Opposition Brief — Strickler v. Greene

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED.

kd

¢ ’

No. 98-5864 4

A-186

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1997

TOMMY DAVID STRICKLER,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD J. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR,

-

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit and Application

for Stay of Execution

DIRECTOR'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

MARK EARLEY

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA

*PAMELA A, RUMPZ

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

900 EAST MAIN STREET

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219

(804) 786-4624

*Counsel Of Record

QUESTION PRESENTED

In a case where it is undisputed that the petitioner never raised his

defaulted “exculpatory evidence” claim in state court, where the

uncontradicted evidence established that at least one of the

petitioner's trial attorneys was fully aware of the allegedly non-

disclosed “exculpatory evidence” and, where the evidence in

question is not material as a matter of law, should this Court grant

certiorari to resolve a supposed split in circuits on whether there is a

“due diligence” exception to the rule of Brady v, Maryland, 373 U.S.

83 (1963)?

Page

ETE ES I ee Oe Re ee ee i

BEE Tell SRD OEE RO !

I. STRICKLER’S “BRADY” CLAIM IS DEFAULTED

AND THE “CONFLICT” ARGUMENT HE ADVANCES

IT ciscettetiiaietcitiaiasibilicasetctasepeimayvedtibeanisaubabeebveeveceetaceneegettpeevnvrneneaten 8

TILT L E ACA TT ORT CT 9

B. The supposed “conflict” is irrelevant ...........00.sssssevceseeseresersenennnteresensenenens 11

atl alot sa es carshnhenentntgmnetetanecacinbiseinoneesatoveqtionnees 15

gs ERIE ST SV el 15

Irn et da letenlnlnedachineadtanmpectinneenpsistaavonivenrtiihoclinautbcavetenntelsinnoweiaueovennn 16

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Fee I it cnthtrctinniiniieti tamatod hcicsshseabiaactiaiie passim

LES (1979),

FESS SNE eS ECE NE ID Se Bs 13

SOI AMS HII ihc iss kccin’ chibsis ded laisenetedbalanends nibhetaamudiinincaaiabaanal 9

SIE UM a icc itiainc saci hesscateias deg iacincas tatiana diodbaa 8,14

13 Va. 27, 205 $E.24 680 (1974),

Pe ELE A LN ES SAME TE OEE 3

ce RUSE coe SEO, nett :

ry REE Oe + Sa eI BA eT LA SEE ENT: 8,13

vs Sak Rah EE OR SIO oa. icinsicensnpvatioeellinlactnieendicepccoeidesiboe 3,14

TE Oe AN LEXIS SOUR BO Oe UE oii. cena nctiniothcanannnd passim

yo Speen an mei, cate

M466 US. 668 (1984). ;

iii

Sumner v. Mata,

i epmenseneonennvesenason 8

Texas v. Mead,

ENS RY TE 14

ET SS ER a a 14

Other Authority

EE SR i a 3

a eciestenenepbensibetnasssonnsanass 8

ETE BE Se EE TSAR EL AA 2

i ssoshetessencinttibichdansnee 2

SSE SLL LE . EA? SE 5

EE EES SS SSNS LS A i 14

Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases ..............ccccvsovesssssssssweesesssssnuseeenansuneeensnsnneensennenees 10

Rule 4:1(b)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court of Vingimia ................cccoeneeveeeeervvveeerenne 2y 1O

iv

No. 98-5864

A-186

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1997

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit and Application

for Stay of Execution

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

L Case History

On January 5, 1990, in Augusta County, Virginia, Tommy David Strickler abducted,

brutally beat, raped and then murdered Leanne Whitlock by dropping a 69-pound boulder on her

head four times, crushing her skull.

Strickler was convicted by a jury in Augusta County of the capital murder of Whitlock,

abduction and robbery. After a separate sentencing; proceeding, the jury fixed Strickler’s

punishment at death for the capital murder, finding both a probability that Strickler would

constitute a continuing serious threat to society and that Strickler’s conduct in committing the

murder was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity

of mind or aggravated battery. See Va. Code § 19.2-264.4. After considering a post-sentencing

report, as required by Virginia Code § 19.2-: 5, the trial court imposed sentence in accordance

with the jury’s verdict on September 19, 1990. The Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously

affirmed Strickler’s convictions and sentences on April 19, 1991. Strickler v. Commonwealth, 241

Va. 482, 404 S.E.2d 227 (1991). This Court denied Strickler’s petition for certiorari on November

4, 1991. Strickler v. Virginia, 502 U.S. 944 (1981).

On December 5, 1991, the Augusta County Circuit Court appointed counsel to represent

Strickler in state habeas corpus proceedings. Nine months later, on or about September |, 1992,

Strickler filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Augusta Circuit Court. Strickler did not

seek discovery in the state habeas court, see Rule 4:1(b)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court of

Virginia, and his petition did not contain an “exculpatory evidence” claim. The Warden filed a

motion to dismiss and, after oral argument, the petition was denied. Strickler’s petition for

appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court was granted, limited to his Assignment of Error No. 9.'

' Assignment of Error 9 read:

The trial court erred in not vacating the capital murder conviction

despite its finding that Instruction | given at petitioner's trial was

defective because of its inclusion in the definition of capital murder

an underlying offense which does not by statute support a conviction

of capital murder.

After full briefing and oral argument, the Virginia Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the

substantive claim regarding the propriety of a jury instruction was barred under Slayton vy.

Parrigan, 215 Va. 27, 205 S.E.2d 680 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975), because it had

not been raised at trial and on direct appeal. Strickler’s claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, based on the conduct complained of in Assignment of Error 9, was rejected under

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). In light of the overwhelming evidence that

Strickler murdered Whitlock during the commission of a robbery while armed with a deadly

weapon, the Virginia Supreme Court concluded that Strickler had failed to demonstrate that he

had been prejudiced by counsel's alleged error. Strickler v. Murray, 249 Va. 120, 452 S.E.2d

648 (1991). Strickler’s subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court was denied on

October 2, 1995. Strickler v. Angelone, 116 S.Ct. 146 (1995).

In March, 1996, Strickler filed a § 2254 petition in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia, and he amended his petition in May, 1996. The Warden filed a

motion to dismiss in June, 1996.

On December 10, 1996, the district court dismissed the bulk of Strickler’s claims but

ordered an evidentiary hearing on eight remaining claims. In response to the Warden's motion to

reconsider, the district court dismissed all of Strickler’s claims except an exculpatory evidence

claim, an “unfair trial claim” and numerous allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

These remaining claims were set for an evidentiary hearing to begin on October 3, 1997. Well

before the evidentiary hearing, however, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

accompanied by supporting documents, on the exculpatory evidence and “unfair trial” claims.’

On October 2, 1997, the day before the scheduled hearing, the parties appeared before the

district court. At that time, Strickler expressly withdrew, with prejudice, his allegations of

ineffective assistance of counsel and asked the court to decide the exculpatory evidence/unfair

trial claim on the cross-motions for summary judgment. Consequently, the district court

canceled the evidentiary hearing with the agreement of both parties. On October 16, 1997, the

district court granted Strickler’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Warden's cross-

motion for partial summary judgment and granted Strickler habeas corpus relief on his

“exculpatory evidence” and “unfair trial” claims.

The Commonwealth appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit. After full briefing and oral argument, the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished per curiam

opinion, reversed the district court's award of habeas corpus relief on June 17, 1998. Strickler v.

Pruett, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12805 (4th Cir. 1998). On July 15, 1998, the Fourth Circuit

denied Strickler’s petition for rehearing. Strickler’s motion for stay of execution and motion to

stay the Fourth Circuit's mandate were denied and the mandate issued on July 30, 1998.

> The alleged exculpatory material in this case consists of eight items which, Strickler contends,

could have been used to impeach Commonwealth's witness Anne Stolzfus. These documents

were obtained by Strickler during discovery which he requested for the first time in the district

court. Inexplicably, Strickler has failed to provide this Court with copies of the documents.

They are included, however, in the Respondent's Appendix. (RA 2-20).

On July 23, 1998, pursuant to Virginia Code § 53.1-232.1, the state trial court set

Strickler’s execution for September 16, 1998.

2. Strickler’s crimes.

The facts surrounding Strickler’s murder of Leanne Whitlock were summarized by the

Virginia Supreme Court as follows:

On January 5, 1990, Leanne Whitlock (Leanne), a sophomore at

James Madison University, borrowed a 1986 Mercury Lynx from

her boyfriend, who worked at the Valley Mall in Harrisonburg.

The car was clean at the time. Leanne left the mall at 4:30 p.m.

and, with her roommate, Sonja Lamb, drove to a store, where

Leanne had a part-time job, to pick up a paycheck. Leanne

dropped Sonja off about 6:45 p.m. and left, alone, to return the

borrowed car to her boyfriend.

Anne Stolzfus was in a store at Valley Mall with her daughter at

6:00 p.m. when Strickler, Ronald Henderson, and a blond woman

entered. Strickler was behaving in such a loud, rude, and

He was dressed in casual, but clean, clothing.

As Mrs. Stolzfus was leaving the mall soon thereafter, she saw

Leanne Whitlock driving the blue Mercury. Suddenly, Strickler

ran out of the mall and addressed the occupant of a nearby van,

:

Stolzfus drove up to the car and asked Leanne three times, “[A}re

you O.K.?” Leanne seemed “totally frozen.” She drove the

Mercury away very slowly, and mouthed the word, “help.” The

Mercury headed east on Route 33, toward Elkton. Mrs. Stolzfus’

daughter wrote down its license number, West Virginia NKA 243.

About 7:30 p.m., Kurt D. Massie and a friend were driving north

on Route 340 near Stuarts Draft. They saw a dirty blue car,

southbound, turn off and drive into a field. Strickler was the

driver, a white woman was in the front seat with him,* and another

man was in the back seat, Massie thought he saw a fourth

occupant in the car.

Between 9:00 and 9:15 p.m., Strickler and Henderson walked into

Dice's Inn in Staunton. Strickler was wearing blue jeans which

were dirty, bloody, and had a burn mark on them. He gave a

wristwatch, later identified as the property of Leanne Whitlock, to

a girl named Nancy Simmons.

At 12:30 or 1:00 a.m., Strickler left Dice's Inn with Henderson and

a girl named Donna Tudor. The three entered a dirty blue

Mercury. Henderson drove the car and Strickler sat in the back

seat with Donna. Strickler told her he had bought the car from a

man for $500. He also said that he had been in a fight and had

injured his knuckle, which appeared to be lacerated. Strickler and

Henderson discussed a “fight” they had had with “it,” describing

“it” with a racial epithet. Strickler said they had kicked “it” in the

back of the head and had used a “rock crusher.” He said “it” would

give them no more trouble. Strickler was calm during this

conversation, but Henderson seemed nervous and kept looking

over his shoulder at them. The three drove to Harrisonburg to

purchase drugs. During the ride, Henderson nearly collided head-

on with an approaching car, and Strickler drew a knife and

threatened to stab him.

After dropping Henderson off in Harrisonburg, Donna Tudor went

to Virginia Beach with Strickler in the blue Mercury. The two

stayed nearly a week, during which time Donna saw Leanne

* Leanne was black.

Whitlock’s driver's license, identification card, and bank card in

the car. Strickler tried to use the bank card in Virginia Beach, and

gave Donna a pair of earrings which Leanne had worn on the night

of January 5.

Several days later, Donna and Strickler returned to Strickler’s

mother’s home in New Market. Strickler’s mother washed his

bloodstained blue jeans and his shirt.

Strickler told Donna to hide Leanne’s three identification cards in a

bag with his T-shirt and other clothing. She deposited these items

in an abandoned car behind Strickler’s stepfather’s house, but later

led police to them.

On January 10 or 11, Donna and Strickler abandoned the blue

Mercury near a church. Angry after an argument with Donna,

Strickler cut up the interior of the car with his hunting knife and

also jumped on the car’s roof, leaving his footprints.

On January 13, Henderson's frozen wallet was found in the

cornfield into which Kurt Massie had seen Strickler drive the blue

Mercury on January 5. Later that day, police searched the field and

found Leanne’s frozen clothing in a pile near the place

Henderson's wallet had been found. Leanne's nude, frozen body

was found in a nearby wooded area, 300 feet from the highway,

buried under two logs and covered with leaves which had been

deliberately packed around the logs.

Leanne's hands were extended over her head and crossed at the

wrists. She had been dragged by the feet over the ground face

down at or shortly after the time of her death, leaving long linear

Beside the rock, there were two indentations in the frozen ground,

one four inches deep, the other less. Each indentation contained

blood of Leanne’s blood type, as well as human hair consistent

with Leanne's in all respects. Human hairs were also found on

Leanne's frozen clothing. They were Caucasian in origin, and

matched Strickler’s hair in all respects. Some of them had

evidently been torn out of his head by the roots.

Two of the shoe impressions on the roof of the Mercury matched a

shoe Strickler was wearing when he was arrested on January 11.

Eighteen of his fingerprints, and nine of Donna Tudor's, were

identified in the car. A jacket with Henderson's identification was

found in the car. It bore at least four human bloodstains. The shirt

Strickler had been wearing on January 5 was recovered from the

brown bag Donna had hidden. It bore stains from semen consistent

with Strickler’s, as well as human bloodstains. Vaginal swabs

taken from Leanne's body also showed the presence of semen, but

its type was not identified.

Strickler v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 482, 485-488, 404 S.E.2d 227, 230-232 (1991). See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S, 539, 541-549 (1981) (presumption of correctness

applies to state appellate court's recitation of historical facts).

REASONS WHY THE WRIT AND A STAY SHOULD BE DENIED

Il. STRICKLER’S “BRADY” CLAIM IS DEFAULTED

AND THE “CONFLICT” ARGUMENT HE

ADVANCES IS IRRELEVANT.

Strickler asserts that this Court should grant certiorari and stay his execution to review his

claim unde, Brady y, Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). According to Strickler, this Court's decision

in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), abrogated the “due diligence” exception to the general

rule that a prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense and that, after Kyles, it is

immaterial to a Brady analysis whether the alleged exculpatory evidence could have been

discovered by a reasonably diligent trial attorney. Alternatively, Strickler argues that if the “due

diligence” exception survived Kyles, the various courts of appeal are applying the exception

inconsistently. Strickler’s assertions do not warrant certiorari review for at least two reasons: his

Brady claim is defaulted and the resolution of the supposed “conflict” on the “diligence exception”

will not affect the validity of either Strickler’s conviction or sentence.

A. Strickler’s claim is defaulted.

Strickler concedes that he never raised his Brady claim in state court. (Petition at 12). The

fact of the matter is that Strickler was appointed counsel nine months before he filed his state

habeas corpus petition. During that nine months, state habeas counsel undertook to investigate

possible claims and on September 1, 1992 filed a 51-page petition on Strickler’s behalf. This

petition did not include any allegation that the Commonwealth had withheld exculpatory

evidence at the time of trial. As the Court of Appeals correctly ruled, Strickler, 1998 U.S. App.

LEXIS 12805, *24-25, Strickler’s failure to raise his Brady claim in state court is sufficient to

foreclose federal review.’ See Gray y. Netherland, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 2080 (1996) (Brady claim

barred because claim never raised in Virginia courts and state relief no longer available). The

decision of the lower court that Strickler’s claim is defaulted for failure to present it in

> Contrary to Strickler’s assertion in footnote 2 of his petition, his Brady claim is not defaulted

because of “a change in state habeas law.” The change in state law to which Strickler refers

occurred in 1995, long after Strickler’s state habeas petition had been dismissed. In addition, the

Fourth Circuit held that Strickler’s claim was defaulted, not because of this change in Virginia

post-conviction law, but because Strickler did absolutely nothing to investigate and raise the

Brady claim in state court.

accordance with established state procedure is a mere routine, fact-specific application of well-

established principles of procedural default and does not warrant certiorari review.

The Fourth Circuit also correctly recognized that Strickler could not establish cause and

prejudice to excuse his default. Strickler, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12805, *25-31. The court

ruled that Strickler’s Brady claim could have been raised in state habeas through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, id. at *27, and correctly held that Strickler did not exercise the required

diligence during the state habeas proceeding. In fact, in the state habeas court Strickler did

nothing to investigate this potential claim or any others, and he did not request discovery in the

state habeas court.

In the court below, Strickler attempted to shift the blame for his lack of initiative to the

Commonwealth by arguing that, under Virginia law, he was not entitled to discovery in state

habeas corpus proceedings. The Court of Appeals, however, saw through Strickler’s obvious

ploy to blame the Commonwealth for his indisputable lack of diligence: “...in state court,

Strickler could have followed a procedure similar to the one he followed in federal court:

Strickler could have filed a discovery motion seeking to review the Harrisonburg police files.”

Id. at *24. See Rule 4.1(b)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia (authorizing discovery in

state habeas corpus with prior leave of the Court). The lower court's conclusion in this regard

was absolutely correct. After all, Strickler certainly was not entitled to discovery in federal

habeas corpus. See Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Court.

That simple fact, however, did not prevent Strickler from pursuing a possible Brady violation or

filing a discovery motion in the district court. Strickler obtained leave of the district court to

conduct discovery, and pled an alleged Brady violation in his initial federal petition for writ of

10

habeas corpus. Strickler never has offered a persuasive reason why his state habeas counsel

could not have done the exact same thing.*

B. The supposed “conflict” is irrelevant.

The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that, even assuming Strickler’s Brady claim was not

defaulted, the claim is without merit because the allegedly withheld statements were not

“material.” Strickler, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12805 at *31 n.11. Thus, the primary argument

upon which Strickler has based his certiorari petition — that there is a split among the federal

courts of appeal regarding whether there is a “due diligence” exception to the Brady rule — is

* Strickler’s assertion that he “has demonstrated cause based upon the state’s uncontested,

continuous suppression of the Stolzfus documents throughout state court proceedings” (Petition

at 31) is categorically false. The State suppressed nothing: Strickler’s defense team was aware

of the information contained in the Stolzfus materials prior to trial. (RA 1). And, as Strickler

himself established through discovery in the district court, at least three of the eight items

allegedly suppressed (exhibits 2, 7 and 8) were in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s file prior to

trial and thus were available and known to Strickler pursuant to the Commonwealth’s undisputed

open file policy. A review of the three documents that Strickler was provided pursuant to the

Commonwealth’s open file policy establishes that the five documents Strickler allegedly was not

provided contain no new information and no information materially different from what is

contained in the three disclosed documents.

11

irrelevant.’ In other words, Strickler’s case clearly is not a proper case to for resolving an alleged

“conflict” because no matter how such a “split” were resolved, it would not change the outcome

of Strickler’s case. Simply put, even if Strickler’s claim were not defaulted, federal collateral

relief for Strickler would be precluded by the Fourth Circuit's determination that the evidence in

question is not material. Id. at *30 (“[t]he Stolzfus materials would have provided little or no

help to Strickler in either the guilt or sentencing phases of the trial.”’).

To begin with, even a cursory examination of the allegedly suppressed documents

establishes that each one of them, on its face, was wholly inculpatory. (RA 2-20). Indeed,

Strickler has never claimed otherwise. Instead, his argument that the evidence was material has

always been founded entirely upon his assertion that claimed inconsistencies between each of

these statements and Stolzfus’ testimony rendered them exculpatory. Whatever minor variations

existed between Stolzfus’ various accounts, however, hardly required their production. Any

* Of course, the alleged split between the circuits is irrelevant for an additional reason: there

is no Brady violation in Strickler’s case because Sérickler’s defense team had actual

knowledge of the information contained in the allegedly suppressed documents. In a sworn

affidavit, Thomas Roberts, one of Strickler’s two trial attorneys, stated:

I have reviewed the [Stolzfus materials] and although | cannot

recall if I have seen these specific documents, | do remember the

information contained in them. I remember discussing with Mr.

Bobbitt the possibility that Ms. Stolzfus may not be a credible

witness because she had not come forward immediately and her

story had become much more detailed over time. It seemed too

good to be true.

(RA 1).

12

other conclusion would require a witness to give precisely the same account every time that he is

questioned before or during trial, a requirement that is neither realistic nor reasonable.

The alleged “inconsistencies,” furthermore, deal only with trivial matters which were not

contested at trial. For example, Strickler never has contested that it was Leanne Whitlock who

was abducted at the Valley Mall. Stolzfus’ supposed inability to initially identify Whitlock is

therefore immaterial for Brady purposes. Likewise, there was never any disagreement at trial

about whether Whitlock was driving her boyfriend’s dark blue car with West Virginia tags. Nor

was there any serious disagreement about the facts surrounding Whitlock’s abduction. Strickler,

in fact, expressly admitted in closing argument to the jury that he had abducted and robbed

Whitlock. (RA 26, 36-37). Impeachment of Stolzfus on these relatively unimportant matters

under no circumstances would have created a reasonable likelihood that the result of Strickler’s

trial would have been different.

The Fourth Circuit also correctly concluded that the “Stolzfus materials” were not

material under Brady because Strickler validly was convicted of capital murder in the

commission of a robbery and Stoltfuz offered no testimony even marginally relevant to that

conviction.® Strickler, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 12805, *30 (“Stolzfus’ testimony was not critical

° $trickler’s argument — that the Stolzfus documents were material because “Stolzfus portrayed

Strickler as the only one who committed violent acts against Whitlock” (Petition at 33) and,

without impeachmem of Stolzfus, the jury was more likely to believe that Strickler was the

person who pried the boulder out of the frozen ground and repeatedly struck Whitlock over the

head with it while Henderson restrained her — must be rejected. Under Virginia’s capital murder

law, it was immaterial who dropped the boulder on Whitlock’s head and who held her down.

Both persons were equally culpable and both equally were subject to the death penalty. Strickler,

241 Va. at 495, 404 S.E.2d at 235; see also Coppola v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 243, 256-257,

257 S.E.2d 797, 806 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1103 (1980).

13

to the Commonwealth’s case, especially in view of the overwhelming evidence in the record,

independent of Stolzfus’ testimony, demonstrating that Strickler abducted and robbed

Whitlock”). In this regard, independent eyewitness testimony conclusively established that after

Whitlock’s murder, Strickler had driven Whitlock’s car, that Strickler possessed and

unsuccessfully attempted to use Whitlock’s bank card, anc that Strickler gave a companion a pair

of earrings Whitlock was wearing on the night of her murder. And, the Virginia Supreme Court

concluded that the 69-pound rock used to crush Whitlock’s skull constituted a deadly weapon as

a matter of Virginia law. Strickler v. Murray, 249 Va. at 129, 452 S.E.2d at 653. That being the

case, there is simply no reasonable probability that the result of Strickler’s trial would have been

different had Stolzfus been “impeached” with the information Strickler belatedly developed and

presented in his federal habeas action.

The Fourth Circuit's fact-specific application of the standard established by this Court in

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985) (allegedly withheld evidence is not “material”

for purposes of the Brady rule unless there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have

changed the outcome of trial), and its determination that the evidence at issue in Strickler’s case

was not material clearly do not warrant a grant of certiorari. See U.S.S.Ct. Rule 10 (certiorari is

rarely granted when the asserted error consists of...the misapplication of a properly stated rule of

law.”). See also Kyles, 514 U.S. at 460 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“an intensively fact-specific case

in which the Court below unquestionably applied the correct rule and did not unquestionably err

[is] precisely the type of case in which we are most inclined to deny certiorari”) (emphasis in

original); Texas v, Mead, 465 U.S. 1041 (1994) (Stevens, J.) (court does not review cases which

primarily present questions of fact).

14

CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of certiorari and motion for stay of execution should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

RONALD J. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR

| “gee ete

By: | Lyall LUAlpt,

Counsel =)

Pamela A. Rumpz

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

900 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

(804)786-4624

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On September 4, 1998, a copy of this Brief in Opposition was hand delivered to Barbara

Hartung, Esquire, 1001 East Main Street, Suite 504, Richmond, Virginia 23219, counsel for the

petitioner.

‘k i (a kup pl

jee

F se7-- 25-3557 sé’ 2S Dims Uy wo b Rte « wow”. — ‘ ~

-——— *-<« . ~~ y

Table of Contents

AFFIDAVIT

Page

denenciedithiteende ik ee eT ee Se ES NS Thomas £. Roberts, first being duly sworn, says:

Strickler’s Gui ‘losi

ckler's Guilt Phase Closing Argumenttl................:ccccescsseseeveoeeseeveereonn ssitiabeeineestinatmabtoattiovbiiinets 23 In 1990, I assisted William £. Bobbitt, Jr., in the trial o¢

Thomas David Strickler. I have reviewed the attached documents

and although I cannot recall if I have seen these specific

documents, I do remember the information contained in them. I

remember discussing with Mr. Bobbitt the possibility that Ms.

Stoltzfus may not be a creditable witness because she had not

come forward -immediately and her story had become much more

detailed over time. It seemed too good to be true. The attached

newspaper article is somewhat familiar. To the best of my

recollection, we were concerned that Strickler had talked to a

reporter without our knowledge or permission. It appears obvious

that the witness quoted in the article is Ms. Stoltzfus.

I would be willing to testify to the above at the hearing

scheduled for October 1 & 2, 1997 in the U.S. District Court at

Richmond, Va. However, I am planning to be in Florida on a long-

scheduled trip with my wife during that time.

» Roberts

City of Staunton

Commonwealth of Virginia

Subscribed and sworn to before me on September 25, 1997,

_—

Ps ee,

. My commission expires: - 7” ;

: ~~

°F

YF +. FH

1999 Paik | eit)

° —: — , a=: °<

ia es :

| a5% inf

= ‘.. ‘/. < y :?

17

flu @ tl a

SO Alp,

fd. A

(22 -F0» ErS"D

Chm “Si¢-2 >"

Cr

fol4- 80 q.., Lt beh ee

ealit

/.” foto Bide dn,

ail a fie rte

oo sy 5, Lo trrrtle

i

(pee A /- bs, MECN

pire f'

‘- s>

Chee SP iar es

wal hk Gi

A Z -

> a re 4“ _—

Ze... — uJ

o — me 27te-

Ahan 9h 6 a

“Ges - vies - S992 — UI-S7% - ae

6319-5

Lan bso JA 4 —

Oth "Yrs s—

"3 alee

-—-— oo e “ses —t AL

= — + ——-.

CASE # 90-01-06-0067

SUBMITTED BY DETECTIVE D.L. CLAYTOR ~~

Anne E. Stoltzfus

565 Hartman Drive

Harrisonburg, Va.

Phone # 434-2775

SSN/172-36-8187

Summary of Interview:

22801

On 1-19-90 and 1-22-90, Anne E. Stoltzfus was interviewed

at the city police department after she advised that she recalle,

seeing some suspicious activity which might pertain to the LeAnn

Whitlock case. ,

Ms. Stoltzfus advised that on Friday evening, 1-5-90, she

was at the Valley Mall and observed a subject jump into a vehicle

with a black girl, fight with the black girl, and then was joined

by two other subjects. Ms. Stoltzfus stated that between 6:45

p.m. and 7:00 p.m. she and her daughter had completed their

shopping and were leaving the mall, when she observed a black

girl in a dark blue car coming into the mall parking area.

Ms. Stoltzfus advised that she was sitting at the stop sign

at the Penneys end of the mall (west end) when the black girl

passed traveling east in front of the mall. Ms. Stoltzfus

noted that she then turned right and fell in behind the black

girl's vehicle and noticed that it had West Virginia tags.

As they approached the front entrance of the mall, the vehicle

stopped for what she thought was & bus or some type of vehicle.

Ms. Stoltzfus advised that she cheerved a white male, long

scraggly hair, run up to the passenger window of the black

female's car and started pounding on the window and attempting

| Ras ceo

CASE # 90-01-06-0067

CLAYTOR > SUBMITTED BY DETECTIVE D.L. CLAYTOR=>

PAGE 3

CASE # 90-01-06-0067

SUBMITTED BY DETECTIVE D.L.

PAGE 2

to open the door. The subject appeared aggitated and wild. She noted that the black girl was glancing her way but still °

He pulled open the door and jumped in next to the black female did not turn her head, and was mouthing something which in

ang got right up next to her. The black female started hitting thinking back could have been *help". Ms. Stoltzfus advised

the guy. The guy then turned and motioned and a white female that she drove up to Medco and pulled over to see if the black

and a second white male ran from the entrance area to the car. girl was ok. ‘The car drove past her and everything seemed ok,

—m_—_. oe

The female was described as 18-21 years of age, 5'5", 140 lbs., However, when the vehicle got up to Leggetts Store it drove up

(A little over weight), blonde/brown shoulder length hair, pale over the curb and the horn again started blowing. The vehicle

plain face, wearing blue jeans and denim jacket. The second continued on and was last seen heading toward Rt. 33.

white male was described as tall, 6', dark hair, cream colored Ms. Stoltzfus advised that she was not sure whether she

jacket. could identify the white males but felt sure she could identify

Ms. Stoltzfus advised that as the white girl attempted to © the white female. She further advised that prior to the incident

crawl into the back seat the car lurched forward and the horn b in front of the mall, she recalled seeing who she thinks were

started blowing continuously. The girl jumped back and the the same blondish haired male and white female inside the mall.

second white male ran back to the entrance of the mall. The The white female bumped into her because the white male, who

black female and the first white male started fighting again, again appeared agitated or high, was yelling at her to get someone

until the horn stopped blowing. The white female and the second (she could not recall who) to meet him at the bus stop. Ms.

white male then got into the back seat of the vehicle. Stoltzfus advised that the incident occured very quickly and

Ms. Stoltzfus stated she pulled up beside the vehicle to that her daughter did not see anything.

see if the black girl was ok but could not get her attention. 5 a Anne E. Stoltzfus was shown the following picture show-ups

The black girl just stared forward. At the same time she noticed after first reading the Photographic Show-Up Admonition:

that the white female in the back was staring back at her and # 6266, 4663, 5992, 4199, 5976, R.C.S.D. # 12527. Ms. Stoltzfus

the white male in the back seat was attempting to hide down in pointed out R.C.S.D. # 12527, Ronald Henderson as resembling

the seat. Ms. Stoltzfus advised that she moved forward a little the subject described as white male # 2. Ms. Stoltzfus advised

and looked back at the black girl, still trying to get her attention. | that it looked like the subject but the beard was not right.

She noted that if she saw him in person she might be able to

CASE # 90-01-06-0067

SUBMITTED BY DETECTIVE D.L. CLAY7OR™

PAGE 4

identify him positively.

Photo Show-Up # 5031, 4787,

5900,

6186, 6337, 5906.

Ms. Stoltzfus pointed out picture # 6337, Thomas David Strickler,

as resembling the subject described as white male # 1.

Ms.

Stoltzfus advised that the hair color was not right in the

photo. She advised further that she might be able to identify

him positively if seen in person.

RAY

t

-90

-90

CASE # 90-01-06-0067

SUBMITTED BY DETECTIVE D.L. CLAYTOR ~

Approximately 6:25 p.m. Anne Stoltzfus was shown a photograph; -

show-up including photos # 5346, 5351, 9107, Connie Lamb Photo,

R.C.S.D. 9771, and 5676. Ms. Stoltzfus first read the photo

show-up admonition and after viewing the photos advised thar

she could not identify any of the photos as the female who she

observed enter Ms. Whitlock's car. She advised that if she say,

the subject in person she would know for sure.

Approximately 7:10 p.m. Ms. Stoltzfus was taken to the county

impound lot where she viewed the Mercury Lynx, W. Va. license

NKA-243. Ms. Stoltzfus advised that the vehicle looked like the

one at the Valley Mall. She stated that it was the right color,

size, and it had the same little blue stripe down the side, and

had the same colored interior as the one she saw.

Anne Stoltzfus advised that she had seen photographs of LeAnn

Whitlock and, without a doubt, she was the black female that was

operating the blue vehicle with West Virginia tags who she observed

at the Valley Mall on 1-5-90. Ms. Stoltzfus further advised that

the vehicle she viewed on 1-24-90 was the vehicle she saw at the

mall. She had made up a quote to help remember the license number

after the incident, "No Kids After 2-43".

‘

eee? |

CASE # 90-01-06-0067

SUBMITTED BY DETECTIVE D.L. CLAYTOR ‘.

O) Seruations

Nad

Accroximately 9:30 a.m Anne Stoltzfus, accompanied Detective I.) Black. icl AvXed iA p of

|

Claytor to the Rockingham Districts Court to attempt to identify oer all + wena iA dart. b)

' ' . 5 5

the female she saw on the evening of 1-5-90 with Tommy Strickler "nag" sy° cts “ar West VA. +¢

aré Ronald Henderson. Ms. Stoltzfus observed a female known as

econ "bum “Ripe fs "WW. }

Mary Jane Oplander and stated that Oplander looked like the girl 4 hick" wth jon sabes {9 bie

| ' mn) oe to .

hain’ runs dsonyr ;

pouals Varparh earth then ope

dear yuerps, (A Ric \ Ou

| Conia te outsdk walk

she saw on 1-5-90.

le tasde Nil &,

os ‘Door ope", e!.) Slack ich S

dur. Girl Pps one leg t

Car ear lurches Torware

honks harn @ont

The git ( aor. Md, ~ 140),

hind bois, ptm tl

urn s back + the v\*4

buck. Toward wall. |

4) Cust + Bleck aicl Stick Rafting

She s blowing horn |

aaa .

| e Auta (“ail da-k a H.crtam

- a bck Seete Lain forwtrd in Oi

dle with antl. RAY

RAD

Aetee5 |

ek

—

“s ot aa “a Des egrie 4 pee wens

sri a heed. Gir! in bac

pe ma UNLESS MAE

| but u net ldin

a |

| ¢.) T dvve on to Madco Dag ‘ yer

tle ‘

Th Jovie normal, The turn

‘er hud ]

(in right do 40 quad edhe, direchon,

=~ “ wr of? oe on

ie iS Doe | a

seat Sites at mv. +

-*

-_ oe

stares

| un aI

to Sc iL the

lacie aye | a OM. +"

1.) She Ons the Car _— Atal around rnér

marked % abowc dnurs uj> Jvér arb * honks horn.

lett to

RAIO

epic

565 Hartman Drive

Harrisonburg, Virginia 2230!

January 22, 1990

Dear Sargeant Claytor:

I want to clarify some of my confusion for you. First of all, | tend to

remember things in pictures rather than in over-all logical constructs When

| didn't remember any Mall purchases, | didn't remember being there. But

my 14-year-old daughter Katie remembers different things and her sharing

with me what she remembers helped jog my memory. | have an

extraordinary visual memory but ! hadn't placed all my mental pictures

together with that same night.

Katie remembered my only purchase at the Mall of 4 name cards at $0.75

each at Centerpoint. We both remembered our trek after Centerpoint, but l

thought it was a different night. So | knew that if ] could confirm that one

purchase, all the associated mental pictures following would have occurred

January 5. I did this morning coufirm by Centerpoint bookstores’ cash

register tape a purchase of that amount at 4:40p.m. (showed 4:30-10 minutes

siow). This means that | can construct with good confidence our ezact

journey and get more accurate time estimates.

| picked up Katie shortly after 4:15 pm at the Medical Arts complex and

headed to the Mall. We went [irst to Centerpoint bookstore to purchase a

specific CD. They dida't have it and | purchased the name cards at 4:40pm

and we left for K-Mart. | purchased a prescription and some other

merchandise at 5:31pm (confirmed by cash register tape and also back of

check #1190). We left K-Mart and drove back over to the Penney s catalogue

sales/ Watson's lot. From there we went to:

Aporox. Time __Place_

5:40pm Centerpoint Check to see whether we could order CD

They didn't khow how; suggested we try

Record Corner or Musicland

5:45pm Record Corner No luck

5:50pm Musictand Wasted 15-20 min trying to get help to

fiad the CD.

"6:05-6:!0pm , Told to come back in about half an hour

to find someone more knowledgable.

"6:105m Watson's Looked around for half an hour.

Got there, still had to wait §-10 min

Another guy finally came and helped

but was oo help.

** On the way back to Musiciand the 2nd time I remember a gir! who looked

just like the gir! who got into that car bumped smack into me. She was

walking toward me [acing the other (Leggetts) direction A revved-up

mountain man was yelling at her that he would meet her out at the bus stop.

He went around the display and up the B. Dalton bookstore side and could

have been the same guy who knocked on the car window because he had the

same weird walk-like-an-animal gait. | remember looking at my watch and

@ genileman who saw me asked me what time it was. | have a vague

memory that my watch said 6:50 but is 5 min fast so! answered 6:45pm.

"6:40-6:45pm Musiciand

Asked briefly when someone would be

in so that I could place the CD order

and was told tomorrow (Saturday)

manager Abe Clymer.

“6:50-7:00pm Centerpoint

Approx. 6:55-7:05pm Returned to car. Had discussion about ear piercing

“ and | Gecided to take Katie to Leggetts to show her earrings for unpierced

ears. We drove around the [front of J.C. Penneys, stopped at the

stop sign, and the black girl in dark blue car drove past. (! saw a

car that looked somewhat like hers parked next to the railroad tracks across

from Valley Heritage (a company car?) only it was lighter biue.) Then |

turned right and pulled up behind the black girl, noticed the West.VA tags,

and observed the other things | told you.

Observations that corroborate the time that | saw those 3 characters get in

the black girl's car to about 6:55 to 7:10pm are Katie's and my combined

memories on when we got back home. Katie remembers being mad because

everyone had already eaten supper and | heated up some spaghetti sauce

for her but refused to cook some noodles because it was so late. ! remember

the argument. My memory is that | said it was only 20 after 7, which may

have been 7:15 because our dining room clock is 5 min. fast. I also

remember arguing that it would be close to 8:00 by the time | spent half an

hour cooking noodles. She remembers being upset that she couldn't watch

RAIZ

4

TV because her dad was still watching his news program (McNeil/Lehrer

Hour: 7-8pm). This means we got home after 7pm. because the children

watching TV during the 6:30-7:00 national news is never allowed. It also

means we got home before 8pm. | drove home the “back way”, which may

have taken 10 to 15 min.

I have a very vague memory that I'm not sure of. It seems as if the wild guy

that | saw had come running through the door and up to a bus as the bus

was pulling off. | have impressions of intense anger, of his going back to

where the dark haired guy and gir! were standing. Then the guy | saw came

running up to the biack girl's window. 7Were those 2 memories the same

person? The black gir! couldn't drive when the bus pulled out because about

2-3 people coming from the parking lot walked in front of the car.

I'm sorry my initial times were so far off. First | remembered it being dark

and remembered driving on past Leggetts and not going in | placed the time

around 9:00pm thinking | must have not gone in because the Mal! was

closing. Later | thought | hadn‘t gone into the Mall because | made no

purchases. Katie remembered the smal! Centerpoint purchase and | knew

that if that happened January 5 | could trace our path from there. That was

corroborated by Centerpoint this morning, so | feel very certain about the

above approx. times.

7~

Sincerely,

Cor ing FEAF 0

Anne Stoltzfus

| 72-36 - F137

j ° y 4

i :* oe Df» 4, . P ole 0, Jf oC sate “4° Lr Seer, a - ke 3 ony te ‘ ZL )

af ’ d ; - b

jate Lhe ju K Oye Cas hott dle Weer Ohad

A. ¢ V; 04

oT Oe my hh ng 24%; av Mrhev Liu hud uy “ "O ;

; ephe atic CLT

sont rhe Vere ALE

| MLE, ecole Stra Dect SATS

) te ght fe 1083 fo iki : .

\\ hp cetnctantin dS hte ~ a quer VR

we q or ue rc Jered “Whine he’, sh tf

3074, | ;

Cte 6 “Tiaras pee covers A UGGAD A a erry +4

Kehe tho Aad a speech ROE CM ah ws

Home Child heen thes Att osu?

Lorvotersted Al ke Gaok ypoial rep she Tope RAIS

Notes for Detective Claytor:

My Impressions of “The Car”

(Anne Stoltzfus)

| remember the car as dark Dive (navy) and shiny. The make was

definitely not foreign but American. It was not 2 Subaru, Toyota, Mercedes,

Renault, Peugeot, VW, or Honda. !t was not a Buick or Cadillac. it was not a

large, full-size car-and not a mini car. | think it was smaller than a Buick

Skylark and about the size of a Buick Skyhawk.

| can best describe the car In comparison to my VW Rabbit. The

car was wider than my Rabbit, maybe two feet wider. It was higher than

my Rabbit, maybe 3-6 inches higher. it was longer than my Rabbit, at least

in front - by maybe a foot.

it was a standard boxy American style. [| remember looking for the make

and not being able to see it in the dark. | have 2 yaque impression of silver

letters on the leftrear that said Wo//ar~ beside or inside an on emblem,

~ put I'm not at all sure.] The lines of the car were straight and parallel

to the road, |.e., the rear was not jacked up like many Cars are. | think it was

2 two-door.

adi Tar =e = —

ET BO OP ge

J-a 5 ~Fo

Ji PSam.

Derectve Ca yor ;

“Fonggy lz jobirhied bey) 00d

a Shakur G @ dase hat Phe

black trl DT Sau “shoo was

Lear Whittek. TZ yper? Sema!

Aeurs iv YA TJeAn De Jocks. .

at Curcear prers trom whith

Tm the *derh tection.

Ne Ais dbseri as the

rel in \ail Sits Fo

hued ead fd

C Thtahs. 2... ! 8

.)

January 26, 1990

Dear Detective Claytor:

As soon as | saw John Dean's pictures of LeAnn Whitlock, | knew

beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was “the black gir!” and then |

remembered the license number. To realize that | actually witnessed

LeAnn’s abduction is terribly upsetting, because I came so close to notifying

the police and to doing a couple other things that could have made this

totally different. Even when I saw the car, | thought it could have an exact

duplicate with a different owner. (As long as | could block out the license

number, | could believe that.)

I should be able to identify all three of the persons I saw get into that

car if | saw them in person, because | not only saw them get into the car but

two other times inside the Mall I am sure they are the same people. The

first time I saw them was about 6:00pm inside Musiciand. | had been

Waiting for a very tall, black guy (“Ron”?) to wait on me and as soon as he

was free these three people came in Mountain Man was impatient and |

instinctively backed up and almost into the dark-haired quiet guy. My entire

left arm brushed a long tan light-weight coat of a synthetic fabric that was

draped over his right arm. I told “Ron” to wait on them first. When “Ron” was

done with them he disappeared and a gir! told me to come back in half an

hour. The reason | had to wait when I] came back to Musicland was because

“Ron” never returned. A short, brown-haired guy (“Bruce”) waited on me.

They might remember and be able to identify these characters for you.

_ As l was returning to Musicland | had the hefty blonde girl crash into

me and almost get her button snagged on my open-weave sweater, as | had

told you. I'm sure this is the same gir! who got into that car. Her face was

round, her hair dark- blonde, scraggly, straight-cut almost shoulder length. |

think she had a few freckles and | think grey-blue eyes. She had a certain

“not-too-bright” look. She looked like an anemic, dopey version of woman *3

(upper-right-hand corner) in that group of pictures you showed me. As she

bumped into me Mountain Man was yelling at her “] have to get out of here.

Where's Ronnie?” She turned and | turned and saw the dark-haired guy -

standing near the end of the display toward J.C Penneys in a long tan trench-

type coat. Mountain Man said, "You and Ronnie meet me at the bus stop.” She

said, "Where's the bus stop?” I said, "Up at the Mall entrance.” | remember

Mountain Man was multi-layered. The bottom layer was a grey T-shirt that I

think had blue writing "Harley Davidson” on it. My impressions flow together

but I'll describe them anyway. The outer layer had a colorful bird decorated

on the back and | think red letters that said Fawley or Raleigh In between

layers were Nowing, open in the front, and maybe longer than the outer

layer. I think one layer was a faded denim-Dlue color shirt and another a

greenish-greyish flanne! shirt.

Another point of clarification. | think it was a white(?) pick-up truck

that stopped ahead of us to turn left. 1 remember thinking, “They went in

and parked and are now walking in front of the blue car while we're still

sitting here waiting to go.” Those people might remember the abduction

Also, when LeAnn laid on the horn there were 6 or 8 people inside the Mall

entrance who looked out to see what was going on. There were a couple

people in the parking lot who stopped and looked. They might be able to

identify these characters.

Back to “the girl”. I told you she was the same height as me (5'6"). But

I forgot that I am shorter because of a spinal injury and vertebral collapse

(spondylolisthesis). 1 measured myself this morning as 5'4°. She would wear

about a size 14 or 16 blouse and about size 16 jeans. [] have a crazy

association of another gir! who reminds me of this gir! and probably is not.

But I'll tell you anyway. December 1987 I was working at Leggetts at Valley

Mall as a sales clerk. A gir! who looked similar to this girl came in and tried

to get a cash refund from me for merchandise she had just gotten in

exchange for a $90 dress that had been stolen | alerted security and

detained her long enough for a hot-headed hick waiting for her in the car to

come in and raise a ruckus.)

Thank you for your patience with my sometimes muddled memories. |

know if I believed at the time that | was witnessing a crime | would have

much, much more vivid memories. I really didn't believe that's what | saw

until 1 saw LeAnn’s pictures. In fact, I'm sure that if Kim Davis hadn't called

the police and that other detective hadn't come to JMU and asked me to

come in and talk to you, | never would have made any of the associations

that you helped me make. Now that I know what it was that I saw, I have

been very upset and | really don't want to look at any pictures or people for

a while. I need to be trying to study. | am really glad you left me in the dark

all this past week, because otherwise | think I would have been too upset to

remember anything. ] want to cooperate in your investigation and would be

willing to help later on. It's just that right now I need a break. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Qnmt

Anne Stoltzfus

RAI | | netett

; Mountain Man, Shy Guy. londe Girl

Details of Encounter

My first encounter with Mountain Man was about 6:00 p.m. January 5.

1990. | was in Musiciand at Valley Mall waiting to be waited on when he

stormed in with Blonde Girl. | instinctively backed up and into Shy Guy. |

remember touching the long tan coat he had draped over his arm and

thinking that | felt something hard. I apologized and Shy Guy smiled slightly.

As he quickly put on his coat and put his hands into his pockets, his soft

brown eyes dispelled my fears. The tall black Musicland clerk (Ron or Rob)

came over to wait on me and | told Mountain Man to go ahead, since he was

so impatient.

About 45 minutes later | saw Mountain Man again when he was

coming toward me as ! approached Musiciand coming from the Centerpoint

Bookstore direction at Valley Mall Shy Guy had just walked past me and

Blonde Girl was walking toward me several yards ahead of Mountain Man.

Mountain Man was yelling, “Donna, Donna” very loudly. I asked Blonde Gir! if

she was Donna and she said, “Donna or Sharon”. | said, “He wants you.” ( |

stopped in my tracks and watched Mountain Man because he was so revved

up that ] thought he was either manic or on drugs.) She turned around and

Mountain Man said, "Where's Ronnie?” She said, “Up there”, pointing toward

Penneys. As Blonde Girl started walking, Mountain Man yelled, “] gotta get

outa here. You and Ronnie meet me at the bus stop.” She looked back and

said, "Where's the bus stop?” and crashed into me. We both apologized and |

then gave her directions to the bus stop. Then | promply tried to follow

Mountain Man up the other side vf the display because ] was concerned

about his behavior, but I lost him and proceeded back to Musiciand.

] spent about 5 minutes in Musiciand, 10 minutes in Centerpoint

Bookstore, and then went to my car in the Watson's/Penneys' lot. This was

approximately 7:00 p.m. 1 was with my 14 year old daughter.

] drove in front of the west end of Penneys and stopped at the stop

sign. A black girl in a nice shiny dark blue car drove in. She was singing. (]

remember thinking, “Rich black college kid.“) 1 turned the corner and

stopped behind her at the Mall entrance. | noticed her West Va tags and

thought, “Rich black callege kid from West Va.” She had stopped because

there were vehicies ahead of us. My memory is some sort of mini-bus was

parked and waiting to leave. Mountain Man had come tearing out of the Mall,

ran up to the bus and yelled at the driver, and then hit the back of the mini-

van/bus as it drove off. I remember telling my daughter to look at “that

madman”. Ahead of the black girl was a pick-up truck, which was waiting to

turn left. About this time Mountain Man ran up to her car (passenger side)

and started yanking on the door handle and yelling. He couldn't get the door

open and started pounding on the window. She reached over to the door |

believe to make sure it was locked, because Mountain Man tried again and

RA (8

e64e25

was furious and didn't g.. 11 open until he shook and snow. .ae door with

both hands. He jumped into the car. smack up against her, and she crouched

toward her door and started hitting him with her right arm. (] thought it was

a domestic squabble. Mountain Man didn't look like he fit with her, but he

did look like he came from West Va.) The Mountain Man leaned back over,

opened the passenger door, and motioned to Blonde Gir! and Shy Guy to

come. They had been leaning up against the outside wall Blonde Gir! put one

foot into the car and the car lurched forward and nearly hit the family from

the pickup truck that had parked. The black gir! laid on the horn for quite a

while and Mountain Man kept hitting and hitting her until she stopped. (This

Caught the attention of 8-12 people inside and outside the Mall, but they ali

seemed curious at first and then unconcerned.) Then Blonde Gir! got into the

back seat and Shy Guy followed. He handed his tan coat to Mountain Man.

who laid it down on the floor and fooled with it for a while. Blonde Girl and

Shy Guy sat front on their seats touching the black girl while Mountain Man

was bent over (all buddies, | thought). As soon as Mountain Man sat up and

came over against the black girl, the other two sat back and relared.

But the black gir! wouldn't go. 1 tapped the horn and there was no

response. (Now | was starting to get worried.) 1 pulled up beside them.

ezactly parallel, honked the horn to get her attention, but she sat there

expressioniess, like a mannequin. | jumped out of the car and started to walk

between the two cars to talk to her, but there wasn't enough room. Shy Guy

looked scared and laid down on the back seat as if to hide. Blonde Girl kept

staring at me. I got back into my car and pulled front so that the black gir!

had a complete view of me. I asked her three times, “Are you OK.7" Each

time she would meet my eyes and then purposefully look down to her right

side. ] was frustrated because she was expressionless and said nothing and

seemed to intentionally look away. (] wonder now if there was a knife or

gun at her side.) Finally, I pulled forward a bit more, honked the horn, and

said again, “Are you OK?" This time she mouthed, “Help”. | started to drive

away and only when I reached Medco Drug did I realize that she was

saying, Help”. I pulled over and told my daughter to run in to get security

but about that time the black girl started driving past us. 1 had my daughter

write down the license number on a 3x4 card - West Va/ NKA-243.

As the car went around the corner at Leggetts it went up over the

curb. The car really tilted, the horn honked, people were hitting each other,

and | thought the whole bunch of them must be drunk. My daughter and |

followed them out to the stop sign They sat for a while at the stop sign and

they all seemed calm again. | told my daughter to help me remember, “No

Kids Alone to (2) 43. 2+43 makes 45, my age.” Then they turned left and got

into the lane to head back into town. | was going to Iollow them, but they

switched lanes to head out 33 East. | noticed | was almost out of gas and |

am not familiar with that part of Rockingham County, so! drove back toward

RA 1

ectes

thé lélephones at the thea ¢ntrance to Call the police. w. 4 gOtthere |

realized all | could say was some kids that looked like they were Crinking

and fighting and carrying on were criving out Rt. 33.) | rationalized away

my bad vibes and decided to drive on home and get my family their supper.

-—<—<— -——_—— oe ewe

So where is the 324 card?....1t would have been very nice if | could

have remembered all this at the time and had simply gone to the police with

the information. But | totally wrote this off as a trivial episode of college kids

carrying on and proceeded with my own [full-time college load at JMU. ! was

100 busy to read the paper or listen to the TV news. | did learn at JMU that

LeAnn Whitlock had disappeared from Valley Mall January 5, but | hadn't

seen a black gir! inside the Mall that night and didn't make the association.

The following week it was a [frequent topic of conversation in my classes.

Monday, January 15th, 1 was cleaning out my car and found the 3x4 card. |

tore it into little pieces and put it in the bottom of a trash bag. | remember

the thought running through my mind. The police won't find it there.” My

heart started racing and | said outloud, “What?! Am | paranoid?” But ! still

made no association.

Wednesday | saw a newspaper picture of John Dean's car, but | didn't

consciously recognize it. The newspaper bothered me, so | put it on a pile of

papers by the woodstove. The picture still haunted me and distracted me

from studying. | finally tore it up and burned it in the woodstove.

Later Wednesday in one of my classes | was talking with Kim Davis

and some other black students about LeAnn. | told her that | was at the Mall

that night, but that 1 didn't see any black girl inside the Mall Then | told her

about the crazy car in front of me. She reported that to the police. Thursday

afternoon a detective came to my class and Friday | had to go to the police

station to talk to Detective Claytor.

All weekend whenever | tried to get to sleep | was haunted by this

nonsense chant, “No Kids Alone to 43.” | still mademo conscious association. |

did know that it was unusual for me not to remember license numbers. Even

later when | saw John Dean's car and recognized many of the details, the

interior grey, etc. 1 could not recognize the license number. | did know that

every time Detective Clevtor asked me about the number | felt like | was

going to cry. Later that night when | saw pictures of LeAnn and knew she

was the biack girl in that car, 1 immediately knew the license number.

- ons ita

—

~many faces of

—LOVE

mive

—————

1 cape TV :

} tamed v

pubic?

gaa te ad

ae

8B

ii

f

It

fe eer of me tareaemar by Pe kum Baw Raw come NCR ed

toss Gus wh ct east 94 peu Gamang Gonwue @ commuavanswenemse es onyaah. ae:

i

ij

:

:

i

h

ar

i

i

i

i

rth

:

|

|

‘Te

sf

ul

i

i

f

i

.

ft

f

t

lf

i

if

i

—<———

t.

=

®

c- wo

land ” ae |

> >) a

t oO >

fy “4

+?

. © te.

b. ss i)

= ft. x

+2

3 9) -

oO ©

by “4 i)

7 |

Ad @ OG

> f=:

a +

. @) **

& @ =,

be 4

ow >

* OG

fx w fx}

ae] tk

=" @

i> f=

5 & &

3

oO .

> +

7 >)

a “4

2

a 2

. = 2)

E4 ~Q

:

mf ill Nit

i iN Sift

i i My ii Hi

J i th Wie

aie

" in at is

mi Hi i

| tel ‘itl

nn ie

Heal Bia

iat a ft

wt

; “+ ii i

|

; Hi hj

iw hi:

rs | FF i tid

etait eer

Ta ae ' Hi +H

rfyitie 25 ,

tht ie

Ce) w

rd c=

"3 +? b>

Oo 2

= SS

oO ra

+ +9 |

4 = 4

® t.

4 is] »

4 »

am} ve)

t. 42 I

oO >} +?

s 8)

Oo >t) =)

Me | 4

i |

bh. s >

3 a re

© ae)

> n

@® t.

ord YM

** | s

o -

a ra oO

4

Q @

— =;

oO ~ +

—Q t

a =)

> oO a

& © ao

Le @

i) 2

x

+? ®

=

@

i) »

a >.

® t.

com | s+

Ay "7

”

@

® 4

2 t.

®

© ”

>

®

8) rr

> oO

od c=

x =

4? ®

o a =

x +

7.)

=)

” 4

S

oO

“ef @

+ 9]

9) os

@ 0

3

or a

® G4

x ©

»

VY)

3 aA,

°o >

b> -

GS 7)

o “4

f ~

am} +?

rH

as =)

“4

0

a

4 @®

ad od

7] ”

+9) rs)

5

>

case sole

of it and each one of you was asked if you would

the

decide

y on the evidence that was

RA 2%

®

x a | ®

0 > 4 I + oO -

wo ® Oo - os =) ® » +»

® oo ® x “4 © . t.

= a = = 3 e r-4 re ~~ @

ae) fo} 1 ¥) te. a cd ® a

S oO ow 7) ® © +? x +? +? > ® ®

wo = ~ wo a +9] a 79) - od a °o ro) x

- a so; “4 - r4 s ~a b. @ +

oS S be oO t. Py “4 =) a co py

= oO w i?) ® ® ® oO + »~

fs) . 4 ® 4 oo 4 Ad ® > 9) a) m roa}

» +? » , > Ad °o x Oo @ - 2 b. , =)

77) as Oo t. °o oO o » x s 4 re

. > >} =z =>) +? “4 ~ ° & ® ° Se

9) » 3 oO t. ~ 20 8 ~ vs)

mn “4 b> . ® +? + ® ® ® co

eo) °o b. > nm os > ° . -4 ® x

S = t. o = ws x i) » + @ > »” oO

» 3 o , . » @ on a 4)

“4 a2) o = n t. oO » @ ) oo »

= rt > © Ss - & b. @ sc & c 9) i

3 = “4 +) be a ° » »” < “4 _-

® oO ® 4 a 4 aut ~~ > ad e4 b>

- = 2 > n > a t. ® + 9) x @

~ ®© a °o 3 > 4 t. ~ we . +] i

| ° Oo 3 2 a fo] rs 9) ® 4

8 ° 4 ® °o a z=) co A, “4 - n

°o b> x 8) i ® c oa 0 ¥) =) oe

t. wo » 4 7) e ~! 3 a ~~ n ® |

w re) s x +? ® we ° a c > Se x=

ra} 4 S ~ wo > b> b @ ° @ Hi +

42) ; °o oO x oO 1 @ t “4 wH °o

® = > 8 c ~ i. = > = + % i t)

= a 79) © n 4 Zz a i) 3 | “4

® ® —_ n S = CF) °o a > b. ~ . = =

+9) ® od Oo oO 4 t e a re) S)

® t. + oe “4 - < » . r~ fx} m x

b. a0 4 +? A | ® a ® | c ~ x ~

Q, a ® n ® os Ay Mm c= . “4 9) mn

M 8] w ae 4 oo] a 4 7» w “4 te.

- -— OF) fs 3 | > oO Oo > +e he °o a4 “4

42) Oo + oO or Yo to) 4 rs ® 2 co]

. > s 4 + n Oo + ~~ - ow

aw =) ® by a ® he 4 ° t. t. +? ®

) WH orf x 9) = x bs] x c cS = a 9] x

a 1 ° a +? Ad oo +2 Py ce) ° Ad is] RQ, @® ~

te EEE KKK

iit

pit ith wine i rn

jie int ae Hi i i

i

Y ON

¥-

he

i HW

ne

“

Hi

tral

ii

iy a

tl

ial | i! ‘ait 11

ie |

ity i ia i

na

=r

defendant killed Leanne Whitlock. That's the

first and primary element of the capital murder

charge, the instruction. There is another

instruction which defines that element a little

bit. It says that the Court instructs the jury

that the evidence must establish beyond a

reasonable doubt that the defendant actually

caused the death of Leanne Whitlock, before you

can find him guilty of capital murder. One who is

present aiding and abetting the actual killing but

who is not the immediate perpetrator is a

principle in the second degree and may not be

found guilty of capital murder. And Mr. Ervin has

also gone over that entire instruction with you

and you will have these back with you so that you

can go over them yourself. I want to review with

you now, some of the evidence, particularly in

regard as how it, what it shows about Mr.

" Strickler's participation in the murder. The

evidence shows that two men and a girl were at the

mall. Ms. Stolzfus said she saw these people

there and she met him and that she saw them abduct

Leanne Whitlock. They come and beat on the car,

got in the car and drove off in it. A little bit

later there wes a man that said that he saw the

car coming down 340 and there appeared to be four

-842-

Ra 24

people in the car as it turned in this lane that

he was familiar with. He saw just three people at

that time and it is not explained us to why there

were four people and then three people but perhaps

the person in the back had pulled down somebody.

He said the person in the back had their arms sort

of up in a funny manner. But he says that he

identifies Mr. Strickler as being the driver of

the car and that there was a girl, a white girl,

who was in the passenger seat next to him. The

evidence clearly establishes that the murder took

place in that field where the car turned down.

That that is where Leanne Whitlock was killed.

There are holes in the ground there. There is

blood in the holes in the ground, there was hair

and there is a rock and there is blood on the rock

and the body was found there and there is the

medical testimony, the evidence that the blows,

that type of wound, the fractured skull. That

there was instantaneous death and that, it's clear

that that is where Leanne Whitlock was killed.

The next real direct evidence we have is Henderson

and Strickler were seen about nine that night at

Dice's Inn. Several of the girls testified, said

that they saw them there that night. They saw

them leave with Donna Tudor that night. Donna

-843-

RA 25

Tudor went with them. The next witness in the

sequence of events for that night is that the

witness, Mr. Workman, said that Henderson came to

his house about four or five o'clock that night.

Came in, appeared agitated, was rubbing the blood

on his blue jeans and he said I've killed

semebody. I didn't want to do it but I had to

kill someone. The evidence is that shortly after

that Mr. Strickler and Donna Tudor leave, leave

Henderson there, go, they end up going to Virginia

Beach. They are at Virginia Beach for about a

week and they get back, shortly after they get

back here, the car breaks down and the car is left

at the church and Mr. Strickler and Donna Tudor

are arrested. When they are arrested there are

items in their possession, ef course they are

connected to the automobile, the automobile that

Leanne, Strickler had. There are credit cards,

earrings, Donna Tudor had the earrings. There are

personal belongings that were in Leanne Whitlock's

possession, that are in their possession after

they are arrested here in Augusta County. Now all

of that shows pretty clearly and without much

dispute as Mr. Ervin indicated, that there was a

robbery and that there was an abduction and that a

murder took place. But it doesn't prove who

-844-

RA 2b

.

+ cre lt a a a amc

killed Leanne Whitlock. And there is additional

evidence that I want to get in to now that tends

to go to that point. A part of that is that later

on things were found at this sight where the body

was ultimately discovered. The first thing that

was found was Henderson's wallet with his

identification in it. The next thing that was

found was a shirt and bra that was sent to the

lab. There was, there was the lab analysis and

the experts who testified said that they were

hairs that came off of the shirt and bra. They

never testified as to whether the hair came from

the shirt or the bra. It was all submitted as one

package and there is no evidence as to what, where

the hairs came from. Just that hairs were removed

from the shirt and bra that were sent were

identified, were consistent or similar to the

hairs, to Mr. Strickler's hair. The man said that

that is not a positive personal identification but

they are consistent with Mr. Strickler's hair.

There is also no evidence as to whose shirt and

bra that was. There was never any evidence that

was Leanne Whitlock's shirt or her bra. The only

evidence is that this piece, items were found

there at the scene just like Henderson's wallet

was found there at the scene. And that these

-845-

| Ra 21

hairs came from somewhere on them. We don't know

whether it is the shirt or the bra but they came

from somewhere on them. And I would submit to you

that the evidence as I said clearly shows that an

abduction took place and that there was a struggle

during the course of the abduction and it's, if

this was Leanne Whitlock's shirt, it's conceivable

that the hairs that were on there got there during

the course of the abduction. We just don't know

that, we don't. And that point we have to

speculate about as to when they got there and what

the significance of it is. We can speculate about

all of the evidence that comes from the scene

itself. Were there two people there, were there

three people there? The security guard at, that

testified first from Valley Mall said that she saw

Henderson and Strickler walking around and that

there was, she never saw any woman, never saw a

female with them. But Ms. Stolzfus was definite,

was positive that there was a woman and she

described her. Said she was referred to as Donna.

Said that they said this is Donna or Sharon. We

can speculate about what the people that were

there were doing. If there were three, what were

two doing and what, who was doing what? Was one .

person turning the car around while the others

-846-

Ra 28

were doing something with Ms. Whitlock or, but we

just don't know from the physical evidence and

from the, from what was subgitted, we don't know

what was taking place. We have to guess and we

have to speculate about what happened. You've

been given the instructions and it says suspicion

or probability is given, probability of guilt is

not enough for a conviction. In other words, it

is not enough to say that Mr., Mr. Strickler was

probably doing this or he probably had a part in

it or it was very suspicious. It has to be proved

beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually was the

person who killed Leanne Whitlock before you can

find him guilty of capital murder. And there is

evidence that points to, to Henderson. He was

identified at the mall, he jumped in the car, he

apparently was in the back seat. The man that was

there was in the back seat. The woman was in the

front seat. There is a white woman. So there is

evidence that, that Henderson was sitting in the

back seat and there is an inference that that's

where Leanne Whitlock was at that time when they

turned in the lane. Henderson's billfold was

found in the field so he was definitely there.

Henderson had blood on his pants. Now there are

several people that have testified that there has

-847-

RA

been blood on his pants. Workman said that he was

rubbing the blood spot on his pants when he was

there in his apartment. The lab report says that

the pants that Henderson took off at, at Ms.

Silvious's house had blood on them. That's an

indication that he was there. And on top of all

of that he made the statement, that I have already

referred to, that he had, that very night that he

had killed someone. So there is evidence that

certainly points to him. There is also evidence

that points to, to Mr. Strickler. There is the

testimony of Donna Tudor but I would submit to you

that her testimony is just not credible. First of

all, she has made a deal with the police. She has

been charged in this. She came back, she was

arrested, she was in the car, she had, she had the

earrings on and so she says I will make the deal,

I will tell you what you want to know if you will

just let me off, get me out of this charge and she

said that was what the agreement was. In fact,

even so, the Commonwealth wasn't, didn't trust her

enough to, to believe that she would be in Court

so they had her put in jail a couple days before

the trial so that she would be here for her to

testify. That's how reliable she is. On top of

that was the testimony of her estranged husband,

-848-

RA 4

Jay Tudor, and I really, I don't know what you

need to make of that or not make of it but anyway

he says that she, she made the statement to him

that she actually was there at the place. Maybe

she made a statement or maybe she didn't make a

statement to him. She said that she was there at

the house but she denied making the statement.

But there is some evidence indicating that she

could have been there. There was several

witnesses that say there, there was this woman,

this woman seems to fit Donna Tudor's description.

The name of Donna was used. It's certainly

possible that she was there and if that is the

case, she at this point isn't going to acknowledge

it. And if she is there, she is certainly able to

tell the police what they want to know. She also,

what she says isn't clear. She is very vague

about what she says. She says, she said they said

something about "it". She wasn't really, we don't

know whether that refers to the incident with

Leanne Whitlock or does that refer to something

else because it is ambiguous. What does "it" mean

when she is referring to it. She keeps using the

word in her testimony. She always says they said

this. She never says who did what, she just says

they were whispering and I couldn't really hear

-849-

RA 2

them and they said something but I really couldn't

hear it. So her testimony is very vague. Mr.

Ervin tried to get her to say certain things that

indicated that, that she had heard Strickler say

something but she really never said. She said all

I heard was this whispering that they were saying

that something had happened and I overheard

something about a rock crusher and they said these

things and she never really explained what that

meant. Now she did, she said, she also said that

there was blood on Mr. Strickler's pants. But she

is the only witness wno said anything about that.

There was, the witnesses that the Commonwealth

called from Dice's Inn. They were all asked how

Strickler was dressed that night. And one of them

said he was dressed very nice. His pants were a

little dirty but nothing out of the ordinary. She

didn't say anything about any blood on the pants

and she had indicated she observed them. The, Mr.

Strickler's mother who of course is a biased

witness, she is his mother, testified that she

washed the laundry and that there wasn't any blood

on the pants, on Mr. Strickler's pants when she

washed them. But in addition to that, the lab

technician said that there is a test that can be

done to determine if blood is present even after

~850-

Ra 32.

—_—

the clothes have been washed and we ran that test

and that didn't show that there was any blood

present. So there, so there's no evidence except

for Donna Tuder's statement that she, and she is

saying that this was a week afterwards when the

clothes were washed. There was blood on there.

But nobody who saw Mr. Strickler that night or the

next morning said anything about that. In fact

the ones that were asked directly said they didn't

see any blood. There is, there is the black shirt

that has been put into evidence and that was shown

to all the witnesses. Some of them said they

identified it, some of them said they didn't. One

of the girls at Dice's, well she, Mr. Ervin said

is this the shirt that Strickler had on and she

said no that's not the shirt. Ms. Stolzfus said I

can't say that's the shirt he had on. So there is

some connection, I mean there is some confusion as

to whether that is the shirt Mr. Strickler

actually had on that night. The only thing that

we know about it is that that is the shirt that

came back from Virginia Beach because that is the

shirt that was there in the car. Donna Tudor said

it came back from Virginia Beach because she said

she put it there in the car. There were stains on

that, some body fluids, semen and blood. If

ae PA Mh

Strickler and Donna Tudor had been together for

the whole week and the shirt gets back there, we

don't know where those stains came from or how

they got there and there is no, there is no

evidence to say that those things are identifiable

with, with Leanne Whitlock or that they in anyway

originated from the night that the murder took

place. So there is really no connection between

that black shirt and the murder itself. It is

just a piece of evidence that came in a week or so

later. I've already referred to the, to the hairs

on the shirt and bra and that's a piece of

evidence that connects Mr. Strickler to the scene.

It was found there at the scene, it had his hair

on it. But what does it mean? The meaning of it

is not clear because there was this abduction.

There is no evidence as to where the shirt and bra

came from or where the hairs came from off of

there. Conceivably it could be the (inaudible) of

the other woman that was, that was present. We

just don't know that. So the significance of that

is not clear. And it certainly doesn't prove that

Tommy Strickler was involved in the murder other

than he was there. And I'm saying involved, I

mean he was the actual, the perpetrator of the

murder. What there isn't is, there isn't evidence

-852-

Ra 34

to show that he, that Tommy Strickler was right

there around the murder scene. There were

fingerprint and footprints introduced in the

evidence to show that Tommy Strickler was in the

car but there wasn't any evidence of that sort, no

footprints, no fingerprints to show that he was

right around where the rock was and that he was

right around where these holes in the ground were

or that he was around where the body was. There

is nothing of that sort to show that he was right

there where the murder took place. There is,

there are no, there is nothing, no hair or

anything of Leanne Whitlock that was on his

clothes that would show that, that he was in close

contact with her. There are no eyewitnesses. And

of course, there wouldn't be. But in sometimes

they are. I mean in some cases of a murder there

are witnesses and certainly that, that helps prove

things. For instance, in this case, in the

abduction, there is an eyewitness, there are

eyewitnesses, so compare the way you feel about

the certainty you feel that Tommy Strickler got in

the car and took the car, to the uncertainty you

feel about what happened at the sight of the

murder and that is the sort of judgment you need

to make. You need to be certain. You need to

-855-

RA 39

believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the

actual perpetrator. The person who committed the

actual murder, before you can find him guilty of

capital murder. Now I want to go over with you

briefly the first degree murder instruction. That

instruction lists the elements also and the

elements of that offense are that Leanne Whitlock

was killed. That the killing was malicious. That

the killing occurred in the commission of a

robbery, rape or abduction. That the defendant

was @ participate in the commission of this

robbery, rape or abduction. That the defendant or

another participate in the commission of this

robbery, rape or abduction killed Leanne Whitlock.

So that certainly seems to fit the situation in

every one of those elements. Whereas on the other

hand, the capital murder instruction, you have to

speculate. You have to guess as to, to reach the

elements of that offense. And there is also the

instruction that if you have a reasonable doubt as

to the grade of the offense, then you must resolve

that doubt in favor of the defendant and find him

guilty of a lesser offense. If you have a

reasonable doubt as to whether he is guilty of

capital murder or first degree murder, you shall

find him guilty of first degree murder. So that,

-854-

RA Ble

that tells you that you, if you have a doubt, if

you have a question, you have to resolve that

doubt with the lesser offense. In this case, the

Commonwealth has not established who did the

actual killing. They have got theories about

somebody had to be doing this or maybe two people

wquld have had to pick up the rock or maybe

somebody would have had to hold the person down.

But those are just theories, there is nothing in

the evidence to support that. They haven't

established who delivered the blows to the head of

Leanne Whitlock that actually killed her. You

would have to go outside the evidence to say that

Tommy Strickler did it. You would have to

speculate that he was there doing something that

there is no evidence that he was doing. And you

are not suppose to go outside of the evidence. I

would ask you in this case to return a verdict of

guilty of first degree murder and not guilty of

capital murder. Thank you.

JUDGE: Thank you Mr. Bobbitt. Mr.

Ervin.

MR. ERVIN: May it please the Court.

Ladies and gentlemen Mr. Bobbitt is an excellent

defense lawyer. He has been in the business a

long time and he does like many defense lawyers

a -855-

RA OT