 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Willis6/30/2003
were evident that could have allowed a jury to infer behavior consistent with guilt. First, the defendant stated to detectives that the last time he saw the victim was after he dropped the victim off at the Golden Jukebox when they came from Joe B's. However, there was also evidence introduced that carpet fibers consistent with those from the defendant's truck were found in the victim's panties and bra. The defendant admitted to Patrick McCutcheon that he had sex with the victim on the night she was murdered. A rational jury considering all the evidence could properly conclude that the most logical time for the defendant and the victim to have engaged in sex was after they left the Golden Jukebox together. As such, a jury could have inferred that the defendant was being untruthful about his actions with the victim that night and did see her again after he said he dropped her off for the last time at the Golden Jukebox. Second, Patrick McCutchen testified that in his interview with the defendant, the defendant gave the impression to him that he had minimal knowledge about the Port Royal area. However, other evidence established that the defendant was familiar with that area, that he took his girlfriends there, and that he worked for Greenfield Trucking which had a job site set up within a few hundred yards of where the victim's body was found. Third, there were inconsistencies in the defendant's use of Harold McCarver as an alibi, as McCarver's recollection of their time spent together that night differed from the defendant's. The jury could have inferred that the defendant was deceitful or untruthful and that this behavior was consistent with covering up his actions on the night in question.
There was evidence produced that the defendant threatened one of the case investigators when the investigator confronted him at his apartment in Kentucky. Again, the jury was free to reject the defendant's explanation that he was tired of being harassed and could have credited the version that his anger was consistent with the actions of a guilty person.
Perhaps the most damaging evidence came from Jeffery Fletcher, who testified that the defendant told him he had killed a girl in Clarksville and he would "stab his guts out the same way he did hers." It is within the jury's discretion to credit and weigh the credibility of witnesses and, obviously, they would be able to determine that the defendant killed the victim if they believed Fletcher. Additionally, there was testimony from Kelly Jenkins that the defendant said they would never get a conviction. If the jury credited Fletcher's testimony and rejected any testimony from others that may have refuted Fletcher's, then the inference is clear that the defendant killed the victim and then later, in a fit of anger, told someone else.
No single piece of evidence served to convict this defendant. The tapestry of circumstantial evidence was woven thick enough that a rational jury could have inferred that the defendant was with the victim the night in question, desired the victim, came back to the Golden Jukebox late that night, convinced the victim to get back into his truck, took her to Port Royal State Park where something went wrong, leading him to grab the nearest weapon, and kill her. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence to support the inference that the defendant's behavior after the murder, his inconsistent stories, his threatening of investigators, his moving away shortly after the murder, and his obsessive cleaning of his truck and the shower in his apartment was the behavior of one that committed a crime, was leaving the overall scene, and was covering his tracks.
Additionally, a rational jury could have rejected any alter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|