREME
COURT
CLERK, WARDEN OKLA
STATE PENITENTIARY,
FOR PUB ** 2023 OK CR 5
**
04/20/2023
14
DENIED (OPINION)
6
04/20/2023
15
MANDATE ISSUED
04/27/2023
16
RETURN
CLERK
OF
COURT
04/27/2023
17
RECEIPT
DATE
FOR
MAN-
01/26/2024
18
LETTER FROM USSCRE: WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED … SEE
LETTER
7
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CASE NO. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Defendant.
REPORTED BY:
THERESA L. REEL, RPR
321 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 805
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
VOLUME 6
Filed March 23, 2005
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
RICHARD W. FREEMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
JURY TRIAL,
HAD ON JUNE 8, 1998
*
A
[92]
*
*
I used the key.
Q
Where did you get the key?
A
From Richard Glossip.
8
Q
When did you get it from Mr. Glossip?
A When I first started working there, he gave
me a whole set of master keys so I could go in any room
that I needed to when I needed to, to fix whatever might
have a problem or something.
Q
So you already had the key to room 102?
A
Yes.
Q
How old were you at the time?
A
Nineteen.
Q Tell us what happened when you went into
room 102?
A I went in with my baseball bat, and basically
when I opened the door, Mr. Van Treese woke up, and
then I just hit him with the bat. And then he pushed me
and I fell back into the chair, and that’s how the window
ended up getting broke because the bat hit the window.
And then I just—Mr. Van Treese was trying to get out
of the room, and I just grabbed the back of his shirt and
slung him in the floor and then hit him a couple more
times.
Q
Do you know how many times you hit him?
A
No, I don’t. Maybe about 10 or 15, I guess.
Q Did you hit him because you intended for
him to die?
A
Yes, I did.
*
*
*
room.
[94]
Q
What did you do with the weapon?
A
I put it in the dumpster.
9
Q
And what was the weapon?
A
A baseball bat.
Q Would you have just left the bat in the room
had Mr. Glossip not told you to remove it?
A I don’t know. I might have thought about
removing it myself, but I probably would have left it
in there longer than what I did.
Q What did you all do when you and Mr. Glossip went to your room?
A After we was in the room a little bit and I
was telling him about the window being broke and
stuff like that, he asked me if I knew for sure that
Mr. Van Treese was dead, and I told him, yeah, and
that if he wanted to we could go around to the room
and he could see for himself. So we went around and
went back into 102 and so that he could see that Mr.
Van Treese was dead.
Q And so Mr. Glossip actually went into room
102 with you?
A
Yes, ma’am.
Q
How long did you all stay in there?
A I don’t know, maybe for about 20 minutes,
and then we left and we went in 101 and got a shower
curtain, and then when we went back in there and
taped the shower curtain over
*
*
*
10
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CASE NO. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Defendant.
REPORTED BY:
THERESA L. REEL, RPR
321 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 805
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
VOLUME 7
Filed March 23, 2005
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
RICHARD W. FREEMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
JURY TRIAL,
HAD ON JUNE 9, 1998
*
*
*
[128] willing to assist Mr. Sneed in the cover-up is because you were the mastermind of this murder?
A
No, ma’am.
Q Well, Mr. Glossip, isn’t it true if all you and
Justin Sneed wanted was money, all you had to do was
11
break the window to the car and get the money, but that
wasn’t good enough, you wanted him killed, didn’t you?
A No, ma’am, I didn’t want money, nor did I
want anything to happen to Barry. I already had my
own money.
Q Isn’t it true, Mr. Sneed, that you really
wanted to get those breast implants for D. Anna?
A
I’m not Mr. Sneed, ma’am.
Q I’m sorry. Mr. Glossip, isn’t it true that you
really wanted to get those breast implants for D. Anna?
A
No, I was against that. You can even ask D.
Anna.
MS. SMITH: Pass the witness.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. FOURNERAT:
Honor. Just briefly, Your Honor.
Thank you, Your
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FOURNERAT:
Q Would you tell this jury how long you
owned the vending machines that were in the office of
the Best Budget Inn?
A I bought the vending machines for D. Anna
so she’d have a little extra to do. I had them for a while.
[129] Q
month?
Did you make an income off of them per
A
Yes.
Q
How much?
A The Coke machine you could make anywhere from 850 to a $1,000 depending on how much
12
business you had coming through the motel and then the
candy went pretty well.
Q
Pretty well is how much?
A
I can’t—I mean, it varies.
Q
Then tell the jury what it varies at.
A I would say roughly between the three if
you had a good month you could probably do $1500.
Q
Just in the vending machines alone?
A
Yes.
Q
And whose money would that be?
A
Mine.
MR. FOURNERAT: No further questions.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MS. SMITH: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Glossip.
THE WITNESS: You’re welcome.
THE COURT: Okay. We’ll take our lunch
break at this point. Folks, be back here at 1:30, please.
Remember my instructions to you .
(Thereupon, a recess was had, after which, the following was had in open court.)
*
*
*
13
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CASE NO. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Planitiff,
v.
JUSTIN BLAYNE SNEED,
Defendant.
REPORTED BY:
THERESA L. REEL, RPR
321 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 805
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
Filed September 18, 1998
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
RICHARD W. FREEMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
COMPETENCY HEARING, HAD ON
JULY 31, 1998, AND FORMAL SENTENCING
AFTER PLEA OF GUILTY, HAD ON
JUNE 18, 1998
*
*
[7]
THE DEFENDANT:
name.
*
It’s my step-father’s
THE COURT: And your lawyers are Mr. Tim
Wilson and Ms. Gina Walker, is that correct?
14
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And we have a court reporter
taking this down. It shows here that you are 20 years of
age and you completed the eighth grade, is that right?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are you taking any kind of medication or substance that might affect your ability to understand what’s going on today?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Have you been prescribed any
medication that you’re supposed to be taking but that
you’re not taking?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: And have you been treated by a
doctor or a health professional for a mental illness or confined in a hospital for mental illness and you have been,
haven’t you? You at least were examined by Dr. King
while you were in the county jail?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And she found you to be competent. Do you recall that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is that the only time you’ve ever
been [8] examined by anybody concerning your mental
health?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand what we’re
doing here today, what’s going on with this proceeding?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
15
THE COURT: And have you and your lawyers
had copies of the Information that is charged and filed
against you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you had a chance to go
over that with your lawyers?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And the crime, as you are wellaware, is a crime of Murder in the First Degree. You’re
aware of that, are you not? They’ve dismissed the Bill of
Particulars.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And this would carry the possibility of penalty of maximum and minimum, the minimum of life imprisonment and the maximum of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. You’re
aware of that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You’ve not been convicted of anything before this, have you?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand you have the
right to a speedy trial before a jury, to have the jury determine
*
*
*
16
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Case No. D-98-948
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Appellee.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County
Filed April 17, 2000
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
G. LYNN BURCH, III
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOC. NO. 14986
MATTHEW D. HAIRE
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOC. NO. 14916
CAPITAL DIRECT APPEALS DIVISION
OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE SYSTEM
1660 CROSS CENTER DRIVE
NORMAN, OKLAHOMA 73019
(405) 325-3633
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
*
[32]
*
*
credible or not. He did seem rehearsed and mechanical while testifying at trial.
17
(Exhibit 7 to Rule 3.11(B) Application) The impact of
Fournerat’s failure to use the Sneed tape as a potent
weapon to attack the State’s case cannot be underestimated. As stated by the prosecutor herself prior to trial,
“[t]his case rests basically on the testimony of Justin
Sneed.” (M. Tr. 27) There can be no doubt that the failure to utilize the videotaped interview to impeach Justin
Sneed with his own numerous inconsistent statements
undermines the reliability and constitutional validity of
Mr. Glossip’s trial and sentence of death.
Likewise, Fournerat’s failure to impeach Sneed with
statements he made to Dr. Edith King during his competency examination was unreasonable and indicative of
trial counsel’s lack of preparation. At trial, the prosecution portrayed Sneed as a vulnerable and naive 19-yearold young man who, fearful of becoming destitute and
homeless, did the bidding of criminal “mastermind”
Mr. Glossip.16 Again, Sneed’s own statements to Dr.
King painted a much different picture: that of a
16
The prosecutor made the following comments to the jury:
“Mr. Sneed was a desperate sort of a 19-year-old-man. He was
homeless.” (Tr. III 8)
“Glossip also told Justin Sneed that night that if Barry fired
him, that being Mr. Glossip, that Mr. Sneed would be on the street
with no place to live, no money and nothing to eat.” (Tr. III 12)
“But for Richard Glossip, Justin Sneed would have never killed
Barry Van Treese.” (Tr. VIII 14)
“Glossip could get Justin Sneed to do whatever he wanted him
to do and blame it on Justin. And that’s what happened.” (Tr. VII
15)
“Now, Mr. Sneed’s life has been spared, and he deserved the
death penalty, but it’s been spared because of his youth. He’s 19
and his vulnerability and his remorsefulness and his cooperation.”
(Tr. IX 56)
18
streetwise individual with a criminal history, including
writing “hot checks” and taking marijuana, cocaine,
LSD, and methamphetamine, and who said “his only
hope is to get out of the death penalty is to plead guilty.”
(Rule 3.11(B) Application,
[33] Ex. 4)17 The report, filed of record in the case on
July 17, 1997, and hence available to Fournerat, also indicated that Sneed said at that time he was medicated
with lithium and it helped him “not to feel so angry,” that
“he used to get angry quite often,” would “yell at teachers and reject everyone and get into fights,” and was expelled from school for violence and being “a trouble
maker.” (Rule 3.11(B)Application, Ex. 4) In addition,
far from describing himself as a malleable individual easily manipulated by someone like Appellant, Sneed told
Dr. King that aside from his tendency toward violent
outbursts, he had a history of “reject[ing] authority.”
(Rule 3.11(B) Application, Ex. 4) Counsel’s failure to review the record and utilize this vital evidence to attack
Sneed’s credibility and the State’s specious theory of the
case provides yet another example of his ineffective performance.
The failure of trial counsel to cross-examine and
meaningfully test the primary evidentiary bases of the
State’s case against his client clearly runs afoul of the
Strickland standard. The prejudice has been amply
demonstrated, and Mr. Glossip’s conviction should be reversed.
17
This document was among those properly designated by Appellant yet not made part of the record by the Oklahoma County
Court Clerk, and in part formed the basis of Appellant’s litigation
to insure an accurate and complete record.
19
B. Trial counsel failed to adequately prepare by familiarizing himself with discovery obtained from
the State
The record shows that trial counsel did not adequately investigate or prepare for trial by familiarizing
himself with discovery materials provided to him by the
Statl. Mr. Fournerat had been provided with police reports regarding Detective Bemo’s telephone conversation with William Howard Bender, an individual who
managed the Tulsa Best Budget Motel. During his
cross-examination of Detective Bemo, Fournerat stated
that as Marty Baker had been identified as the manager
of the Tulsa motel, “there is no Howard Bender.” (Tr. VI
75) Therafter, Fournerat
*
*
*
20
FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2001 OK CR 21
Case No. D 98-948
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
v.
Appellant,
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Appellee.
Filed July 17, 2001
OPINION
JOHNSON, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:
¶1
Appellant, Richard Eugene Glossip, was
convicted in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No.
CF 97-244, of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of
21 O.S.1991, § 701.7(A).1 Jury trial was held June 1st
through 10th, 1998, before the Honorable Richard W.
Freeman, District Judge. The jury found two aggravating circumstances—(1) that the murder was especially
heinous, atrocious, or cruel and (2) that Appellant would
1
Appellant was charged cojointly with Justin Blayne Sneed.
(O.R. 5). The State filed its bill of particulars on April 23, 1997, alleging the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel and
that Appellant constituted a continuing threat to society. (O.R. 31).
21
pose a “continuing threat” to society – and recommended a penalty of death. Judgment and Sentence was
imposed on July 31, 1998.
¶2
Appellant perfected his appeal by filing his
Petition in Error on February 1, 1999. His initial brief
was filed on April 17, 2000. The State’s brief was filed on
August 15, 2000, and Appellant’s Reply brief was filed
September 5, 2000. Appellant also filed on April 17, 2000,
an Application for Evidentiary Hearing on Jury Misconduct Claims, an Application for Evidentiary Hearing on
Sixth Amendment Claims, and Appellant’s Notice of Extra-Record Evidence Supporting Prosecutorial Misconduct and Violations of Due Process Clauses of the Oklahoma and Federal Constitutions. We remanded the case
to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. See Order Remanding to the Presiding Judge of Oklahoma
County for an Evidentiary Hearing on Claims of Jury
Misconduct, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, and
Prosecutorial Misconduct, etc., D 1998-948 (Okl.Cr. December 7, 2000)(not for publication). The hearing was
held March 5, 2001, before the Honorable Twyla Gray,
District Judge, and the trial court’s Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law After Evidentiary Hearing were
filed in this Court on March 16, 2001. Both parties filed
Supplemental Briefs on March 23, 2001.
¶3
Appellant raised twelve propositions of error in his appeal. Two propositions required fact-finding
outside the appeal record and were addressed at the
March 5, 2001 evidentiary hearing. The claim of jury
misconduct was also addressed at the evidentiary hearing. Having reviewed the entire record before us, we
have determined that oral argument is not warranted or
necessary as further argument on the claims and issues
raised in this case would not be helpful or convincing to
the Court.
22
¶4
Only a brief statement of facts is necessary,
because Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel is compelling and requires relief. For the reasons set forth below, we find Appellant’s conviction for
Murder in the First Degree should be and hereby is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
¶5
On January 7, 1997, the body of Barry Van
Treese was discovered in Room 102 of the Best Budget
Inn in Oklahoma City. Van Treese had been severely
beaten and died as a result of blood loss and blunt force
trauma to his head. Following the discovery of the body,
Oklahoma City police detectives interviewed Appellant,
who was the manager of the Best Budget Inn. They also
interviewed Justin Sneed, who was charged as a co-defendant in this case and who worked for Appellant as a
maintenance man in exchange for a free room at the motel. At Appellant’s trial, Sneed said he beat Van Treese
to death by hitting him ten or fifteen times with a baseball bat. Sneed testified he killed Van Treese because
Appellant asked him to do it. Sneed admitted he made
an agreement with the State to testify against Appellant
in exchange for a sentence of life without parole.
¶6
At all times prior to trial and during trial,
Appellant denied involvement in the murder of Barry
Van Treese. Although his statements to police officers
changed somewhat between his first and second police
interview, he consistently denied encouraging or telling
Sneed to commit the murder. Appellant only admitted
his involvement in the murder “after the fact.” He admitted he was afraid to tell the police what he knew and
admitted he assisted Sneed by helping conceal the murder scene.
¶7
On appeal and at trial, the State’s theory of
the case remained the same—Sneed was a poor,
23
vulnerable young man and Appellant masterminded the
murder by manipulating (asking or telling) Sneed to do
it. The State concedes the only “direct evidence” connecting Appellant to the murder was Sneed’s trial testimony. No forensic evidence linked Appellant to murder
and no compelling evidence corroborated Sneed’s testimony that Appellant was the mastermind behind the
murder.
¶8
The evidence at trial tending to corroborate
Sneed’s testimony was extremely weak. We recognize a
conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is “corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely show the commission of the offense or
the circumstances thereof.” 22 O.S.Supp.2000, § 742.
However, we need not reach Appellant’s claim going to
the sufficiency of the evidence,2 because trial counsel’s
conduct was so ineffective that we have no confidence
that a reliable adversarial proceeding took place.
¶9
Appellant raised twelve propositions of error. Although several errors occurred at trial which
alone might necessitate reversal, we only discuss those
matters impacting our decision today and those which
should be considered if Appellant is retried for this
crime.
¶10
In Proposition Two, Appellant claims his
trial counsel represented him “in a pervasively ineffective manner to the profound prejudice of Appellant,
leading to a collapse of the adversarial process and a denial of Appellant’s right to counsel guaranteed by the
2
Appellant raised sufficiency of the evidence in Proposition
One of his Brief.
24
Sixth Amendment.” We agree and preface our analysis
of this claim by emphasizing the State’s evidence was
circumstantial except for the testimony of Justin Sneed.
¶11
Analysis of this claim begins with the presumption that trial counsel was competent to provide
the guiding hand that the accused needed, and therefore
the burden is on the accused to demonstrate both a deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80
L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Strickland sets forth a two-part test
which must be applied to determine whether a defendant has been denied effective assistance of counsel.
First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient, and second, he must show the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Unless the
defendant makes both showings, “it cannot be said that
the conviction … resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” Id.
at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2064. Appellant must demonstrate that
counsel’s representation was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that the challenged action
could not be considered sound trial strategy. Id. at 68889, 104 S.Ct. at 2065-66.
¶12
Appellant claims his trial counsel: (1) failed
to engage in meaningful cross-examination or utilize potent impeachment evidence;3 (2) failed to adequately
prepare by familiarizing himself with discovery obtained
from the State; (3) failed to conduct proper voir dire; (4)
failed to object to improper double hearsay testimony;
3
This claim is the most egregious of the ineffectiveness claims.
Specifically, this subclaim relates to trial counsel’s failure to utilize
the videotaped interview of Justin Sneed and his failure to utilize
the record of Sneed’s competency evaluation for impeachment purposes.
25
(5) failed to move the trial court to answer the jury’s
question regarding culpability for not rendering aid; and
(6) failed to object to improper victim impact evidence.
Appellant filed an Application for Evidentiary Hearing
on Sixth Amendment Claims, pursuant to Rule
3.11(B)(3), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App.(2001). Although some of
Appellant’s ineffectiveness claims are obvious from
simply reading the appeal record,4 several, including
trial counsel’s failure to utilize available and potent impeachment evidence against Justin Sneed, are supported
by matters outside the record.5
¶13
Reviewing the claims in the Application, in
conjunction with the serious allegations made and the
record before us, this Court determined Appellant had
shown “by clear and convincing evidence there is a
strong possibility trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to utilize or identify the complained-of evidence.” Rule
3.11 (B)(3) (b)(i), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2001); Order
4
The record aptly demonstrates trial counsel’s failure to object
to extremely prejudicial double hearsay, failure to object to prejudicial victim impact evidence, and failure to offer a proposed response to the jury’s question concerning culpability for failure to
render aid. The record also demonstrates counsel’s failure to obtain
and review discovery and other evidentiary materials, his failure to
obtain the presence of witnesses, and his general lack of advocacy
skills.
5
The Exhibits attached to the Application for Evidentiary
Hearing were not admitted at trial. They address trial counsel’s
failure to utilize available and important impeachment evidence
against the State’s star witness Justin Sneed (Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and
7), his failure to adequately prepare for trial and present a relevant
and sound theory of defense (Exhibit 6), and his failure to prepare
proposed mitigation instructions or second stage closing argument
(Exhibit 5).
26
Remanding to the Presiding Judge of Oklahoma County
for an Evidentiary Hearing on Claims of Jury Misconduct, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, and Prosecutorial Misconduct, etc., D 1998-948 (Okl.Cr. December 7,
2000)(not for publication). We remanded for an evidentiary hearing.6 We directed the trial court to enter appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law and to
determine: (1) the availability of the evidence or witness; (2) the effect of the evidence or witness on the trial
court proceedings; (3) whether the failure to use a witness or item of evidence was trial strategy; and (4) if such
evidence or witness was cumulative or would have impacted the verdict rendered. See Rule 3.11 (B)(3) (b)(iii).
¶14
The evidentiary hearing was held March 5,
2001, and the trial court’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were filed in this Court on March 13, 2001.
Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant had shown by
“clear and convincing evidence that he was prejudiced
by the ineffectiveness of counsel and that this Court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial.”
¶15
As noted above, Appellant made six claims
relating to ineffective counsel. Two claims—trial counsel’s failure to engage in meaningful cross-examination
or utilize potent impeachment evidence and his failure to
adequately prepare for trial by familiarizing himself
with discovery obtained from the State—required factfinding outside the appeal record and were addressed at
6
The matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the
Sixth Amendment claims asserted in Proposition Two and the Application, as well as to address other claims raised in the Application
for Evidentiary Hearing on Jury Misconduct Claims and Appellant's Notice of Extra-Record Evidence Supporting Prosecutorial
Misconduct and Violations of Due Process Clauses of the Oklahoma
and Federal Constitutions.
27
the evidentiary hearing. Prior to the hearing. Judge
Gray7 reviewed the entire trial transcript, including the
testimony of Justin Sneed, and watched the videotaped
interview of Justin Sneed conducted on January 14,
1997, by Oklahoma City police Detectives Bemo and
Cook.8
¶16
Trial counsel’s failure to utilize important
impeachment evidence against Justin Sneed stands out
as the most glaring deficiency in counsel’s performance.9
Evidence of counsel’s failure to utilize the videotape of
Justin Sneed is also apparent from the trial record. This
interview was repeatedly referred to by trial counsel
and by the State. During first stage deliberations, the
jury requested to view the videotape of Justin Sneed
even though it was not admitted into evidence. At trial,
trial counsel attempted to impeach Detective Bemo with
portions of the videotape, but was unable to lay an appropriate foundation. Judge Freeman talked trial counsel out of using the videotape to impeach Detective
Bemo; trial counsel indicated he would use the tape to
impeach Justin Sneed. However, when the time came to
7
We take this opportunity to commend Judge Gray for her serious and studied handling of this matter on remand. The details of
her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are excellent. The
Judge put in many hours to complete her task. She is complimented
for making a hard decision and not taking the easy way out by condoning trial counsel's conduct.
8
At trial, this videotape was identified as State's Exhibit 4 and
was not admitted at trial; the videotape was attached to the Application for Evidentiary Hearing on Sixth Amendment Claims as Exhibit 1. A transcription of the videotape is attached to the Application as Exhibit 2.
9
In this subclaim, Appellant contends counsel should have utilized the Sneed videotape and Dr. King's report on competency to
impeach Sneed.
28
impeach Sneed, trial counsel failed to utilize the videotape at all.
¶17
At the evidentiary hearing, Judge Gray determined the videotape was available and could have
been used as impeachment evidence against both Detective Bemo and more importantly against Justin Sneed,
but trial counsel never laid a proper foundation for its
use against Detective Bemo and did not even attempt to
confront Sneed with the discrepancies and inconsistencies on the tape. Judge Gray noted the numerous inconsistencies between Sneed’s trial testimony and his videotaped confession. She identified at least seven material
inconsistencies and noted at least five things in Sneed’s
trial testimony that he had completely omitted from his
videotaped statement. The most obvious and prejudicial
of these omitted statements was Sneed’s revelation that
Appellant told him “to pick up some trash bags, a hack
saw and I believe some … muriatic acid … He was wanting to pour the acid upon the body and then saw up the
rest of the body and put it in trash bags to be able to
move it out of the room.” Trial counsel did not impeach
Sneed by pointing out that he had never mentioned that
obviously material fact on the videotape. Judge Gray observed that trial counsel “missed multiple opportunities
to test Sneed before the jury.” Noting the State’s star
witness was Justin Sneed, the gist of Judge Gray’s findings was that no reasonable trial strategy could have
supported a decision not to utilize this impeachment evidence against him.
¶18
Judge Gray considered the testimony of
Captain Charles Rexford on Appellant’s claim that his
counsel was obviously ill-prepared and had no cogent defense theory. After hearing Rexford’s testimony, Judge
Gray found trial counsel presented an ill-prepared, incomprehensible defense that other individuals
29
committed the murder based upon a five-minute telephone conversation with Rexford about a murder that
occurred in 1984. She noted trial counsel did not review
the State’s investigative reports on the 1984 murder, did
not arrange to have the other “suspect” testify, and had
clearly not reviewed the law applicable to the trial
court’s determination whether Rexford’s testimony
would even be admissible. Ultimately, Judge Gray determined that Rexford’s testimony showed the theory of
defense put forth by trial counsel was “ill-conceived and
unsupportable (sic). Having a theory of defense is very
important. It cannot be trial strategy to misstate the
facts to the judge and jury.” She found trial counsel had
not adequately researched the law and his ill-preparedness impacted his performance at all stages of trial.10
¶19
Judge Gray found trial counsel failed to adequately prepare for trial and the trial mistakes (addressed at the evidentiary hearing) were not part of any
trial strategy. His failure to utilize available impeachment evidence against Justin Sneed, upon whose testimony the State’s entire case relied, was deficient performance and was clearly prejudicial. She ultimately concluded Appellant met both prongs of Strickland.
¶20
This Court will give the trial court’s findings
strong deference if supported by the record, but we shall
determine the ultimate issue of whether trial counsel
10
As to counsel's failure to utilize Dr. Edith King's report on
Sneed 's competency, Judge Gray found the report would not have
been admissible at trial and it would have been improper to attempt
to impeach Sneed with it. Judge Gray also found Pat Ehler's testimony on trial counsel's ill-preparedness for second stage was inadmissible and prohibited Ehler's from testifying at the evidentiary
hearing under Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10 and 3.7, Rules of Professional
Conduct, 5 O.S.Supp.2000 Ch. 1, App. 3-A.
30
was ineffective. Rule 3.11 (B)(3) (b)(iv), Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2001).
After careful review and consideration of the record, we
find the trial court’s findings and conclusions are supported by the record and we shall address Appellant’s
remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims in accordance therewith.
¶21
Although we find the claim that trial counsel
did not conduct proper voir dire unpersuasive,11 the remaining claims demonstrate trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. There was no excuse for trial counsel’s failure to
object to inadmissible double hearsay—Detective
Bemo’s testimony that he talked to William Bender who
said that Van Treese said he was going to move Glossip
out of the motel. This testimony was inadmissible hearsay, was offered for no other reason than to prove the
truth of the matter asserted, and was extremely prejudicial. It was arguably the only evidence presented at
trial that tended to independently corroborate any portion of Justin Sneed’s testimony implicating Appellant in
the crime and establishing a motive.12
¶22
Further, trial counsel’s failure to object to
Judge Freeman’s handling of the jury’s question regarding culpability for failing to render aid also was unreasonable and constituted deficient performance. The record demonstrates Appellant always maintained his innocence as a principal to the crime; he always admitted his
involvement after the fact. Trial counsel totally missed
this opportunity to reargue his request for an instruction
11
This claim was raised in Proposition Ten of Appellant's Brief.
12
This claim was raised in Proposition Seven of Appellant's
Brief.
31
on accessory after the fact at this juncture. This claim
will be more fully discussed below.
¶23
Lastly, trial counsel’s complete failure to object to the State’s victim impact evidence was deficient
under prevailing professional norms.13 The State did not
comply with Cargle v. State, 1995 OK CR 77, 909 P.2d
806, 828, cert denied, 519 U.S. 831, 117 S.Ct. 100, 136
L.Ed.2d 54 (1996), and 22 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 984. The victim impact statement admitted here went far beyond
what was admissible under the guidelines previously set
forth by this Court and was so inflammatory and prejudicial it very likely influenced the jury’s decision to impose a death sentence. It was unreasonable for trial
counsel to allow this inflammatory evidence to be admitted and heard without any objection.
¶24
Trial counsel’s lack of preparation is also apparent from his repeated statements prior to and during
the trial referencing Appellant’s ability to change his
plea or Appellant’s refusal to follow his advice to enter a
blind plea to the murder charge. We also note other examples of unreadiness which are evident in the record:
trial counsel’s last minute requests for discovery which
the State had already provided or had previously given
counsel the opportunity to obtain; trial counsel’s telling
the jury “Howard Bender” was a fictitious person when
his identity was known and obvious from discovery materials; trial counsel’s failure to lay a proper foundation
for the admission of evidence or testimony; trial counsel’s objection to lack of notice withdrawn because trial
counsel did have notice; trial counsel’s failure to secure a
witness whom counsel repeatedly referred to as a
13
A claim relating to the prejudicial victim impact statement
was raised in Proposition Five.
32
suspect in front of the Jury: trial counsel’s “calling” a
witness (by yelling for him in the hallway during trial) to
show the witness was not present; trial counsel’s forgetting to demur to the evidence until prompted by the trial
judge. Trial counsel also was not prepared for second
stage. Although he prepared a list of mitigating factors
for the jury’s consideration, it was apparently one prepared in haste. Further, the only witness other than Appellant who testified during second stage was Appellant’s mother, and counsel failed to ask her whether she
wanted her son’s life spared until prompted by the trial
judge.
¶25
The record as a whole suggests that trial
counsel was not prepared for trial, had not formulated
any reasonable defense theory, fully expected Appellant
to enter a plea, and never expected to get to the second
stage of the trial. For the reasons noted by the trial
court after the evidentiary hearing, and for the reasons
noted above, we find counsel’s performance deficient and
we find his failures could not have been part of any sound
or reasonable trial strategy. Under the facts of this case
and considering the weight of the evidence presented at
trial, Appellant was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s performance and we cannot say his trial produced a reliable
result. Strickland. For these reasons, we find this claim
warrants reversal and hereby remand this case for a new
trial.
¶26
Several other issues warrant discussion to
prevent the same mistakes from occurring on retrial. In
Proposition Five, Appellant argued the admission of
Donna Van Treese’s victim impact statement during the
second stage of trial violated the Evidence Code, 22
O.S.Supp. 1999, § 984. and his state and federal constitutional rights. We agree. The trial court and the State
failed to comply with the procedures set forth in Cargle,
33
1995 OK CR 77, ¶¶ 75-77; 909 P.2d at 828. The majority
of the victim impact statement was outside the scope of
permissible victim impact evidence, was unduly prejudicial and was not probative of “those unique characteristics which define the individual who has died, the contemporaneous and prospective circumstances surrounding that death, and how those circumstances have financially, emotionally, psychologically, and physically impacted on members of the victim’s immediate family.”
Id., 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 75. 909 P.2d at 828; see also Welch
v. State, 2000 OK CR 8, ¶ 42, 2 P.3d 356, 373, cert, denied,—U.S.—, 121 S.Ct. 665, 148 L.Ed.2d 567 (2000)(testimony about son placing flowers at grave and brushing
dirt away did not fall within statutory guidelines had little probative value and was more prejudicial than probative); Washington v. State, 1999 OK CR 22, ¶ 62, 989 P.2d
960, 978-979 (references to God and a higher power are
improper in victim impact statement).
¶27
Proposition Eight also warrants some discussion. Under the very specific facts of this case, Appellant was entitled to a jury instruction on the crime of
accessory after the fact.
¶28
The trial court has a duty to instruct on all
lesser-included or lesser-related offenses which are supported by the evidence. Childress v. State, 2000 OK CR
10, ¶ 14, 1 P.3d 1006, 1011; Shrum v. State, 1999 OK CR
41, ¶¶ 5-6, 991 P.2d 1032, 1036. A defendant is also entitled to an instruction on his theory of defense if it is supported by the evidence and is tenable as a matter of law.
Kinsey v. State, 1990 OK CR 64, ¶ 9, 798 P.2d 630, 632633. The test this Court uses to determine whether evidence of a lesser included offense is sufficient to warrant
a jury instruction is no different than the test used to
determine when the evidence is sufficient to warrant a
34
jury instruction on the defendant’s theory of defense.
Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 56, 4 P.3d 702, 719-720,
cert, denied,—U.S.—, 121 S.Ct. 832, 148 L.Ed.2d 714
(2001). It is the judge’s responsibility to determine
whether prima facie evidence of the lesser included offense (or evidence of the proposed defense) has been presented to warrant the instruction. Id. at ¶ 57.
¶29
Certainly where, as here, a defendant maintains his innocence to a charge of murder which rests
upon a theory that he “counseled” another to commit the
murder and the defendant defends the case on the theory
that he only knew of the murder after the fact and did
not disclose what he knew, the evidence is sufficient to
establish a prima facie case warranting an instruction on
accessory after the fact. Under the evidence presented,
we believe accessory after the fact was a related offense,
was Appellant’s “theory” of defense, and the instruction
should have been given.
¶30
The last claim we address was brought to
our attention in Appellant’s Application for Evidentiary
Hearing on Jury Misconduct Claims. This Application
was filed with Appellant’s Brief and raises, in part, a
claim alleging one or more jurors utilized extraneous
materials, a Bible, during deliberations and possibly in
arriving at their verdict(s). Affidavits of two jurors
were attached to the Application noting the discussion
of and reading of the Bible by one or more jurors during
deliberations. Because of the seriousness of allegations
involving the jury’s receipt and consideration of extraneous materials, we remanded this issue for consideration at the evidentiary hearing. We instructed the trial
court to make findings regarding whether extraneous
material, specifically a Bible, was physically brought by
one or more jurors into the jury deliberation room; and,
35
whether the same was/were referred to and utilized by
jurors during their deliberations in the first or second
stage of Appellant’s Jury trial.
¶31
Judge Gray considered evidence supporting
this allegation at the evidentiary hearing held March 5,
2001. Nine of the twelve jurors from Appellant’s trial
testified at the hearing. Juror Casey Fine testified he
brought his Bible into the deliberation room during both
first and second stage deliberations. Fine said he opened
and referred to it “when asked.” He could not recall the
name of the juror who asked him something about the
Bible, but said it was not one of the jurors present to testify at the evidentiary hearing. Juror Jere Osburn saw
the Bible in the deliberations room and testified it was
physically opened or referred to or read from during deliberations. Juror James Hardy testified there was a Bible in the deliberation room, but said it was not opened
or referred to during deliberations.
¶32
Jurors Rodden, Brooks, Chappell and
Selensky each testified he or she did not “recall” or “remember” a Bible being physically present during deliberations. Juror McWilliams admitted one juror had a Bible with him everywhere and probably during both
stages of deliberations, but McWilliams said it was not
opened or referred to. Juror Armstrong said he was not
exactly sure one way or the other.
¶33
After considering this testimony, Judge
Gray found “credible evidence that a Bible was physically in the jury room during deliberations” and “credible evidence that the Bible was not actually utilized during deliberations.” We review those factual findings applying the deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17, ¶ 109, 12 P.3d 20, cert.
denied,—U.S.—, 121 S.Ct. 2200,—L.Ed.2d—(2001); see
36
e.g. Bear v. State, 1988 OK CR 181, ¶ 8, 762 P.2d 950, 954
(resolution of questions of fact are entitled to special deference by a reviewing court); Ellis v. State, 1990 OK CR
43, ¶ 11, 795 P.2d 107, 110 (trial court’s resolution of underlying factual questions subject to “clearly erroneous”
standard of review).
¶34
Utilizing the above standard, we believe the
trial court was presented with credible evidence to show
that at least one Bible was, in fact, in the jury room during first and second stage and may well have been referred to in and during jury deliberations.
¶35
We were recently confronted with a similar
claim in Young, id. There, we affirmed “there is no question that a jury’s receipt of extraneous material not admitted at trial may have an improper influence upon the
jury’s verdict.” Because the trial court in Young determined there was no extraneous material, i.e. a Bible, in
deliberations, we did not reach the question whether
physically utilizing a Bible and its verses during deliberations constituted receipt of extraneous material and an
improper influence on the jury’s deliberations. Id. at
¶ 113.
¶36
Again, because we reverse this case on Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we
need not fully address this claim and its impact upon the
jury’s determination of guilt and sentence. However, we
are compelled to caution trial courts to remind jurors
they are to utilize only the jury instructions and consider
only the evidence presented at trial in arriving at their
determinations of guilt and sentence. Any outside reference material, including but not limited to Bibles or
other religious documents, dictionaries, or any other reference book, should not be taken into or utilized during
jury deliberations. Such documents and texts may be
37
left in custody of the bailiff and returned to the jurors at
the conclusion of deliberations. Enforcement of such a
procedure will foreclose future claims similar to the one
raised in this case and the one previously addressed in
Young.
Conclusion
¶37
Glossip’s conviction for First Degree Malice
Aforethought Murder is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
OKLAHOMA COUNTY THE HONORABLE
RICHARD W. FREEMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
Appellant, Richard Eugene Glossip, was tried by a jury
in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF97-244, before the Honorable Richard W. Freeman.
Glossip was convicted of First Degree Malice Aforethought Murder. After finding the existence of two aggravating circumstances, the jury assessed punishment
at death and the trial court sentenced accordingly. Glossip’s conviction for First Degree Malice Aforethought
Murder is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A
NEW TRIAL.
38
APPEARANCES
AT TRIAL
APPEARANCES ON
APPEAL
WAYNE M. FOURNERAT
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2525 NW EXPRESSWAY,
SUITE 300
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
73112
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
G. LYNN BURCH, III.
MATTHEW D. HAIRE
APPELLATE DEFENSE COUNSEL
OKLAHOMA INDIGENT DEFENSE
SYSTEM; CAPITAL DIVISION
1660 CROSS CENTER
DRIVE
NORMAN, OK 73019
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
FERN SMITH
JACK DURRETT
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
COURTHOUSE
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
73102
ATTORNEYS FOR
THE STATE
W. A. DREW
EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF OKLAHOMA
SETH BRANAM
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
2300 N. LINCOLN
BLVD., STE. 112
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
73104-4894
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: JOHNSON, V.P. J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCURS
CHAPEL, J.: CONCURS
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCURS
LILE, J.: CONCURS IN RESULT
39
LILE, JUDGE: CONCURS IN RESULTS
¶1
Judge Gray’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law After Evidentiary Hearing was comprehensive and compelling. I concur in her conclusion that
trial counsel representation was inadequate. This was
not a fair trial. I agree that this case must be reversed
and remanded for new trial for this reason alone.
¶2
I have full confidence that the retrial will be
conducted according to law.
40
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Case No. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
v.
Plaintiff,
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Defendant.
Filed June 17, 2002
MOTION REQUESTING PRODUCTION OF ALL
STATEMENTS OF CO-DEFENDANT JUSTIN SNEED
Comes now the Defendant, Richard Eugene Glossip,
by and through his counsel undersigned below, and
moves the Court to enter an order directing the State of
Oklahoma, by and through the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office, to disclose any and all statements
made by Justin Blayne Sneed, whether the State intends
to utilize said statements at trial pursuant to 22 O.S.
Subs. 2002 (A)(1)(c). Specifically, the Defendant requests that the State produce the following, to wit;
1. Any written or recorded statements and the
substance of any oral statement the State has
knowledge whether the State intends to offer said
statements at trial.
2. Identify by name, address, social security number, date of birth or any other identifying descriptions the person(s) who obtained said statements
whether oral or written.
41
3. Identify the time, place and circumstances of obtaining the statements.
4. Identify any and all law enforcement officer/agent who obtained or facilitated the obtaining
any and all statements of the accused.
5. Identify and produce any and all statements
made by Justin Blayne Sneed to law enforcement
and/or the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s office.
WHEREFORE premises considered the Defendant
respectfully requests this Court to order the State of Oklahoma to produce any and all statements of the Justin
Blayne Sneed.
42
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CASE NO. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
v.
Plaintiff,
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Defendant.
Filed June 26, 2002
STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
REQUESTING PRODUCTION OF ALL STATEMENTS
OF CO-DEFENDANT JUSTIN SNEED
COMES NOW the State of Oklahoma, by and
through C. Wesley Lane II, District Attorney for
Oklahoma County and moves this Honorable Court to
declare Defendant’s Motion moot.
The State intends to utilize the testimony of Justin
Sneed’s testimony elicited at the defendant’s prior trial
which has been transcribed by a qualified court reporter,
and all of his previous statements previously disclosed to
defendant including State’s exhibit #4 (video tape).
The State has complied with 22 O.S. 2002(A)(1)(c)
regarding the statements of Justin Sneed.
For the above and foregoing reasons, the State
prays this Honorable Court rule defendant’s motion is
moot.
43
Respectfully submitted,
C. WESLEY LANE II
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY:
[Signature]
FERN L. SMITH, OBA
#8347
44
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CASE NO. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Defendant.
REPORTED BY:
THERESA L. REEL, RPR
321 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 201
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
VOLUME 4 of 17
Filed March 23, 2005
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
TWYLA MASON GRAY, DISTRICT JUDGE.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
JURY TRIAL,
HAD ON MAY 14, 2004
*
[25]
*
*
testimony on these points and this case.
At the close of the evidence in this case I submit
to you that it will clearly establish that it was Justin
Sneed alone who committed this atrocious crime. And I
submit to you at the close of this case the evidence will
45
show that Richard Glossip was guilty of a mistake in
judgment in not telling what he knew when he knew it.
Whether that makes him guilty of a different offense,
that’s going to be your call.
But I submit to you at the close of this case the
evidence will not support a finding beyond a reasonable
doubt of Murder in the First Degree. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Is the State prepared to open your case in chief?
MS. SMOTHERMON: We are, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may call your first witness.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Thank you, Your Honor.
The State of Oklahoma calls Donna Van Treese
to testify.
MR. LYMAN: May we approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(Thereupon, the following was had at the bench.)
MR. LYMAN: We’d invoke the Rule of Sequestration. We’ve made, I think, some agreements as to
some of the prospective witnesses whether or not there
would be an [34] two grounds. First of all, we don’t think
it’s proper. We’re objecting. We know the state law has
changed in showing a pre-done photo of the victim is now
allowed. We also object to it being published in the first
stage and ask that it only be published in the second
stage.
Certainly, we don’t have a problem with her describing it, but to have it published at this time, I think
would be inappropriate. I know she hasn’t offered it but
she tells me she’s going to at this time.
46
THE COURT: So if I understand correctly, you
acknowledge that the law allows her to do that, but
you’re preserving the record?
MR. WOODYARD: It’s allowable in second
stage, is my understanding, Your Honor, and not first
stage evidence.
THE COURT: That is not my recollection of the
case. Let me ask—inquire of the State.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, we had a
pretrial motion on this and it could be that it was
Mr. Burch has already argued that, which is why these
gentleman may not know that, but there was a notice, a
filed notice by the State. There was discussion in front
of this Court with this Defense Counsel in which the Defense again acknowledged that that was the law. The
law does not make a distinction between first or second
stage.
There are guidelines. We have followed all
those guidelines. [35] This is a single-person shot, head
shot. It is not depicting any family gathering or any special event, it’s a—it looks like a photograph that may
have been taken for some type of business record.
THE COURT: I’m going to note your objection.
Did you need to add something, Mr. Lyman?
MR. LYMAN: I’d adopt any argument that
Mr. Burch made on that. This is a contemporaneous objection, and I know there may be pretrial rules but I
think in order to preserve it, I should have made the objection.
THE COURT:
overruled.
Your objection is noted and
47
(Thereupon, the following was had in open court.)
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ms. Van Treese, let
me show you a photograph that’s been marked State’s
Exhibit No. 79. Who is that a picture of?
A. Barry Van Treese.
Q. Okay. He doesn’t have a full beard here. Do you
know when this photograph was taken?
A. It was taken in September of 1996.
Q. So a few months before his death, in between the
time this was taken and the time that he was killed, he
grew his beard back?
A. That is correct.
Q. Other than the missing beard then, does that accurately reflect what Barry Van Treese looked like
around the time of [36] January 1997?
A. Yes, it does.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Move for admission of
State’s Exhibit No. 79.
MR. LYMAN: Our previous announcement.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
State’s Exhibit 79 is admitted.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, at this time
the State of Oklahoma would request that with this and
all introduced exhibits that we be allowed to publish to
the jury at the time of their introduction.
THE COURT: You may do so.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, tell us about
the time period of 1996. Were there unique events that
were occurring during that time?
48
A. Yes, there were. June 17th, 1996, my mother
had been hospitalized and just a couple of days after her
55th wedding anniversary she passed away here in Oklahoma City. She had lived in Weatherford and that’s
where we buried her at that time, shortly afterwards.
My husband, Barry Van Treese, knew that this had
been very devastating to me, as it is to everyone. He
had said, I need to take you away and the children. So
we left on a vacation. Different surroundings gave me
lots of time to think.
[37]
Q. I’m sorry. Do you remember where you
went?
A. Yes. We went from here out through Arizona,
visited with some cousins in Arizona, went up through
California, Sequoia National Forest, went up the coast
highway, went up through San Francisco, ended up in
Vancouver, British Columbia. Went on the barge over
to the island, Vancouver Island, toured the island, came
back across, went back across Canada.
Decided that the motor home that we were in were
not going to take the hills there very well so we came
back down through Spokane, Washington, went over,
went to Yellowstone, went to Mt. Rushmore. And then
shortly after that he said, “I feel an urgent need that we
need to get back to Oklahoma,” and so we drove straight
through, arriving back in Oklahoma City at the Oklahoma City motel on the early, 2:00 a.m., morning of July
the 12th.
We learned at that time that Barry’s mother was in
Mercy Hospital. She was scheduled for a second bypass
surgery at 6:00 a.m. that morning. We immediately
showered and left the motel going straight to the hospital. We were able to visit with her for a short period of
49
time before she went into surgery. During that surgery
she did not survive. They tried several attempts to take
her off the heart and lung machine and she passed away
on that day. Her heart was not strong enough to regain.
So within a 25-day period I [38] had lost my mother and
Barry had lost his mother.
Q. Let me talk to you a little bit about the few days
after your mother passed away before you went on vacation. During that time period, were you able to focus
on the business of the Tulsa and the Oklahoma City motel?
A. Of course not. We were taking care of family responsibilities.
Q. Were you checking in with those motels?
A. Yes, Barry was at that time.
Q. What did you do then or who did you rely on for
the running of those operations?
A. The managers we had in place at the time in Oklahoma City. It was Richard Glossip. And at the Tulsa
motel it was—Marty Bender was the manager at that
time, her and her husband.
Q. During the time that you took this vacation—
and you’ve told us a long route—do you remember about
how many days you were gone?
A. We were gone approximately 16 days.
Q. Now, you need to help us orient ourselves back
in time. In 1996, did you have a cell phone?
A. No, they were not available at the time. We did
have the pager that we were told was nationwide. We
did not receive any pages on that at that time. They
were still developing the technology then for that.
50
[39]
Q. So during these weeks that you were on this
vacation, did you have any hands-on contact with the
Tulsa and the Oklahoma City motel?
A. Yes, we would check in. We would stop in,
Barry would call and say, “How are things going?” You
know, “Is there any major problems that I can take care
of over the phone?” And so it wasn’t like we just walked
off and left them and abandoned them at that time, we
were checking in. It was our only source of income.
Q. Who were you relying on for the information of
how things were going during that period of time?
A. The managers of the motels.
Q. You got back to Oklahoma City, Barry Van
Treese’s mother now passes away. Tell us—and if I’ve
got us in the right place now, we’re about July, July 12th,
and a few days after that of 1996; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. Tell us then about your family life between July of 1996 and around Christmastime of 1996;
tell us what was going on in your life and how that affected or if it affected your ability to run day-to-day operations of the motels.
A. During this time we had—you know, the entire
family was devastated, both sides. I was trying to take
care of my father. He had had triple bypass surgery
done so I was [40] concerned about his health. My
brother also had had a stroke and had to live with them.
And he of course was devastated.
Barry’s family, Barry’s father lived in Lawton and
he was very devastated by the loss, and it’s understandable if you have been married to someone for 55 years,
51
and so Barry was spending a lot of time with his father.
He wanted to make sure that he was coping with his loss.
Barry also had a sister that lived there in Lawton.
So we were both checking on him on a daily basis and
spending a lot of time with him, having him at the house.
We also had five children at home that it was devastating for them also to have lost both of their grandmothers within such a short period of time.
Q. Were you doing any activities or spending special time with the children in order to try to get them
through this period?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. Were there any special activities that Barry
Van Treese was focusing on that would take his focus
away from any daily operations at the motel?
A. He was focusing on just having everyone—helping everyone cope, and being now the strong son, the
strong son-in-law, the strong father figure for everyone
that they could depend on him.
[41]
Q. Compare for me then, Ms. Van Treese, your
ability to have interaction and know what was going on
at your motels which were your source of income, compare for me prior to these deaths that you were coping
with and then during the time that you were coping with
the deaths.
A. Prior to, Barry would leave Mondays, Tuesday
sometimes in the week, would be gone all week long and
coming home on Saturday evening normally, staying until Sunday, Monday morning and then going back to the
different motels. So he was in between times. That was
his part of the business operations. He was hands-on
type person.
52
I was at the home taking care of the children.
I would call and get their daily reports on a daily basis.
I would speak to him. There were sometimes that he and
I would both just get too busy and there may have been
a day that we did not speak, so it wasn’t alarming to me,
you know, because I would normally speak to him either
the night before or the next morning.
Q. I’m sorry. Let me—and you may be going there,
but compare what you’re telling us now about the handson, spend a lot of time at the motel, did that change during this time period, these last seven months of 1996?
A. Yes, it did, dramatically. During that last seven
months he was at home. He would go to Oklahoma City
and Tulsa every two weeks then. He was staying at
home. During [42] that time period he was—only chose
to spend four nights away from home during that time
period and that was not—you know, it was a day here
and a day there, four different times.
Q. Okay.
A. So he was depending on the managers to do
their jobs.
Q. All right. So if I understand you, we went from
him staying at the hotels, one of the two motels on site
approximately four nights a week to four nights in a
seven-month period?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. Let’s talk about how your motel business
was run and I want to—they may be similar, the way the
Oklahoma City and the Tulsa motels were run, but I
want to focus on the running of the Oklahoma City motel.
Okay?
A. All right.
53
Q. You told us that Richard Glossip was the manager and he lived there on site; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
of?
Q. Did anyone live there with him that you knew
A. Yes, his girlfriend, D-Anna Wood.
Q. Was she employed by you and Mr. Van Treese?
A. No, she was not.
Q. Was it your understanding that she was doing
any type of work there at the motel?
[43]
A. She would sometimes check in customers.
Q. Do you know a lady by the name of Billye
Hooper?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And who was Billye Hooper?
A. Billye Hooper was our daytime desk clerk.
Q. And what would her job responsibilities have
been?
A. Her responsibility as being the daytime or in the
morning, coming in in the morning, she would prepare
the maid sheets showing what rooms were rented the
night before, what rooms needed to be cleaned, she
would coordinate and then check in any guests that
needed to be checked in during that time or checkout.
Q. So she would find out what rooms needed to be
cleaned, make a maid sheet, and give it to a housekeeper;
is that correct?
A. That is correct.
54
Q. Did you know someone by the name of Justin
Sneed?
A. Prior to January the 7th, I did not know him. I
knew of him.
Q. And what did you know of him prior to January
7th?
A. That he had been, quote, unquote, hired as a
part-time maintenance man/go-for.
Q. Did you know he was living there at the motel?
A. Prior to, no.
Q. Were you paying him a salary or a wage?
[44]
A. No.
Q. You said he was hired. Did you and Mr. Van
Treese hire him?
A. No, we did not.
Q. Who then hired—and you’re saying, quote, unquote. Who did this hiring?
A. Mr. Glossip.
Q. Do you know whether or not to your accounting
system was Mr. Sneed being paid?
A. No, not to my accounting system.
Q. All right. Let’s talk a little bit about the Best
Budget Inn then in Oklahoma City.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, these are
someone else’s numbering systems and so I apologize.
THE COURT: Would you just hand them to me
and let me take a quick look?
55
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, I’m showing
you some more photographs. These are marked State’s
Exhibits 33, 16, and 18. State’s Exhibit No. 33, do you
recognize what’s in this photograph?
A. Yes. It is the front of the Best Budget Inn. The
carport or overhang in front of the motel.
Q. In front of the office?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And when we’re talking Best Budget Inn, we’re
going to
*
*
*
[56]
Q. And would there be any other additions or
subtractions that might be made to his net paycheck?
A. Yes. If any time—and this was an open policy
for us, if any time between the 5th and the 20th if—you
know everyone at time periods runs short of cash. We
hope we can all make it without having to get any and
most of us do, but if you were in need of cash, they were
allowed to receive up to—and at that time I think we had
set it at $20 per day cash advance unless there was an
emergency come up.
And you would have—the manager would have to
call us and say, “Hey, I’m running short. I need a cash
advance.” We would okay it. I would put a note on my
records that I kept at my home of that. They were to fill
out a piece of paper and put the dollar amount on it and
sign for it and put it under a spot on the daily report that
was listed as cash paid out.
Q. So between December of—December 20th of
1996—which would have been one of Richard Glossip’s
pay period, correct?
56
A. That is correct.
Q. —to January 5th would have been his next pay
period?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. So if we counted those number of days, he was
allowed to take, if necessary—although, was this supposed to be a regular habit?
[57]
A. No, it was supposed to be on the case of
emergency and if something came up and you called and
we felt like it warranted it and we had the amount of cash
there to give, you could get more than that, so …
Q. All right. So on an emergency basis you could
take up to $20 a day. You had to get prior approval but
if you needed something bigger, you could get that approval from you?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Let’s talk a little bit about then Richard Glossip
and his conduct before your husband was murdered.
Okay? That’s what I want to concentrate on is Richard
Glossip’s conduct before the murder. Okay?
THE COURT: Before you get into that, let me
just inquire.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you need
me to give you about a 10, 15-minute break? We’ve got
about 50 minutes left until the lunch hour. Are you going
to be okay?
you.
All right. I just wanted to kind of consult with
You may proceed, Ms. Smothermon.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Thank you, Your Honor.
57
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) All right. Ma’am,
we were talking about the Defendant’s activities before
your husband was [58] murdered. I was trying to use
the same word. I’m not sure I did. But you know what
I’m talking about and where we were, right?
A. Yes, his conduct.
Q. All right. His conduct. Thank you.
We’ve got you to a time toward the Christmastime
of 1996. You’ve been telling us what has been happening
in your lives. Did you take any other trips in 1996 other
than what you’ve told us about?
A. Yes. During the Christmas break we had—I always had a love for snow skiing and Barry said, “We
need to take a family—we need to take a break here and
we need to go take a family Christmas break.” So we
loaded up everyone and went to Crested Butte, Colorado. We skied for four days and we returned home Sunday morning, January the 5th, 1997.
Q. Now, when you returned home, how long had it
been since Barry Van Treese had made any significant
visits, spent any significant time looking at the motels,
the property, doing any repair, doing any significant audit there at the motel sites?
A. He had been periodically there for audits but to
do any specific repairs, it had been prior to June the 17th.
Q. Did the two of you then make any plans for him
to do any site visits once you got back from your ski trip?
A. Oh, yes, we had spoke on the way home and he
said, [59] “Hey, I love everybody, but I have got to get
back to work.” And I said, “I realize that.” And I said,
“It’s been a full six months and I think everyone is going
to be okay.”
58
Q. Okay.
A. And he said, you know, “Spring is coming up.”
And normally during the January, February, March season is when we went through and repainted rooms if during the period that the carpets needed to be replaced or
whatever repairs needed to be done, we tried to do all
those during those three months of the year.
It was—that is typically for the locations where
these motels were next to the interstate that was a slow
period for us. So a lot of rooms would have been available to go into to do these repairs on to get ready for the
spring and the summer season.
During the summer months, you know, we were almost to capacity and so you have to be prepared. It’s
guarding your assets and making sure that they are
ready for your maximum amount of revenue that you
needed to have because some of that had to sustain you
through the slow months.
Q. When you made this plan then to do this January, February, March sort of clean up, did you believe
that the motel—what was your belief about the condition of the motel? Did you think there would have to be
significant repair in every room? Did you believe there
needed to be [60] some cosmetic clean up? I mean, what
was your opinion of the condition of the motel prior to
January?
A. We had been told that, oh, you know, “We’ve
been painting some rooms and we’ve been doing the repairs that need to be done to the motel rooms.”
Q. Who was telling you that?
A. Mr. Glossip.
Q. Okay.
59
A. He would say, “Oh, I painted room 102,” you
know, “yesterday,” for example, or this room number or
this other room number and we had a leaky faucet in
there and we fixed that. And so during the six months
we were being told that these repairs were being done
to the motel and so our impression was, you know, we
need to go—Barry’s impression on this, and he discussed
this with me, is, you know, I need to go check. I need to
go make sure that everything is being done.
And that was his way. He had to see to make sure
that everyone was doing their job that we were paying
them for and that—you know, it had been our practice
over the years if you weren’t doing your job, we gave
you an opportunity to correct that and if you did not correct that, then we could find someone else. You were not
indispensable.
Q. Well, let’s talk a little bit about that policy and
[61] let’s talk a little bit about Barry Van Treese’s demeanor. Can you tell us in general what type of personality he had.
A. He was basically your Santa Claus. He was a
very jolly, happy person. When we took trips, you know,
he would make up silly songs with the kids and he was,
you know, in some phases, you know, he was—had the
demeanor and the actions of a child. He wanted to have
fun with all of us.
Q. Your personal observations of him interacting
with his employees on a general basis, was he—did he
display that same type of demeanor with them, in general?
A. In general, yes. You know, if you were doing
your job and you were doing what he thought needed to
be done, you know—and our policy was no question is a
60
stupid question. You know, you are not going to learn
unless you ask. And we didn’t expect everyone to know
everything because—and we all don’t know that on any
job until we ask that question.
He was always very cordial as long as you were doing your job, you were very polite, because he always
wanted—he treated everyone the way he wanted to be
treated.
Q. All right.
A. But if you weren’t doing your job, you were going to know about it.
Q. Okay. Didn’t hide his feelings if he was upset?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Had there been instances in the past where employees [62] had lied or stolen and he had reacted, there
was a demonstrable reaction where they knew what was
wrong?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. Had you let employees go for those reasons in
the past?
A. Yes, we had.
Q. Were those policies and those types of expectations conveyed to Richard Glossip?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. All right. Now, we talked a little bit about what
you expected the condition of the motel to be. Let’s talk
a little bit about what you knew as the financial officer
or record keeper; what you knew about the finances of
the Oklahoma City motel.
61
In the seven months of, you know, May, June of 1996
until January of 1997, did you have any concerns about
how some of the money was being handled or some of the
recordkeeping was being handled at the Oklahoma City
motel?
A. Yes, we did have that concern.
Q. Tell me about the concern.
A. During—at the end of each month—let me back
up. I’m sorry.
On a daily basis I would call the motel. That was
part of my responsibility was to call the motel, get the
number of rooms rented, get the deposit information,
how much was cash, credit cards, and how much each
room was rented for, [63] which we refer to as our ADR
or Average Daily Rental and I kept all that information
because we made projections on those figures that I got
at different times.
You know, if we continue at—say, the 15th of the
month, if we continue at what we’ve done from the 1st to
the 15th, by the end of the month, well, we should—you
know, you should rent this many rooms and this should
be the amount of revenue. So we based that on, you
know, what information I received.
Q. And based on what you had, did you become suspicious of how some of the finances were being done?
A. Yes. At the end of each month, I would do a report and then I kept a year-to-date report. There were
significant shortages for the entire year of 1996.
If I may refer to my notes?
Q. Yes.
62
A. For the entire year of 1996 there was a deficit, a
shortage of $6,101.92. Of course, that is broken down
over a 12-month period.
Q. Tell us what a shortage is.
A. The rooms were rented. The total amount of
business volume. Okay. The business volume was on the
right side of the daily report. At the bottom, that was
the total number of rooms that were rented, their rate
plus tax. That was your business volume for that day.
[64]
Q. So what you charged, if you added all that
up, you had a total?
A. You had a total. That was your business volume
for the day. On the left side of the daily report there is a
column for cash collected. The cash collected could be
cash, Visa, Mastercard, American Express, traveler’s
checks, comp checks, however you took in money for that
day. Those were added up. That was your cash collected.
Out of that, to balance for that day, that cash collected, you took less the cash that was paid out. There
was a petty cash kind of allowance for the day. You
know, if you needed to run to the store and buy a can of
air freshener, because you can—you know, that’s what
we did. You know, that receipt was attached so you deducted that. You got your total cash that you were supposed to have in hand for the day.
als?
Q. Which would represent supposedly room rent-
A. Supposedly room rentals, yes, that is correct.
You knew what you needed over here for cash. Now,
what you actually had in solid green cash or other forms
of monies. And that’s how you balanced out.
63
Q. So the monies taken in are supposed to equal
what the charges were for the rooms?
A. That is correct. There were some instances that
people would pay ahead for their rooms. We had workers that would [65] come in, different construction
crews, roofing crews, that sort of thing, they would
sometimes come in on Monday and we really required for
them to pay in advance.
They would come in, say, Monday morning or Monday evening and they would pay for Monday through
Thursday and they would go home on weekends. Some
stayed all the time.
There was one particular gentleman that I know of
for sure that had lived at our motel for eight years.
Q. Do you remember his name?
A. Yes, his name was John Beavers.
Q. Have you seen him out here today?
A. I have not seen him here today.
Q. Okay.
A. But he would pay sometimes on a weekly basis,
sometimes on a monthly basis, but more than likely on a
weekly or every two-week basis so his amount collected
would be more than those that paid for more than one
day.
Q. But your accounting procedures, could you account for that and know at the—your bottom line, know
this is how many rooms were rented at this rate, a total,
this is how much money I have in my hand and those
numbers were supposed to match up?
A. They were supposed to match up and at the end
of each month that’s where we determined the shortage.
64
Q. A shortage being not enough money to equal the
rooms?
[66]
A. Not enough monies collected to equal the
business volume.
Q. Okay. So at the end of 1996, the Oklahoma City
motel managed by Mr. Richard Glossip was $6,101.92
short on the money you would have expected him to be
able to turn over to you?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, tell me, because I don’t know the motel
business, how did that make you feel? What was your
reaction to the 6000—missing $6,101.92?
A. We were very upset.
Q. Okay.
A. And—
MR. WOODYARD: Your Honor, I need to object. May we approach, please?
THE COURT: You may.
(Thereupon, the following was had at the bench.)
MR. WOODYARD: Your Honor, I’m concerned
that we’re getting testimony that is basically hearsay.
I can’t tell if it’s her testifying because I hear this, “we,”
and the foundation is not laid as to whether this is personal knowledge that she’s talking about or whether it
was information that she’s getting from her husband
that’s relayed to her that she’s repeating as her testimony. And I’ve let some of this go and it’s been somewhat innocuous. [67] I don’t want to interrupt the proceedings unnecessarily, but I think I need to make an objection at this time because I’m afraid there’s a lot of
65
hearsay information coming in from this witness so we
object on that basis.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, she’s laid a
foundation for her knowledge of the financial records.
I’ve been specific in my questions as to what did the records reveal to you. What was your belief based on that.
She ran this business for 18 years with her husband.
I think it would be awkward for her to say, “Well, I believed this.” I mean, I think it’s a common answer for
her to say we believed this, we believed that. But I’ve
laid the foundation that she would have knowledge of
these facts, independent knowledge of these facts, independent belief of these facts.
I can instruct her—she can hear what we’re saying. But I can instruct her to be more specific in her answers. But—I mean, I don’t think the record is unclear
as to her basis of knowledge.
MR. WOODYARD: The use of the term, “we,”
implies that she’s speaking for her husband which the
Court knows is a hearsay problem and that’s one of my
concerns.
THE COURT: Well, part of the problem is, is
that you have folks who are together running a business.
MR. WOODYARD: Right.
[68]
THE COURT: And having conversations and
probably reaching consensus about—as they share information, about accounting procedures. I’m not concerned
about the “we.” I think there may come a time when you
need to be more specific about personal knowledge.
I’m sure you have explained to her that it would
be improper for her to—that insert situations provide
hearsay responses, although there may be some, you
66
know, hearsay exceptions as well. So at this point I’m
not concerned about what’s going on.
But I will allow you the latitude, Ms. Smotherman, to direct her to be more specific if that’s necessary.
Thank you, Counsel.
(Thereupon, the following was had in open court.)
Q (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ms. Van Treese,
I believe what we were talking about is, you know,
there’s $6,000 missing at the end of 1996. You tell me, I
mean, is that a good thing, is that a bad thing, you would
have expected worse? I mean, what was it that you were
believing and feeling based on this shortage at the end
of 1996.
A. I had compiled all of these records. That was
part of my duties. And we had divided our duties, Barry
and myself, we had divided our duties, you do this, I’ll do
this, and sometimes they overlapped each other and so
we discussed, and he depended on me to have this information for him and [69] so I had compiled these records.
When I was doing these I looked at him with—red
flags went up, I was alarmed. I immediately, you know,
would contact him. He would call and say, “Hey, you got
the end of the month stuff done?” And say, “Yeah, sure
do.”
I’d try to have it—keep it up on a daily basis so that
at any point in time when he asked I would have it ready
for him. You know, I felt like he was out working, he was
being separated from the family, the least I could do was
keep these records up to date. Because if you didn’t, you
were going to have to spend a whole lot of time doing it
later.
67
And so when I realized that there were these shortages—and at the end of each month when I would get
those numbers and those—whether there was a long—
sometimes there was a long, sometimes there was a
small shortage. We allowed a little, you know, people
miscount change, that sort of thing. At the end of each
month it wasn’t like that we just let them go, Okay,
they’re $600 short this month, okay, we’re not going to
say anything about it. That was not the case at all. We
would call and we would say, Hey—
Q. Got a problem.
A. —Hey, there’s a problem here, you know. These
aren’t balancing out. And some of those would be they
had let [70] someone stay in the motel and, well, they’re
going to pay the first part of next month.
Q. Is that standard policy for your motel?
A. No, we always wanted to pay in advance. You
pay—you know, we go to buy groceries we have to pay
for the groceries before we eat it. We have to pay for
the room before we go and stay in it. And so we would
ask, Are there any of these? And on several of my notes
that I did take during this time they will explain some of
that. And then you think, well, okay, next month it will
balance itself out.
Q. And at the end of 1996, it didn’t?
A. No, it did not.
Q. All right. Now, without telling me at this time
what Barry Van Treese’s—what he said about this when
you told him about that, tell us about his physical demeanor. How did he react? Did he appear to be visibly
upset? Did he take it in stride?
68
A. He was visibly upset. He said, “Have you—”
you know, “Are you sure of this?” I said, “Barry, here is
all the records,” you know, “double check it yourself.”
Q. How do you find out then what’s up with this
money? I mean, if there’s a shortage at the end of the
year, how do you get answers to that?
A. He went directly to the source.
[71]
Q. All right. And when was he going to go to
that source?
A. On January the 6th, 1997.
Q. Other than—and who would be that source, I’m
sorry?
A. Richard Glossip.
Q. Other than going to Richard Glossip and talking
to him about this $6,000 shortage at the end of the year,
was he going to do anything else on this visit?
A. Yes. He was going to—
MR. WOODYARD: Your Honor, I’m going to
object. I believe that calls for a hearsay response.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) You may answer,
ma’am, what he was going to do on his visit.
A. We had discussed this on our way home from our
trip. He says, you know—
Q. No, not what he said, ma’am, just what was he
going to do.
A. Okay. He was going to go to the motels, go room
by room, take a maintenance sheet with him, evaluate
what needed to be done in each one of the rooms, making
69
a list because you cannot remember what needs to be
done in 52 rooms.
Q. Sure.
A. He made a list room by room, faucet needs to be
fixed, new shower curtain, new caulking around the tub,
needs paint [72] job, whatever. He was going to go room
by room, evaluate what needed to be done, go and buy
the needed supplies to repair what needed to be done to
bring the motel up to his standard.
Q. And then was he going to stay there and do some
of the repairs himself?
A. Yes, he was, like I had said, previously testified,
that he was a very hands-on person. He did not expect
for you to do something that he was not willing to do
himself.
Q. Now, ma’am, we talked about the yearly shortage and I want to make sure that I gave you all the time
that you needed to explain discrepancies. Do you have a
way of tracking in your finances a cost for services, for
example, maid service costs?
A. Yes.
Q. And then do you have a way of tracking revenues, how much money you’re making each month?
A. Yes.
Q. Or how many rooms you’re renting?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. During those seven latter months of 1996,
was there anything about those two numbers that concerned you?
70
A. Being in the motel business for 18 years you estimate what it will cost per room to have it cleaned.
Those figures did not match up with one another.
[73]
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, the maid costs were down comparable to
the rooms rented.
Q. Maid cost was down. I don’t understand what
you’re saying there.
A. I’m sorry.
Q. That’s okay.
A. We figured approximately and at that time 1.50
per room to go and clean, we figured about 30 minutes.
And, of course, you know minimum wage was a lot less
in 1997 than it is today. We could go through and go,
Okay, there were 20 rooms rented times $1.50 a room so
our maid costs for today estimated would be approximately this amount.
Q. Okay.
A. Say that amount was—
Q. —forty dollars?
A. Forty dollars. The costs for maids that day was
$20, you know, after you’ve been in the business for a
while there are signs and signals that just trigger you to
be more alert and to go, Wait a minute, something is not
quite right here, so
Q. I’m sorry. Go ahead.
A. I’m sorry. Then there were also times that there
were rooms on the daily maid sheets that weren’t over
here on the daily reports. The explanation that we received for [74] those—
71
Q. Hang on. I want the explanation but let me
make sure we understand what that means. So that
means the daily maid sheets are rooms that needed to be
cleaned?
A. That is correct.
Q. Why would a room need to be cleaned? Because?
A. Because it was rented the previous night.
Q. Okay. So if a room needed to be cleaned, on the
maid sheet, you would expect it to be on the list of rooms
that were rented?
A. Yes, on the daily report.
Q. So you had rooms that were on the Clean This
Room sheet, maid sheet, that weren’t on the this Room
Was Rented sheet?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. Did you inquire as to the reason for that?
A. Yes.
Q. And let me ask you who it was that you asked?
A. Mr. Gossip.
Q. And what explanation were you given?
A. We were given, “Someone checked into that
room, they didn’t like—you know, they pulled back the
sheets and the sheets were wrinkled,” or, “There was a
hair on the sheets so we moved them to another room.”
it
Q. And the amount of times that this happened, did
*
[97]
*
*
Q. And who was it that called you?
72
A. Billye Hooper called me from the Oklahoma City
motel.
Q. And about what time was that?
A. Around 3:30 in the afternoon.
Q. And did you learn something at that time that
caused you some concern?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what was it that you learned that caused
you some concern?
A. Billye had told me that they had called from the
Weokie Credit Union, which is directly behind and
across the field from where the motel sat, and then there
was an open field and then the credit union. Which you
entered and exited from the credit union on Reno rather
than on Council.
She said that there was a concern that there was a
car there parked in their parking lot that they thought
was Barry’s car.
Q. Was that a—I mean, your husband’s car being
over at the Weokie credit union, was that something
that—did that in and of itself cause you some concern?
A. Oh, yes, it did. They had told me that the car
was parked kind of catercornered and that one of the
doors was ajar, the door was actually unlocked. Barry
would never leave his car unlocked, even where we lived
which was out in the country in a residential area that
our house was set [98] back off, he would lock his doors
even at our house.
Q. Was that his practice with his home and a motel
room if he was staying there?
A. Oh, yes, yes.
73
Q. Did he make that practice known to other people?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that you talked to Billye Hooper,
about 3:00 that afternoon on the 7th, did you become
aware of whether or not anyone knew where your husband was?
A. Well, I immediately started asking questions,
where was Barry. Several months prior to that he had
been diagnosed with diabetes and so knowing a little,
very little about it and going to a couple of classes with
him, I’m thinking did he have a medical problem. I was
on, as what I consider myself, high alert when things like
this happen, as you would if a child was hurt, you go on
high alert status.
Q. So after your conversation with Billye Hooper,
you didn’t know where your husband was, you knew the
car had been found?
A. That is correct.
Q. When is the next time that you talked to anyone
in the Oklahoma City area?
A. I immediately called back later. And at one
point during that afternoon I spoke with Richard Glossip.
Q. And you say “afternoon.” Would that have been
before [99] dinnertime?
A. No, it was after the 3:00 phone call that I received from Billye.
Q. Okay. Was it before dark?
A. Yes, it was.
74
Q. Okay. Now, when you made contact with Richard Glossip, was it because he called you or you called
the motel and spoke with him?
A. I called him and said, you know, I’m trying to
find Barry, his car is over there ajar. I said, When—you
know—okay—when was the last time that you saw him?
Q. Okay. And did he respond to that?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He told me that he had seen Barry some time
between 7 and 7:30 a.m. on January the 7th and that
Barry had told him he was going to buy supplies for the
motel and he would be back later.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, I apologize
for not getting the easel out before. May I do that now?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. SMOTHERMON: I meant to do it earlier.
THE COURT: That’s okay.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) When you asked
Richard Glossip about your husband he told you that he
had seen him that [100] morning on the 7th?
A. That is correct.
Q. And did he give you a particular time?
A. He said some time between 7 and 7:30 a.m.
Q. And what did he tell you was happening at that
time when he saw your husband?
A. He said that he had seen Barry and that Barry
had told him that he was leaving to go buy supplies.
75
Q. Did you ask him any questions about whether
your husband looked okay, seemed ill?
A. I remember, you know, I was highly concerned
so, yeah, I said, you know, did he look okay? Did he feel
okay? Did he sound okay to you? And the indication I
got was, yes, that everything was fine.
Q. Any other comments that Richard Glossip made
to you in that conversation about when he had last seen
your husband?
A. He had said that he had seen him the day before
when he came to make the payroll checks and that, you
know, that he had seen him that morning but he had not
seen him since 7:30.
Q. And I want to put on here when this statement
was said to you. So it was said to you on what date, on
the 7th?
A. Yes, January the 7th.
Q. Okay.
A. And it was some time between the 3:30—3, 3:30
phone [101] call that I received and probably 4:30, you
know.
Q. In the afternoon?
A. In the afternoon, yes, p.m.
Q. Do I have that recorded correctly?
A. That is correct.
Q. That’s all I’m going to use of this easel. I can
push it back.
THE COURT: Deputy Williams, do we need to
move that a little bit?
Please proceed.
76
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, anything
else of substance in that conversation or did you talk to
anyone else at that time that you gained any other information from?
A. I had also asked him at that time, when he said
that Barry had left and that’s why his car was gone, because his car is over there now. And I said, “You are the
manager. I need for you to go and check all the rooms.
Maybe he came back. Maybe he had car trouble. Maybe
he came back and is in one of the rooms working.”
Q. Okay. And was that that conversation or a different conversation?
A. I made numerous calls back and forth and so, to
be correct and true here, I was constantly on the phone
with either the motel or the police or someone from the
3:30 phone call until late in the evening trying to figure
out [102] what had happened to my husband.
Q. When you were on the phone, did you talk to
Richard Glossip on more than one occasion?
A. Oh, yes, I did.
Q. Okay. So you’re telling us either on that occasion or on another occasion you told him, “He might have
come back. He’s sick. He might be sick, check all the
rooms”?
A. Yes, I said: Check all the rooms. Check the field
in between, go next door. Go,” you know, “everywhere.”
Q. And what was his response to that?
A. “Yes, ma’am, I will do that.”
Q. Okay. All right. And you said you were also
talking to the police. So you knew there was an ongoing
77
police investigation looking for your husband; is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct. And when Billye told me
that the car was missing I had instructed her to immediately call the police.
Q. Okay. And so you knew the police were becoming
involved?
A. Yes.
Q. So throughout the afternoon between 3:30 and
the hours following it, you’re talking to people at the motel and you’re talking to the police?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. Several hours pass. Do you have any indication [103] during that time, from this Defendant or
anyone else, of where your husband is located?
A. No, I do not.
Q. When do you find out that they have found your
husband?
A. Approximately 3:00 a.m., the morning of the 8th,
my brother-in-law had flown in from Salt Lake City. He
had already scheduled to come in. When we found out
that Barry was missing I had alerted other family members that lived here in Oklahoma City. Said, you know,
“Hey, did Barry come by and have lunch with you? Have
you seen him?” And they were all alerted that he was
missing. And so approximately 3, 3:30 a.m., the morning
of the 8th, my brother-in-law calls me and tells me—he
said, “We found Barry.” And he said, “He is no longer
with us.”
Q. Okay.
what?
Now, your brother-in-law’s name is
78
A. Jim Van Treese.
Q. And Jim Van Treese was in Oklahoma City?
A. Yes, he was. He was at the motel.
Q. So he called you from the motel property?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Ma’am, I want to talk about some items, some
articles and ask you if you can identify them.
MR. ACKLEY: May I approach the reporter
for just a moment?
THE COURT: You may.
[104] MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, I don’t anticipate asking for their introduction at this time.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, I’m going to
show you some photographs. Ma’am, I’m going to cover
a portion of this photograph, but the portion that I am
showing you, you see that that is part of a photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. And you see that it’s marked with State’s Exhibit No. 24?
A. That’s correct.
Q. The portion of the photograph that you can see
in State’s Exhibit No. 24 shows an item, a jewelry item.
What is that?
A. Yes, it is a wristwatch.
Q. And do you recognize whose wristwatch that is?
A. Yes, it’s Barry Van Treese’s.
79
Q. And on January 6th when he left your Lawton
home, was he wearing the watch that is depicted in
State’s Exhibit No. 24?
A. Yes, he was.
Q (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, again, I’m
going to show you a portion of a photograph. You can
see something, an item in this photograph, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it’s marked with a State’s exhibit sticker,
State’s
*
*
*
[140] understands what I’m talking about. We’re
talking about the different documents from where the
jury is at. I would like to just show to the jury exactly
what we’re talking about. If I can provide her my copy
and then put her copy, which is the unmarked copy, onto
the visualizer? If I may do that?
THE COURT: You may do so.
MR. WOODYARD: Thank you. Just disregard
my scribbling on there.
Q. (BY MR. WOODYARD) Now, I’ve cut off on the
visualizer the left part that basically shows the month,
the year, and some other materials. But the part I’m interested in is the far right column. And with the exception of July, appears on your deposit versus volume document—
A. Yes.
Q. —that all of the months except for July have
losses is that correct?
A. That is correct.
80
Q. This information was available to you and Mr.
Van Treese on a monthly basis?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, yourself, ever talk to Richard Glossip
about these losses that you’ve indicated in each of these
columns?
A. Yes, I did, because it was my responsibility to
produce this report and at the end I would say, you
know, “What is this?” And he’s say, “Well, this person
owes,” or, “This [141] person owes.” And then we’d say,
“Well, maybe next month,” you know, “when they pay
then next month it will show.” If you have a shortage
this month and someone pays, you’re going to have an
overage this month.
Q. That only happened one time in the year 1996?
A. That is correct.
Q. And it was my understanding it was your husband’s policy if he thought someone was not treating him
fairly and was given the opportunity to correct the problem, that he would then fire them without hesitation?
A. That is correct.
Q. But this reflects almost a whole year of that conduct and Mr. Glossip was not fired, was he?
A. No, he was not.
Q. Thank you.
MR. WOODYARD: I believe I’ve moved previously, Your Honor, if I haven’t, move for admission of
Defendant’s Exhibit 71.
THE COURT: I don’t believe that we moved.
We’ve published it, but we didn’t move and admit it.
81
So does the State have objection?
MS. SMOTHERMON: Actually I believe where
we were is he moved to admit it and I objected because
of the Tulsa portion.
THE COURT: And we’re going to redact that.
*
*
*
82
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CASE NO. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Defendant.
REPORTED BY:
THERESA L. REEL, RPR
321 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 201
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
VOLUME 6 of 17
Filed March 23, 2005
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
TWYLA MASON GRAY, DISTRICT JUDGE.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
JURY TRIAL,
HAD ON MAY 18, 2004
*
*
*
[14]
Richard Glossip and D-Anna Wood got there or
do you remember?
A. I don’t remember that actually.
Q. Okay.
clerk?
So Billye Hooper was the front desk
83
A. Yes.
Q. Did she live on site?
A. No, she did not.
Q. Did Richard Glossip and D-Anna Wood live on
site?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Okay. Do you know if there were any housekeepers that worked there and/or lived there around
January of 1997?
A. I suppose some did, but I don’t really have any
direct knowledge of what their arrangements were.
Q. Do you know Kayla and Michael Pursley?
A. Yes, I did know them.
Q. And who are they?
A. Kayla worked next door at the Sinclair Station
and Michael was her husband.
Q. And did they live there at the motel as well?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they have any kids?
A. I can’t remember, to be honest with you.
Q. Okay. All right. And were they—did they live
there like you did, it wasn’t just one night at the motel,
that was their residence?
[15]
A. Yes, pretty much, as I understand it.
Q. All right. Tell me which direction the Sinclair
station is.
A. Okay. The Sinclair station is directly south of
the motel.
84
Q. So to get to the Sinclair station, you would walk
this direction?
A. Yes.
Q. Off the bottom of—
A. Yes.
Q. —this map as we have it here?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you see the Sinclair station from the motel
if you’re standing here in the parking lot?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And can you see the motel from the Sinclair station if you’re standing in the parking lot?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know a person by the name of Justin
Sneed?
A. I didn’t actually know him. I knew of him, but I
really did not know him.
Q. Okay. Did he live there at the motel?
A. I really didn’t know what his arrangements
were. I saw him around the property and that’s about it.
Q. Do you know for how long of a period you saw
him around [16] the property?
A. I can remember seeing him for a week, two
weeks maybe. I don’t really know for exactly.
Q. Okay. Was he there every day or quite often or
you saw him occasionally?
A. I saw him quite often, but I couldn’t tell you how
long.
85
Q. Did you have any interaction with him at all in
an ability to talk to him or observe him?
A. Not more than a nod of, you know, acknowledgement. That’s about it.
Q. Okay. Were you able to form an opinion about
what you thought of his personality and intelligence?
A. I hate to—you know, I hate to just, you know,
give somebody my opinion on this, but he just didn’t
strike me as having a whole lot going on for him.
Q. Okay. And do you mean he didn’t have a lot of
support or he didn’t have a lot?
A. He didn’t have a lot of mental presence.
That’s—but I—you know, I could be completely wrong.
I didn’t know him.
Q. And I appreciate that. Did you ever see Justin
Sneed and Richard Glossip together?
A. Yes, walking around the property looking at repair jobs or, you know, just odds and ends.
[17]
Q. Okay. Do you know if Justin Sneed worked
there or not?
A. I assumed he did. I saw him doing a little bit of
handiwork here and there.
Q. I want to talk a little bit about Barry Van
Treese. Did you get along with Mr. Van Treese?
A. Oh, yes, generally.
Q. Okay. And tell us a little bit about his demeanor.
How did he normally handle himself?
A. Well, I can only tell you how he handled himself
toward me. I was a paying guest and he was always very
86
nice to me and that’s—you know, that’s just business, I
guess.
Q. Did you ever see him act any differently toward
anyone else, employees or other guests?
A. I saw his temper. I saw him get riled at employees over the years for just this and that and I couldn’t
give you any reason, I saw him not in a pleasant mood a
few times toward other people.
Q. Okay. Well, were these employees that they
wasn’t pleasant with?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And when you say you saw him—I mean,
how could you tell he was upset?
A. Oh, just as opposed to friendly or upset, he was
upset, you know .
Q. Did he raise his voice?
[18]
A. Yeah, I’ve heard him raise his voice.
Q. Did the type of words that he used and his tone
of voice change?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you say that he had this type of behavior
with just one employee or more than one employee?
A. More than one employee.
Q. But he never showed any displeasure with you?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Do you know whether or not he ever fired anyone there from the motel?
87
A. I assume he did but I never had direct—you
know, I was never a direct witness to him firing anybody.
Q. And when you say you assumed he did, did you
see him upset with employees who then no longer
worked there?
A. Right. Right.
Q. Sir, I want to talk to you a little bit about Richard Glossip’s demeanor. Did you get along with Richard
Glossip?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell us a little bit about his personality and
his demeanor.
A. Richard seemed like a real go-getter. He was
always working hard. It seemed like he was working
hard. It seemed like he always had plans to do this, that,
and the other. I can’t give you any specifics, but he always seemed
*
[45]
*
*
Q. Well, did you see maids or—
A. Yes.
Q. —people going in and out of the rooms?
A. Yes.
Q. You had indicated that you had seen Mr. Van
Treese at times raise his voice toward other employees
if he was not happy with something?
A. Yeah, I had seen that before.
Q. You had never seen him fire anybody?
88
A. Not to my knowledge. Not exactly in front of
me.
Q. You saw him work with Mr. Glossip, didn’t you,
when they were working together or around each other?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they always seem to be getting along?
A. Not always. Sometimes there seemed to be a
little tension. Sometimes there seemed to be nothing.
It’s just—I can’t put my finger on anything, really.
Q. There’s no time did you see him fire Mr. Glossip
or say he was going to fire Mr. Glossip?
A. Not to my memory.
Q. And up to the point in time of Mr. Van Treese’s
death, Mr. Glossip was still the manager, wasn’t he?
A. As far as I knew.
Q. Now, you had indicated that after you had heard
the glass break and after you had gone to the Sinclair
station
*
*
*
89
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
CASE NO. CF-97-244
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD EUGENE GLOSSIP,
Defendant.
REPORTED BY:
THERESA L. REEL, RPR
321 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 201
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
VOLUME 7 of 17
Filed March 23, 2005
BEFORE THE HONORABLE
TWYLA MASON GRAY, DISTRICT JUDGE.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
JURY TRIAL,
HAD ON MAY 19, 2004
*
*
*
90
[3]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 7 of 17
May 19, 2004
PAGE
BILLYE HOOPER TESTIFIED:
Direct Examination......................................
By Ms. Smotherson
Cross-Examination.......................................
By Mr. Lyman
4
82
COURT ADJOURNED FOR THE EVENING RECESS................................................................................106
CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT REPORTER...107
91
[4] (Thereupon, on May 19, 2004, with all counsel, the
Defendant and the jury present, the following was had
in open court.)
THE COURT: Is the State prepared to call its
next witness?
MS. SMOTHERMON: Yes, Your Honor.
The State of Oklahoma calls Billye Hooper.
BILLYE HOOPER,
having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. SMOTHERMON:
Q. Ma’am, would you state your name for the jury,
please.
A. Billye K. Hooper.
Q. And, Ms. Hooper, are you currently employed?
A. No, not at this time.
Q. And are you retired?
A. I’m retired on my long-term disability.
Q. When you retired, what type of work were you
doing?
A. I was working for Pharmacy Management Consultants, a division of the State of Oklahoma as their help
desk.
Q. And this long-term disability, is it because of an
accident or because of some medical problems?
A. Because of medical problems.
Q. All right. Ma’am, was there ever a time that you
worked in the motel business?
92
[5] A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Tell us how much years all total you
worked in the motel business.
A. Well, let’s see. I worked about six months for
Howard Johnson’s on south’s 15th and then I worked for
Best Budget Inn for approximately three years, and
then I worked for the Super 8 Motel as night auditor on
39th and North May for two years.
Q. Let’s talk about the time period when you
worked at the Best Budget Inn. Do you know who
owned that motel?
A. Yes. When I worked there it was owned by
Barry Van Treese.
Q. And let me ask you if you know some individuals
who might have been at the motel during some of the
time period you were there. Do you know Richard Glossip?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you know D-Anna Wood?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How do you know them?
A. They were the managers. Barry hired them as
managers at the time I was still working there.
Q. Okay. So were you working there first and then
during the time you were working there Richard Glossip
and D-Anna Wood came in or they were there—
A. Yes. I came there first.
[6] Q. Okay. Let’s talk a little bit about the time period
then before Richard Glossip and D-Anna Wood came to
be as managers. What was your position at the motel?
93
A. Well, I worked the front desk. But primarily it
was Barry and I when I first started. And I work the
desk during the day and took care of the housekeeping
reports and just things like that.
Q. And you said it was primarily you and Barry.
Did Barry Van Treese live on site then when you first
started?
A. Yes, at that time, they had an apartment at the
back of the office and that’s where the managers lived
and when Barry was up there in between managers,
that’s where he lived.
Q. So the motel was in between managers, Barry
Van Treese had to live there?
A. Yes. When I was there, that’s the way it was.
Q. And that’s the way it was when you first
started?
A. Yes.
Q. Any time during that time period before managers were hired did—were you ever left in charge of the
motel?
A. When I first started working there, Barry and
Donna took the children on Christmas vacation and at
that time my sister was still living and we lived there in
a room at the motel. And Barry left her and I in charge
of the motel while he went on Christmas vacation.
[7] Q. Now, let’s try to see if we can put this in
time perspective. Which Christmas would that have
been?
A. That was the first Christmas that I worked
there, so I believe that would have been the Christmas
of ’94.
94
Q. When Barry Van Treese got back from vacation
in Christmas of ’94, did he have an opportunity to look at
the condition of the motel and the books and what had
been going on while he was gone?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Okay. And did he express to you, without telling
us the words, but did he express to you whether or not
he was pleased or displeased?
A. Yes. No, he was very pleased and he said he was
really surprised that everything went so well and he
made as much money as he did.
Q. All right. Over the time that you worked for
Barry Van Treese, did he ever express displeasure with
your work?
A. No.
Q. Now, you said that at first when you started
working there in ’94, before Christmas of ’94, that Barry
Van Treese was kind of acting as the motel manager because they were in between managers. Was there ever
a time when managers were hired?
A. After they came back from Christmas vacation,
I’m not sure exactly the exact date but earlier that year,
maybe [8] February or—he hired a young couple to
manage the place.
Q. Okay.
A. Before Rich and D-Anna.
Q. All right. And did that young couple stay very
long?
A. About three months, I think.
95
Q. And do you know if they voluntarily left or if
they were fired?
A. No, they more or less left voluntarily.
Q. After they left, then did Barry Van Treese come
back and live on site because he was in between managers again or?
A. For a while he did, but he was—while he was
trying to find somebody else.
Q. And then did he hire someone?
A. That’s when he hired Rich and D-Anna.
Q. Okay. And so now would we be some time in
1995, I suppose.
A. Yes.
Q. Mid to late 1995?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Yes?
A. Probably in the springtime, I think.
Q. Let’s talk about you working there. Did you receive—were you paid? Did you receive a salary?
A. Yes, I did.
[9] Q. Okay. And do you remember how many times a
month you were paid’?
A. Twice a month, I think.
Q. Now, you said—
A. I’m not really sure. Every other Monday, so it
would be twice a month.
96
Q. Okay. You said that when you first started living there you and your sister lived in a room there at the
motel?
A. Yes, we did, for about three months.
Q. And after that then did you live off site?
A. Yes, we rented an apartment.
Q. Did you ever live again on the premises of Best
Budget’?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Did Barry Van Treese have employees
other than the managers who lived on site at the motel?
A. Sometimes he had some of the people that
worked for him, like the housekeepers, he would let
them live on site.
Q. Now, tell me about how that worked. Did they
get their room for free or reduced rate or was it part of
their salary?
A. Well, they would get a reduced rate on the room,
but they would get a paycheck every pay day along with
myself. And then they would pay back what they were
being charged for their rent. They didn’t work for free.
[10]
Q. So was it not the policy, as I’m understanding it then to comp a room for an employee? That wasn’t
the policy?
A. No.
Q. Okay. They worked, got a salary, and then paid
a reduced rate for living there?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that—the whole time you worked
there, was that Barry Van Treese’s policy?
97
A. Pretty much.
Q. Okay.
A. Depending on the circumstances of the people
he hired.
Q. Sure. I want to talk a little bit about another
person there at the motel, Justin Sneed. Do you know
Justin?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And about how—did Justin live there at
the motel?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. About how long did he live there?
A. It seems like he came in the summertime. He
had come up with a group, I believe, of roofers or some
type of construction workers from Texas.
THE COURT: Excuse me. I guess they’re
opening the cans for lunch. I don’t know what they’re
doing in the alley. So I know it’s really hard to concentrate with this clanging.
[11]
So speak up, Ms. Hooper. Okay?
THE WITNESS: All right. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: No, you’re doing fine. It’s not
your fault. Thank you.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) So you think he
came in the summer with some roofers?
A. It seemed like the weather was warm. I don’t
remember the exact month, but it seemed like it was in
the summertime.
Q. And would this—
98
A. Late summer, maybe.
Q. And would of this been summer of 1996?
A. Of ‘96.
Q. Let talk a little bit about Barry Van Treese and
Justin Sneed. Can you tell me how much contact they
had or how well they knew one another?
A. To my knowledge, they had very little contact,
if any at all. And they knew each other—I’m sure Barry
might have known him on sight. I’m not really sure of
that. I know Justin would have known Barry on sight.
But I don’t think they ever had that much interaction.
Q. Is there—well, did Barry Van Treese visit the
motel, I mean, while Justin was there? Had Barry Van
Treese come to the motel?
A. Well, on paydays and when he’d bring the payroll and [12] come up and check on how things were going.
Q. Is there a reason then why Justin Sneed didn’t
have interaction with Barry Van Treese?
A. Well, he usually just kind of pretty much, like,
stayed out of sight.
Q. Do you know why that is?
A. Well, I believe it’s because that he wasn’t supposed to be there in a free room working for—working
for a room rather than a paycheck.
Q. Okay. Were there other employees that were
there or had been there that weren’t—and when you say
“Not supposed to be there,” you mean Barry Van
Treese?
99
A. Didn’t hire them and say you can live here and
work here and get a paycheck.
Q. Okay. So they didn’t have permission from the
owner of the motel to be there?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Were there other employees other than
Justin Sneed that you saw that did jobs there and but
they weren’t supposed to be there?
A. Well, there were some that were getting like a
reduced rate for maybe doing some maintenance or get
a room that they didn’t live there every day but they
might go and do like a day or two’s worth of work for a
room.
Q. And was that something that wasn’t supposed
to happen?
[13]
A. It had not happened prior to that.
Q. Who was responsible for these individuals, Justin and these other individuals, being there in a manner
that they weren’t supposed to be?
A. At that time Rich was the manager.
Q. Okay. Was he the one that—
A. He would be the one that would make that decision, whether it could happen or not.
Q. Okay. Let’s talk a little bit about your relationship with Barry Van Treese. We’ve talked a little bit
about how it was at different points. What do you think
about your relationship with him?
A. Barry and I got along very well. We never had
any problems. We liked each other. I knew his wife and
100
his children and was just almost maybe not close as a
family member, but we were all close.
Q. Tell me a little bit then about Barry Van
Treese’s demeanor. How did he come across to people
just on a normal day?
A. Well, there was times when he could be gruff
and kind of come across like a bear.
Q. Okay. Did you ever tell him that?
A. I used to hell him that he was named appropriately because he sometimes acted like a bear.
Q. Okay.
[14]
A. But as a rule, he was a nice person.
Q. Okay. Had you ever seen him mad or upset?
A. I’d seen him mad. Yes, I had.
Q. How was that? How did he act when he was—
A. Well, he could get angry and kind of—I mean,
when he was mad, you knew it.
Q. And you said he could get angry. And did he—
if he was mad, did he have a temper?
A. I would say so.
Q. And had you seen him display that to different
people at different times?
A. At times.
Q. Okay. What are some things that would make
him show his temper?
A. It’s kind of hard to—that’s kind of—I’m not sure
if I know how to answer that.
101
Q. All right. You can’t think of any specific examples right now?
A. Well, I mean, if somebody wasn’t doing their job
or he didn’t like especially anybody to lie to him. He
didn’t like that. He wasn’t fond of drinking people.
Pretty much was nice to everybody, but he expected you
to do your job and if you didn’t do your job correctly, he
would let you know that right off the bat. And sometimes, you know, he might be—have a conversation or
something with someone [15] that I wouldn’t know who
was on the other end and he might, you know, kind of
start slamming around papers and things. You could us
usually tell when he was not in a good mood.
Q. Okay. Let’s talk a little bit about Richard Glossip. How much of—interaction did you have with Richard Glossip and D-Anna Wood?
A. I saw them both every day that I was on my
work schedule.
Q. Okay. And did you ever see Richard Glossip interact with Barry Van Treese?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Tell us over the course of the relationship—and I guess if I’ve got the timing right, we’re talking a little over a year, a year and some months that
Richard Glossip was the manager there; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That Barry was alive. Tell us about your observations of their relationship and if it stayed the same or
if it changed.
A. Well, it seemed like when Rich first started, him
and Barry got along very well. He did a really good job.
He was doing a lot of maintenance and trying to fix the
102
place up and I couldn’t observe any problems going on
between him and Barry. But then, again, if there had
been a problem going on with him and Barry, they would
not have been
*
*
*
[26]
lights, because it’s a—I mean, it’s a dark night
and we can see—of course, that’s probably the flash. But
we see that there are some lights underneath here; is
that correct?
A. There were lights under the canopy, yes.
Q. And where is the switch for those lights?
A. On the inside of the office in a box.
Q. Is there any other way to turn those lights on or
off other than being inside the office?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. All right. Let’s talk a little bit about Justin
Sneed and then I think maybe we’ve got all the players
going here.
Did you have interaction with Justin Sneed?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was your observations of him, his personality?
A. Well, I—he was always kind of quiet, never did
have too much to say, was always very polite to me,
never smart-alecky or offensive in any way. I got along
with Justin quite well.
Q. Did you ever see him be confrontational or aggressive to anyone verbally?
A. I never did, no.
103
Q. Did you ever see him be confrontational or aggressive physically toward anyone?
A. No, I never did.
Q. Did you ever see anyone pick on him or be mean
to him?
[27]
A. Well, I don’t think so.
Q. Okay. Did Justin Sneed—did he work there at
the motel?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And what did he do?
A. He was kind of like a maintenance assistance to
Rich. He cleaned rooms. He worked in the laundry. He
helped Rich with maintenance. Pretty much whatever
Rich asked him to do is what he did.
Q. Did he get paid for that?
A. Not in a paycheck.
Q. Okay. What did he get?
A. He got a room.
Q. And was it how you told us the policy was that
Justin Sneed got some money and then he had to pay the
motel back for the room or did he just get his room for
free?
A. He just got his room free, that I know of, and if
he received any money, he did not receive it in the form
of a paycheck.
Q. Okay.
Sneed was in?
Do you remember what room Justin
104
A. It was downstairs on the north side, but I don’t
remember the exact room. Two-something, one-something, I guess, would be on the bottom.
Q. Okay. Give us —
A. Like 127 or 125. Somewhere kind of right in the
[28] middle.
Q. All right. Give us just a ballpark figure, if you
can, about what that room was worth, if you were just
going to rent it to me in 1996 and—if you were just going
to rent it to me, about what would you have charged for
it?
A. Well, I think at that time the minimum charge
depending on if we were busy or—you know, it fluctuates in the motel room, but right around $30.
Q. Okay. Tell me the relationship between Justin
Sneed and Richard Glossip?
A. As far as I could tell, Justin and Richard were
very close. I know Justin thought a lot of Rich and Rich
appeared to be quite fond of Justin.
Q. What did Justin do for food if he didn’t get any
money?
A. Well, I know a lot of times that I would see him
eat with Rich and D-Anna, but other than when I was
there, I don’t know.
Q. Okay. You said that Justin Sneed was fond of
Richard Glossip. After this all happened and you found
out that Justin Sneed had beat Barry Van Treese to
death with a baseball bat, did you have thoughts on how
that works together? I mean, that would have gotten
Richard Glossip in quite a bit of trouble, right, for Justin
to have done that?
105
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did that seem like the type of relationship that [29] they had?
A. I wouldn’t have thought that Justin would have
done anything to have tried to get Rich into any trouble.
Q. Was it your belief when you heard what was going on that Justin would have done it without Richard
Glossip’s knowledge?
MR. LYMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Would you approach, please.
(Thereupon, the following was had at the bench.)
MR. LYMAN: Calls for speculation. She’s asking her what Mr. Sneed or Mr. Glossip thought and she
doesn’t know what they thought.
THE COURT: Do you want to respond?
MS. SMOTHERMON:
Well, I’m trying—
maybe I’m wording it poorly, but I’m trying to ask her
based on her vast knowledge of their personalities and
in their relationship if it seemed like it fit with what she
knew that Justin Sneed would act alone or that—or did
it fit that they would have done it together, that Richard
Glossip would have had the knowledge. I’m not asking
her to speculate that he did, because she doesn’t know.
THE COURT: The question that you asked, I
believe, does call for a speculative answer, but she’s entitled to give an opinion based on her knowledge of both
individuals. And so if you ask it right, I’m going to allow
[30] it.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Okay.
(Thereupon, the following was had in open court.)
106
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ms. Hooper, I’m going to ask you this question but I’m going to word it just
a little bit differently. Okay? So listen to what I have to
say.
I believe you told us that based on what you knew of
the personality of Justin Sneed and Richard Glossip and
their relationship, that it would be your opinion based on
that that you wouldn’t have thought Justin would ever
do anything to hurt Richard Glossip; is that correct?
MR. LYMAN: Objection. Your Honor, it’s leading.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Well, I’m just getting us
back to where we were. Yes, it’s leading, but she’s already testified to it.
THE COURT: Overruled. I’m going to allow it.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Okay.
THE WITNESS: No, I don’t think that Justin
would have got—I don’t think Justin would have done
anything that would have harmed Rich because he
thought—he was real close. You just had to kind of know
the two parties to understand, but, no, I don’t think he
would have.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Okay. If I were to—
knowing the personalities then of both and knowing
their relationship, do you believe that in order for Justin
to do something like [31] that, Richard would have had
to have been a part of it
MR. LYMAN: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation and leading.
THE COURT: Well, I’m not troubled about
leading. I’m going to sustain the objection.
107
MS. SMOTHERMON: Okay.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) I’m going to try one
more time and then I may have to get help on my wording. Okay?
You said that you were—it wouldn’t make sense for
you that Justin acted alone. Knowing what you know
about each one of them and their relationship, would it
make sense to you that—because we know this happened. We know Barry was murdered at the motel,
right?
Would it make sense to you that knowing who they
are and their relationship, would it make sense to you
that Richard Glossip was involved?
MR. LYMAN: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.
THE COURT: Would you approach, please.
(Thereupon, the following was had at the bench.)
THE COURT: It would be my understanding of
the law that the witness is entitled to give her opinion.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Okay.
THE COURT: If she has an opinion based on
her knowledge and her knowledge of both parties and
how they interacted and their relationship, her opinion
about [32] whether—I think she can express opinions
about a variety of things. And even on the ultimate
question as a lay witness, I think she’s entitled to do that.
It doesn’t invade the province of the jury if it’s just her
opinion based on her knowledge of individuals.
Now, if she does not have an opinion, then we’re
calling for speculation. I think that would accurately reflect.
108
MR. LYMAN: Well, so the record reflects, the
basis of my objection is it’s speculation. It also does go
to the question of fact that she does not have the basis of
knowledge. She wasn’t present at the time of the killing.
She doesn’t know. And just because she knows one person or another person, I don’t think she’s qualified to
voice that type of ultimate fact opinion.
nute.
THE COURT: But think about that for a mi-
No, she wasn’t there when the murder was committed. She knew all the parties, had dealings with them
every day, knew how they interacted. And the law is
that she can give an opinion based on her knowledge of
the individuals, including the victim. And it is just that,
an opinion. It is not fact for the jury. And so it doesn’t
invade the province of the jury.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, Mr. Ackley
has suggested my wording and I’m going to run it past
everybody [33] up here then ask the question. I know
Ms. Hooper can hear me and know that this is the question I’m proposing. Based on what you know about their
personalities and their relationship, what is your opinion—is it your opinion that Justin Sneed would have.
THE COURT: Well, you can’t state her opinion.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Okay.
THE COURT: I mean, that is leading her.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Okay. Okay.
THE COURT: So it would be do you have an
opinion and if you do, what is it.
MS. SMOTHERMON: And an opinion about
what, though? I need to know about whether or not
Richard Glossip was consulted.
109
THE COURT: About whether or not—
MR. LYMAN: About whether or not he, you
know, goes to—that goes to the point of my objection,
the opinion she seeks goes to the ultimate fact of
whether or not Mr. Glossip—
THE COURT: Whether or not Mr. Sneed would
have done anything without consulting Mr. Glossip, because it would have affected Mr. Glossip, and if she has
an opinion, then I think she’s entitled to speak it. And I
will note your objection.
(Thereupon, the following was had in open court.)
[34]
THE COURT: I dispatched the clerk to check
on whatever is going on in the alley. Nobody wants to
eat at the snack bars during lunch, but other than that, I
think it’s going to calm down little bit.
You may proceed, Ms. Smothermon.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Thank you.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, I want to
ask you about your opinion based on your knowledge of
the parties and of Justin Sneed and Richard Glossip and
the relationship between them. What is your opinion
about, if you have one, about whether or not Justin
Sneed would have ever done anything like murder Barry
Van Treese without first consulting Richard Glossip?
A. In my opinion, Justin would not have murdered
Barry Van Treese, I don’t believe because, for one, he
didn’t know the man hardly at all. He probably had no—
very few comments even made together and I wouldn’t
seen, in my opinion, why he would have a reason to do
such a violent act to someone that he hardly knew.
110
Q. And my question was: What’s your opinion
about whether or not he would have done it without consulting Richard Glossip?
A. I do not believe he would have done it acting on
his own volition because he didn’t know Barry that well.
Q. Okay.
[35]
A. Why would he?
Q. All right. Let’s talk a little bit about then the
end of 1996. I believe you said that the Van Treese family had gone through some tragedies, some personal
tragedies?
A. Yes, they had.
Q. All right. Did you ever know of a time at the end
of 1996 when they were going to take a vacation?
A. Yes, when Barry came up right before Christmas, I’m not exactly sure of the exact date but I know
that he was planning on taking Donna and the children
on a Christmas vacation and go out to Arizona, I believe,
to see his new granddaughter.
Q. Okay. Now, at the time that he came or prior to
the time that he came right before Christmas, did you
have any concerns about how Richard Glossip was managing the motel?
A. When Barry came up, I’m not sure if it was the
day he brought our paychecks or if it was just the day
that he came to gather receipts—he came sometimes to
gather receipts without it necessarily being payday—
and we were alone in the office and I told him—I said,
“Barry, I think that you and I need to have a talk outside
of the office. Maybe you and Linda and I could go out for
dinner or something.” He knew my sister, too, as well
he knew me. I said, “Because we really need to talk.”
111
And his—what his comment back to me was, “I know
that we do.”
[36]
MR. LYMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LYMAN: And ask that what she did say be
stricken.
MS. SMOTHERMON: What she said?
MR. LYMAN: Well, she started to answer it. I
ask that it be stricken.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, the record reflects
everything that is said in the courtroom. And the jury
probably knows by now that witnesses can’t repeat what
somebody else said because we consider that hearsay.
So it should not be considered by the jury.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, when you
spoke with Barry Van Treese and told him that you
thought that he needed to have a conversation with you
off—outside of the motel—
A. Yes.
Q. Okay—did he indicate—and don’t say what he
said, but did his demeanor indicate to you a specific intent? In other words—
A. His behavior—
MR. LYMAN: Objection, Your Honor. May we
approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(Thereupon, the following was had at the bench.)
MR. LYMAN: Hearsay objection as to her [37]
description of his demeanor. His demeanor is a
112
nonverbal conduct that she’s using to infer that he had a
certain opinion. You might have well just asked him
what his statement was. It’s hearsay.
MS. SMOTHERMON: First of all, his demeanor and how he acted or how he looked is not a statement. You have to be a statement in order for it to be
hearsay so it’s not hearsay. I intend on asking her what
he said, but I’m going to lay the foundation for a hearsay
exception first and part of that would be to start with his
demeanor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Thereupon, the following was had in open court.)
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ma’am, without telling us what Barry Van Treese said to you. Okay. You’ve
told us what you said to him, We need to go away from
the motel and talk about this.
A. Yes.
Q. Without telling us his words, could you tell from
the way he was acting whether or not he had—whether
or not he was responding to what it was that you were
saying?
A. In my opinion, yes, he intended—
Q. All right. Now, hang on. Don’t tell us what he
intended yet. But did he have a physical response? Did
he get upset or could you tell that he was responding?
A. No, he did not get upset, but I knew this man
very [38] well. We worked together for quite a while
day in and day out, sometimes 12, 13 hours a day depending on who didn’t show up and et cetera, so I knew from
expressions on his face and his reactions, not that I could
read his mind, but when you work close with somebody,
113
you know what they’re going to say that they don’t say
it.
Q. Okay.
A. And in my opinion, he intended to come back
from vacation—
MR. LYMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: —and make changes.
MS. SMOTHERMON: All right. Hang on just
a second.
MR. LYMAN: Same grounds.
THE COURT: Ms. Hooper, there are some
things that would be fine in a conversation, but in a court
of law we have to kind of limit how we do things. We
have rules that we have to follow.
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: That’s all right. So I need to listen real carefully to the questions asked and just answer
those questions and not expand it any further.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: If your answers can be expanded
upon, I trust that she will ask those questions and elicit
those [39] answers. Okay?
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: That’s all right.
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) Ms. Hooper, I’m going to ask you some questions about the statement that
Barry Van Treese made to you. But I’m asking you
questions about the statement, I’m not asking you at this
time to repeat the statement. Okay?
114
A. Okay.
Q. All right. But he did make a statement to you;
is that correct—
A. Yes, he did.
Q. —in response to yours? Okay.
Was that statement about an answer to what you
had said to him? In other words, was it about the subject
that you were talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did that statement express to you his
mental feeling about the subject that you were discussing with him?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did that statement that he made express
his state of mind about this subject that you were discussing with him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that statement that he made express his intent or [40] his plan about the issue that you were discussing with him?
A. Yes.
MS. SMOTHERMON: Your Honor, at this time
I would ask for the admission of the hearsay statement
based on the proper foundation of 2803 (3) the state of
mind exception to the hearsay rule?
MR. LYMAN: Note our objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Your objection is noted.
And you may ask the question.
115
Q. (BY MS. SMOTHERMON) We have to do
things in order. Now, we’re going to talk about his statement. Okay? You told him we’ve got to go off and we’ve
got to talk about things. Okay?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he say to you?
A. He said that he knew things had to be taken care
of but that he was taking his family on vacation for
Christmas and going to see his new grandbaby and for
me to smile my smile, like I always did, and make the
motel some money. He knew that would happen.
Q. Okay. And did you trust him that when he got
back from vacation he was going to take care of things?
A. In my opinion that was what was going to happen.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to talk a little bit about what
you believe, what concerned you that would make you
say to him, [41] “We’ve got to go someplace and talk.”
Okay? So we’re going to talk about those concerns.
When you told us—and let’s just see if we can have
a natural break here. You told us that you were gone for
eight weeks starting when?
A. I believe I had my heart attack in the early—
first week or so of August. I’m not sure of the exact date,
but I know it was early August.
Q. Of 1996?
A. Of 1996.
Q. And you were gone from eight weeks from when
you had your heart attack until?
116
A. I came back some time, I believe, right before
my birthday. I believe in October.
Q. Okay. Before you left, before you had your
heart attack, the first few months of 1996 and the end of
1995 when Richard Glossip and D-Anna Wood were
managing the motel, did you have any serious concerns
about the way that the money was being taken in and
things were being recorded, the bookkeeping?
A. No, everything at that time seemed like Rich
was doing a really good job.
Q. When you came back in October, somewhere
around your birthday, when it was time for you to come
back, who did you contact to say, Hey, I can come back
to work now?
[42]
A. When I first found out from my doctor that
I could come back to work, because I did office work and
it wasn’t that strenuous physically, that I notified Rich
and told him that I could come back to work.
Q. Okay.
A. But he told me not to come back at that time,
you know, to take a little bit longer, that he’d have to
check with Barry and get the okay and that sort of thing.
Q. Okay.
A. After a period of time I was at the financial point
where I either had to go back to work or I had to go find
another job—
Q. Now, were you being—I’m sorry to interrupt.
But were you being paid during this eight-week period
of time?
A. Barry was giving me half my salary.
Q. Okay.
117
A. Because, you know, he knew what kind of situation, I was a single woman, my sister and I, so…
Q. Okay. So—
A. He knew that job was my only means of support.
Q. Okay.
A. So he did pay me half pay while I was off.
Q. But you’ve been cleared medically to go back to
work, you tell Richard Glossip, he says, you know, not
yet I’ve got to check with Barry, and then does he call
you or do you [43] call him and say, “Hey, have you
talked to Barry yet?”
A. I called maybe once and said, “When did Barry
say I could come back to work?” And he said, “Well, he
would have to get back with him.” Don’t remember the
exact conversation word-for-word, but then I took it on
my own self to call Barry at his home in Elgin.
Q. Okay.
A. And to express to him that I needed to come
back to work or I was going to have to do something different. And he said
Q. All right. Hang on just a second. Remember—
A. Sorry.
Q. That’s okay. Let me ask you just a question.
Okay? So you were concerned, you call Barry, you tell
him, “Look, I’ve got to come to work or I’ve got to go do
something else”?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on that conversation, did you go back to
work then at the motel?
A. Yes, I went back to work that Monday.
118
Q. Okay. When you got back, what was your opinion of how Richard Glossip was treating you?
A. Well, Rich was never really at any time like not
nice to me, that he was mean to me or rude to me or mistreated me in any manner. I couldn’t say that he did.
[44]
Q. Okay. Did he ever—did you ever get the impression that he was glad you were back?
A. I don’t think that he was really happy that I
came back, no.
Q. Okay.
A. In my opinion.
Q. Okay. And is that anything specific that you can
tell us now or is it just your general feeling?
A. Well, I really don’t know how to answer that.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. And you and I talked.
We’re not going to answer anything that you don’t have
an answer for, right?
A. Well, I’m not sure.
Q. Okay.
A. I don’t want to say something that I’m not supposed to say and throw something in there that I’m not
supposed to throw in there.
Q. I know. And I appreciate that and I know that
everyone here appreciates that. But as you have seen,
Ms. Hooper, if you start to say something that legally
can’t go before this jury, we’re all capable of stopping
you. That’s our job. Okay?
So I need for you, if you’ve got an answer, to give an
answer. If it starts getting into an area that legally can’t
119
go before this jury, you’ve got to trust us. I mean, [45]
we’ll stop you.
A. Well, Rich never confronted me and said, I
didn’t want you to came back to work, you’ve come here
on Barry’s wishes, not my own. No, that—nothing like
that ever transpired, it was just that I could tell by his
attitude towards me at first. And the attitude then was
that, in my opinion, he would have just been just as
happy if I had not been able to come back to work.
Q. Okay. After you got back, did you see any differences in the way the motel was being managed and
the way the books were being kept?
A. Well, I didn’t see any difference in the way that
it was being managed but when I would give the—Rich
always made the daily report every morning before he
went back to his room. I worked the day shift. He
worked the evening, night shift so he usually slept during the day. And I—Donna would call during every day
and get the daily report and I would read it to her.
Q. Okay.
A. And I just noticed that prior to how it had always been in the past up until it was at that time that it
was always right around the same amount of rooms. In
fact, more than once I would make the comment to
Donna that it seemed like the old Best Budget couldn’t
seem to get under 19 rooms, but they couldn’t seem to
manage to rent anything over 21. [46] Because it was
always right in there, 19, 20, 21, 19, 21, 20.
Q. So you noticed as you gave the daily reports
over the phone that the room rental, the number of
rooms rented, seemed to be fairly consistent?
A. Yes.
120
Q. Now, why did that concern you or raise a red
flag?
A. Well, because all the time that I had worked
there, some days there might be a day when we would
make the daily report that there might be 14 rooms on
there and the next day there might be 40. I mean, it just
fluctuated depending on the time of the year, the time of
the week, the weather.
Q. Okay.
A. But it never was just ever consistently between
this number. It was either feast or famine, either have a
whole lot there or not very many there or the regulars
there or that sort of thing.
Q. What did that tell you when the room rate was
the same or the room number—let me say that again.
When the number of rooms rented was consistent
night after night, what did you think?
A. Well, what I thought was that it seemed—I
mean, I just thought it seemed strange that the whole
period of time that I worked there it fluctuated. Nothing
ever remained that consistent. So in my opinion, I felt
like that there [47] was probably rooms that were not
being written down but I wasn’t there, so I couldn’t say
that’s what happened.
Q. At the time that these documents, these records
were being compiled, whose responsibility was it? I
mean, you said you were reading it to Donna, but where
were you going those numbers?
A. I got the report that Rich made. He did the daily
report every morning.
Q. Okay.
121
A. Or at night. But he did the daily report.
Q. Okay. Did you ever see any records altered or
changed or new ones made?
A. Well, there were a couple of times. You see, I
wrote down on some of the things that I did. We had a
sheet that we kept and as I wrote down rooms when I
went rented I put the room number and the amount and
so on and so forth. That’s what—and then whoever came
on after me was supposed to continue to do that.
Q. Okay.
A. And then that’s the one that Rich made the report off of.
Q. Okay.
A. But I know there was a couple of times when I
would see that my handwriting wouldn’t be anywhere on
that report and that I was instructed that something, a
mishap had happened [48] to it, coffee spilled on it or got
wet or handwriting didn’t look good and that sort of
thing.
Q. So he had to generate a whole new report?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said that it was Richard Glossip’s responsibility to make the daily reports. How about
rooms? Were there housekeepers that cleaned the
rooms?
A. Yes, we had housekeeping department.
Q. And how did the room cleaners, the housekeepers, know which rooms needed to be cleaned?
A. I usually did the housekeeping report from the
daily report to write down the rooms that had been
122
rented and put on the housekeeping sheet so they would
know which rooms to get. I would get that from the daily
reports and then sometimes from the keys, you know, we
checked the keys against the rooms.
Q. So if there were keys missing, you would assume
that there was somebody staying in that room that had
been given the key?
A. Yes. If a key was missing, I would assume that
room had been rented. If there was a key on the board,
I would assume that room had not been rented.
Q. Okay. Were there are times when you looked at
the daily report and it didn’t show a room rented that
there were missing keys for?
[49]
A. Well, not so much that I would notice that
there was missing keys but that I would notice in my
moving around the motel that there were sometimes
doors open to rooms that I did not show to have been
rented that appeared to be dirty.
Q. So there were rooms that needed to be cleaned
that you didn’t show were rented?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. So what did that mean to you?
A. Well, that means that they didn’t get rented out.
It wasn’t on the housekeeping report but it was dirty.
So somehow someone got in there and dirtied it up, but
I wouldn’t have any way of knowing who that might be.
Q. Okay. Well, let’s talk about your policy, ma’am.
Would you—what was the motel policy on renting
rooms? I mean, did you always write it down when
somebody rented a room?
123
A. We always filled out a registration card and we
always wrote it down on the report that we had there.
You always, any time you rented a room, you had to record it.
Q. Okay. If someone rented a room and took—and
did you take cash? Is that one of the ways that you took
in money?
A. Yes, we took cash, credit card.
Q. If someone rented a room and took the cash but
didn’t write it down, that would be one way that someone could get, I guess, just money, just pocket the
money, right?
[50]
A. Yes.
Q. Ma’am, D-Anna Wood has suggested that you
took some money from Barry Van Treese’s motel that
way. Did you ever steal money from the Best Budget
Inn?
A. No, I never, never stole money from the Best
Budget Inn. If I had have needed money bad enough to
have to steal it, I believe I could have gone to Barry and
asked for it.
Q. Did Barry Van Treese give cash advances?
A. I don’t know, I can only speak for what he did
for me.
Q. Okay. What was that?
A. I, very few times, probably went to him and
asked him for a cash advance but if I had needed to, he
would have.
Q. Did you ever see his type of personality display
itself like this where someone needed something, needed
124
a room and they didn’t have money or needed some
money and he would?
A. He would have helped anyone. Yes, he would
have.
Q. And are you saying that because that’s what you
think he would have done or are you saying that because
you had actually seen?
A. No, I’ve actually—I’ve seen him help out people
that were in dire need.
Q. Okay.
THE COURT: Is this a logical place maybe just
take a little break?
MS. SMOTHERMON:
Honor, because
*
*
I believe so, Your
*
[60]
somewhere plus or minus 10:00 p.m. on January
6th; is that correct?
A. I believe that to be correct.
Q. Okay. And let’s see. I’m going to put, “Ask her
to go by and pay cable bill in the morning.”
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Because? Tell me again.
A. Because he wanted to get it turned back on before
Barry found out that it was off.
Q. Did he make any other statements to you about
why he was concerned about Barry Van Treese finding
out that the cable had been disconnected?
125
A. He just asked me to go and pay it that morning
on my way to work because he didn’t want Barry to find
out it had been disconnected.
Q. Okay. How—
A. He said—he asked me if I would just go ahead
and pay the bill, that he would reimburse me when I got
to the office.
Q. So you were supposed to use your personal
money and then he would reimburse you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, on January 7th, did you go by the
cable company and pay the cable?
A. Yes, I went by the cable company on my way to
work. I [61] believe it was that one Direct TV or something off of Santa Fe.
Q. Okay.
A. And I wrote a check for the cable bill and
brought back the receipt, gave it to Rich and he reimbursed me the money.
Q. Okay. And do you remember about how much it
was?
A. I believe it was maybe around 100-and-something.
Q. So you wrote a personal check?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Do you know about—you told us you
worked from 8 to 5.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you get to work that day at eight?
126
A. No, it was probably, oh, closer—I tried to leave
early enough to get to the cable place when they first
opened, so probably it was maybe around 8:30 to 8:45,
somewhere along—somewhere in there.
Q. And when you gave the receipt to Richard Glossip, he reimbursed you? How did he do that?
A. He just went back into the apartment and came
back out with the money. I didn’t see him take it out of
the cash register or anything like that.
Q. And so he gave you cash?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. When you got to the motel that morning, did you
see [62] Barry Van Treese’s car?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you expect to see Barry Van Treese’s car?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
A. Well, sort of because I wasn’t really sure maybe
if he was going to spend the night in Tulsa or not or drive
back. Sometimes he stayed up there in Tulsa. So that
when I got there and didn’t see the car, I asked about
him.
Q. Okay. And who did you ask?
A. I asked Rich.
Q. Okay. So you asked him?
A. Where Barry was, did he come back from Tulsa
or did he stay up there or where was he at.
Q. Okay. Well, what did Richard Glossip say to
you?
127
A. He said that he had got up early that morning
and had gone to get breakfast and was going to go get
some materials. They were going to start working on
the motel.
Q. Now, did he tell you how early he got up?
A. He just said he left maybe an hour ago, somewhere in that realm.
Q. And so we’re at about 8:30, 8:45, he said about an
hour ago Barry had gotten up and gone to breakfast and
to buy some supplies?
A. Somewhere around there. He said—I don’t remember [63] exactly. Maybe he said he left around eight
or a little before—about an hour, because it was probably about around 8:45 maybe when I got there.
Q. Okay.
A. But that’s what—he said he had gone to breakfast and had gone to get some materials. They were going to work on the motel.
Q. Okay. What did you think about someone telling
you that Barry Van Treese was up at 7:30, 8:00 in the
morning?
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.