GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
State Exhibit #40 that Def objected to:

Text Messages between AL and CL.

Lee Short: Spoke with State, and objecting based on Martial Priv, as the texts began prior to alleged time period.

Deputy Pros Barbara Mariani: denies Marital Priv, as it was planning. Texts began on Sept 17th, 2014
Per CL they were planning to target women married so their husb would pay ransom. During the texts (lol they used the "F" word and the Pros apologized for saying it lol ) First house they looked at had too many cameras, 2nd house not good either. CL said thats what happens when have big house (cameras). AL text his adrenilen was going he was ready to get it over with. CL was read to get going too. Per Pros CL will testify to this.

Lee Short: (there were many redaction's - blacked out) Def attorney had issues about the blacked out parts, he said has been unable to speak with CL so unsure about them and he has some questions about them. He states that Marital Priv shouldn't lead to other crimes in their marriage. They (State) are saying this is motive, its NOT motive. Its showing what they are doing. If it were motive, there would be language as " really need money" or that they "hated someone" . Nothing of this offers this. He thinks it is Marital Priv.

Pros Mariani: CL will testify to this

2 Sets of texts
begins
Cl: Hey Whats up
AL: tons of cameras
CL: we need more options
AL adrinaline and ready to do it
CL: Me too

JUDGE: how far in advance are text messages from the abduction?

Pros: 9/17 at 9:14 am

JUDGE: Doesnt believe these are marital priv and is admitting them Rule 404 (b) planning.

jmho
 
#60 in the Exhibits.... Remember the yap on social media comments about a taser??? They had a Flashlight Taser (whatever that is)


Letters AL to CL these the State argued were to be communicated to other people. LOTS of retations.

Exhibit # 43 is letter
#44 is 2 affidavits (also has alot of redactions)
Def withdraws objections if only the unredacted is used.
***********
Recording of Beverly Carter voice:

Lee Short on record still objection (securing the record for possible post trial appeals)
Judge Wright said that he disagreed that this was fruit from the poisoness tree. Law Enforcement already had the phone in their possession from when Lt Swagerty got it.

Lee Short: but they couldnt access it at the time since didnt have passcode.

Judge: correct but they already had possession of it, AL just gave them reason to know what was on the phone. ***JMHO I still think they got into that phone afterwards, even though AL thinks they had to have passcode. We dont know if they got a warrant for it iirc.

RULING: RECORDING CAN BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE
jmho
 
Car....

Judge: Inventory from within the car passenger area is admissable. Anything from the trunk is out.

Pros John Johnson: asked about possiblity of getting just the pictures admitted where showing in plain sight. (2 pieces of green tape and 1 hair)

Judge: No, (on picture) because he read over the PCSO policy and that would not have been continued inventory search and he gave that info in his prior ruling.

Pros Johnson: Can you just sleep on it?

Judge: Ruling stands ... laughed I think I have slept on this alot already

jmho
 
NEW tidbits:

Lee Short: There was alleged blood spots at the home 14202 Old River Drive home. NO TESTING of blood or proof that it was pertaining to this case.

Pros Johnson: He didnt believe there were evidence of that in any picture exhibits

JUDGE : if there are, that is out.

***wonder why they didnt test the blood allegedly found at the house????
 
Lee Short: there are 3 mentions in the interrogation mentioning "Lawyer/Attorney"
(example when AL came back to CID and Det Allison mention Argos and AL said some things then said word Lawyer. This is not recorded but Det Allison stated that he stopped the interview)
Def doesnt want the Pros to say anything about asking for a lawyer.

Judge and Pros agree and when get to that point in trial just going to say "no more questions were asked" or something to that effect. Def didnt want jury to hear anything about AL rights being messed with.

jmho
 
Final thing addressed was about CL speaking to the Def ...

Bill James stated that CL had made a deal and was required to cooperate with the State. He has had no access to CL. He requests for a hearing with CL present. He stated that her Pub def filed motion saying they were not specific in what they wanted and his thoughts were the Def was just trying to delay (referenced paragraph #7). Bill James stated the attorney didnt know what he was talking about and that he hadnt been involved. Stated he has been preparing for trial and have for las 1 1/2 months been trying to speak with her. He said he had no objections to the Pros or her Pub Def being there. He only needs about possibly 30 minutes.
He wanted to know if the State and Public Defenders had an agreement of some sort as to her not agreeing to speak with him.

Judge said that he understood where Def was coming from he has been in same spot prior. He then turned to Brett Qualls.

Brett Qualls said that when he spoke with CL last (about 2 or 3 weeks ago) she did not want to speak to the Def attorney other than during cross examination during trial. No he and the other Pub Def (2 that work on CL case other last name Roff or something like that) and the State have no agreement.

Pros John Johnson also spoke up and stated that he has handled this case codefendant as he has ea and every other. He tells them they are free to speak to the Def if they choose to.

Bill James stated he does not think the Pub Def nor the State are doing anything underhanded he just wants to be able to know what she is allegedly going to testify to.

Pros Johnson said that he has submitted 2 pages of what she is anticipated to testify about.

Bill James said, he cant imagine her testimony will only be 2 pages.

JUDGE: "Only thing I can do is encourage counsel to have her speak to him. He will not Compel her to. He will give Def unbritled discretion to cross examine her. "she is free game"

JMHO
 
I dont understand how anything could be spousal privilege since CL agreed to testify against him.
 
Motion about state witnesses with prior convictions.... there is one... it was a drug conviction and witness is in drug court.
Def said if that is only one and is in drug court then no prob.

Pros it is.

*****************

Judge Sims has allowed the court to use his courtroom for the trial. Voir Dire will be in Judge Wright courtroom and will begin there and go until they have jury paneled then go to Judge Sims courtroom.

WHEW.....:judge: think thats about it....:thinking:
 
concernedmother said:
I dont understand how anything could be spousal privilege since CL agreed to testify against him.
Click to expand...

Its confusing for sure. IF she had went ahead and gone thru with her divorce I dont think there would even be issue. But JMHO and the vibe i personally got from the Judge, Her Pub Def and Pros. She is kinda screwing herself by not speaking to the Def. JMHO. If she spoke to him she would have an idea what he will be asking her. (as will he in her answers). When the Judge said what he did about her being "FREE GAME" ... JMHO he gonna eat her up lol
 
The whole thing about that "affidavit" on AL Facebook and him being incarcerated at Varner... I think that had something to do with how can he have put it here if he in prison yet it his account. Someone opened it back up in Jan iirc, long prior to this Def attorney coming on board.

I think that their argument about the email also. I just still feel this isnt gonna be the open shut they thought.

In the Nov 16th hearing they talked about removing part of seat and someother part with blood on it. Judge even mentioned it in his order when denying the care search evidence.

Pg 3/4
Ables testified that, pursuant to the search warrant, the investigators found green duct
tape, white rope, nine millimeter shells in a white bag, asoftball bat, a Fuji Camer4 and an IBM
laptop.l [at 83] The investigators also removed the left corner of a passenger seat cover and the
left corner of the actual passenger seat and completed "tape lifts," resulting in "fiber, hair, trash,
foreign object" evidence.2

***footnotes:
I The green duct tape does not appear in the itemized list on the warrant retum. State's Ex. 2. The
State i'as previously indicated that it did not intend to use the Fuji Camera and IBM laptop.
Motions io Suppress the laptop and camera were granted by this Court in a previous Order with
no objection from the State.
2 There was apparently hair and blood evidence discovered from the seat and tape lifts https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=OI0ZJPAK4KJ78V2ECKQ30FV3PEB1EP

***since AL was all bloody from hitting the windshield and no seat belt on, car flipped on side at least some degree that he climbed out. Very possible that blood was his. JMHO
 
01/05/2016
12:06 PM COURT APPEARANCE LEWIS, AARON M
Entry: DEF APP'D W/ ATTY EXHIBITS 1-11 & 13-60 ADMITTED SUBJECT TO DEFENSE OBJECTIONS, DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING BLOOD SPOT AT OLD RIVER ROAD GRANTED, DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE ON INVOCATION OF COUNSEL GRANTED
Images No Images

01/05/2016
12:15 PM ORDER OTHER
Entry: AMENDED ORDER THE SEARCH OF VEHICLE-FOUND ITEMS ARE ADMISSABLE-LATER ITEMS SUPPRESSED
Images WEB

01/05/2016
12:15 PM ORDER OTHER
Entry: PHONE RECORDING IS ADMISSABLE
Images WEB
 
STATE OF ARKANSAS
VS.
ARRON LEWIS
PLAINTIFF
cPt20t4-3928
DEFENDANT
ORDER
Comes now for consideration the matter heard at the hearing held December 30, 2015,
and based upon a review of the evidence, testimony, and argument presented at that hearing, the
case file, the pleadings of both parties, and all other matters considered, the Court DOTH FIND:
The Defendant is charged with capital murder, kidnapping, and possession of firearms by
certain persons. On December 16,2015, the Court entered an Order denying the State's Motion
to Consider an Inventory Search of the Defendant's2012 Ford Fusion vehicle. The Court had
previously held that evidence found in the vehicle would be suppressed, having been discovered
pursuant to an illegally overbroad search warrant. The Court's December 16 Order found that the
evidence found in the vehicle was not admissible under the "inevitable discovery" exception to
the exclusionary rule, as the State had offered no evidence at omnibus or in its Motion that there
had been any inventory search done at all. The State contacted the Court, and after a meeting in
chambers where the State and Defense were both present, the Court agreed to hold another
hearing. This hearing would give the state the opportunity to present evidence showing that an
inventory search was acttally done or that any items found in the vehicle pursuant to the illegal
warrant would have been found by PCSO investigators under the inevitable discovery doctrine.
The hearing was held December 30, 2015. The State introduced the testimony of two
sergeants (investigators at the time of the searches) from the Pulaski County Sheriff s Office
 
Mike Blaine and Shane Hastings - and David Haris, a forensic serologist from the Arkansas
State Crime Lab. The Defense team offered a brief rebuttal from the Defendant.
Sergeant Mike Blaine testified that he encountered the Defendant after he had been
involved in an accident on September 28,2014. The vehicle Defendant was driving was turned
over on its side next to the road. It was not drivable, so either Lieutenant Mark Swaggerty or
another law enforcement officer called for a wrecker. Sergeant Shane Hastings testified that he
arrived at the scene when the Defendant was climbing out of his vehicle, whereupon he
attempted to direct traffic.
The Defendant was taken to the hospital for his injuries, and he did not indicate that a
third party was available to take possession and responsibility for the vehicle. The investigators
flipped the vehicle back on its wheels, did an inventory search of the interior passenger area, and
completed a vehicle search report. That report indicated that the investigators found a softball
bat, a Samsung Galaxy 34 phone, an IBM laptop and power cord, a length of white rope, a red
umbrella, an orange iPhone case, a pair of white earbuds, a black watch, a cell phone power cord,
and a power converter for a phone. Hastings signed the report, which indicated that the frunk had
not been "opened or inventoried." State's Ex.2.
The investigators then suspended the search and surrendered the vehicle to "Ryno
Wrecker" of Jacksonville, who towed it to the PCSO. Blaine testified that investigators felt that
the trunk should be searched in a "controlled environment." The vehicle storage report was given
to and signed by an employee of the wrecker service. Ryno Wrecker then transported the vehicle
to the PCSO, where, as testified at omnibus by Investigator Jordan Ables, it was "locked and
secured." The trunk was not searched when it arrived at this o'controlled environment" but was
 
later searched pursuant to the warrant this Court has previously found to be illegal. As listed on
the warrant return, the investigators found the following items in the vehicle during that search:
Passenger Seat Cover Left Comer
Passenger Seat Foam Left Comer
Fiber, Hair, Trash, Foreign Object Tape Lift from Trunk
Fiber, Hair, Trash, Foreign Object Tape Lift fro Seats, Floor Trunk
White Rope Found Behind Driver's Seat
White Plastic Bag Containing 9mm Shell Casings
CAT ASA Softball Bat
Quick Snap Flash Fuji Disposable Camera
IBM Laptop Serial Number L3-VVYBT
(State's Ex. 2 from November 16,2015 hearing)
The Court's pretrial Order found that any items seized in the vehicle were to be
suppressed, as the search warrant used to obtain them was overbroad and illegal. At that time, the
Court had no indication that an inventory search was done but stated in its Order that it would
consider an inventory search if presented with evidence to that effect. The State then moved the
Court to consider that some of these items either were discovered under an inventory search of
the vehicle or would have been discovered under the "inevitable discovery" exception to the
exclusionary rule The "inevitable discovery" exception provides that where evidence has been
suppressed under the Fourth Amendment,'oif the govemment can prove that the evidence would
have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any
overreaching by the police, there is no rational basis to keep that evidence from the jury in order
to ensure the faimess of the trial proceedings." Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431,447 (1984). As
mentioned above, the Court denied this request, as the State's Motion included no exhibits.l
The State asserts that if the illegal search warrant had not been signed and executed, they
eventually would have found everything that they found in the vehicle pursuant to further
I The Motion merely asserted that an inventory search was done. The State introduced no
evidence into the record to support these assertions until the December 30 hearing
 
inventory searching that would have been performed at the PCSO. The State bases that assertion
on the PCSO's tow policy and the testimony of Sergeants Blaine and Hastings.
The State introduced the tow policy at the December 30 hearing. That document
indicates that the intent of the policy is to ensure that towing of vehicles should only be done for
the "legitimate interests" of "the pursuit of law enforcement activities or in the interest of public
safety." That policy provides that "unattended" vehicles will be towed by the PCSO under
certain circumstances, including when the "vehicle remains not in the custody of some
responsible person following the accident where the operator has been removed to a hospital or
is otherwise unable to make personal arrangements for the vehicle's care[.]" State's Ex. 1. The
policy goes on to describe how inventory searches should be completed - that "[a]ll closed
containers found during the inventory shall be opened. All locked containers found during
inventory shall not be accessed. A 'Vehicle Storage Report' form shall be completed." That
vehicle storage report anticipates an inventory search of the "vehicle, including the trunk, glove
box, and other accessible areas, and ensure the results ofthe inventory are listed on the storage
report." The policy specifies that the report be completed in duplicate, and that "[o]ne copy will
be given to the tow operator and the other submitted as or with the report on the incident[.]" Id.It
seems clear enough that the county's tow policy anticipates that an inventory search be done
before a vehicle is towed.
As a brief aside, the Defendant has argued that the vehicle should not have been towed at
all, as his wife could have been contacted to move it from the scene. Both sides, however, have
conceded that the vehicle was not drivable at the time Defendant was taken to the hospital. The
Defendant's argument that the vehicle shouldn't have been towed is without merit. While true
that the Defendant could have found someone besides the PCSO to remove the vehicle, he had
 
an affirmative obligation to let the authorities know this. Instead, he left the scene in the
ambulance (and later left the hospital), and the Court has been provided with no evidence that he
tried to follow up on the status of his vehicle.
As the investigators were left with no option other than to tow the vehicle, that initial
inventory done at the scene of the accident was, therefore, legal. Arkansas Rule of Criminal
Procedure 12.6(b) provides that "[a] vehicle impounded in consequence of an arrest, or retained
in official custody for other good cause, may be searched at such times and to such extent as is
reasonably necessary for safekeeping of the vehicle and its contents." Where a vehicle storage
report has been completed at an accident scene prior to towing, as was done here, those items are
properly admitted as the result of an inventory search.
The Court does not find, however, that the possibility of further inventory of the trunk
anticipated by the PCSO before the illegal warrant was executed should place the items illegally
discovered within the inevitable discovery exception. Once the vehicle had been released to the
wrecker for transportation to PCSO custody, the goal of safekeeping the vehicle and its contents
would have been complete. Any further inventory of the vehicle would be simply a "ruse for a
general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence." Whren v. United States, 517
U.S. 806 (1996) (citing Florida v. Wells,495 U.S. 1, 4 (1990)).
Blaine testified at the December 30 hearing that the purpose of the tow and inventory
policy is to ensure that there are no valuables missing when a towed vehicle is eventually
returned to its owner. He also testified that he wanted to look at the trunk in a "controlled
environment." The Court does not find that further inventory in a controlled environment would
have accomplished the purposes of the inventory search as testified to by Blaine. Here, an
inventory search had been done at the scene and a vehicle storage report was done pursuant to
 
the PCSO's tow policy, in the manner anticipated by that policy. Though Blaine and Hastings
anticipated further inventory search of the trunk once it arrived at the PCSO, the investigators did
not do that. They instead "locked and secured" the vehicle and went about the process of
obtaining a search warrant for further investigation. At that point, the interests of the PCSO tow
policy and the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure had been accomplished.
The Court's November order indicated that the Court would allow evidence found in the
vehicle if the State could show that they were found pursuant to a legitimate inventory search.
Now that the State has introduced the vehicle storage report, reciting the items found in the
interior passenger compartment, the Court finds that the items listed on it were legitimately
inventoried and may be properly admiued into evidence. Anything found after that was the result
of the illegal warrant. The vehicle storage report having already been completed at the scene, and
the vehicle having been surrendered to a private wrecker for transport to the PCSO, the Court
does not find that a further inventory at the PCSO would have served the purposes asserted in the
PCSO's tow policy or Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.6(b). The inevitable discovery
doctrine therefore does not apply, and anything found pursuant to that illegal warrant that does
not also appear on the vehicle storage report will remain suppressed.
As a final note, even if a theoretical "second inventory" had been permissible once the
vehicle had been towed to the PCSO, the Court would still suppress the duct tape and hair
evidence. Based on the items listed on the PCSO's vehicle storage report completed prior to
towing, and taking into account the wording of the tow policy, the Court finds it improbable that
the two pieces of duct tape and hair evidence would have been listed in any further inventory
 
search.2 Whether these items were in plain view or not, the tow policy anticipates that items will
be listed where they are "of significant value." The duct tape and hair are obviously of
significant evidentiary value, but their financial value is essentially nonexistent, and the idea that
there might have been a dispute over their presence or absence later is improbable. The Court
does not find that these items would have been listed in a vehicle storage report even if the fruits
of a further inventory search would have been inevitably discovered.
The Court's previous orders regarding the search of the vehicle are, accordingly,
amended. The items listed in the vehicle storage report inhoduced at the December 30 hearing
are found to be admissible as discovered pursuant to a valid inventory search. All items later
found in the vehicle remain suppressed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
)-(-//
DATE
2 The pieces of the passenger seat and cover that were later removed as containing possible blood
evidence, for example, were not listed on the pre-tow vehicle storage report, though they were
later found pursuant to the search warrant
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=4DAZN9A8XHYVFWKXJF42XYRVP16125
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 2,423 (members: 163, guests: 2,260)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
2,260
Total visitors
2,423
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,630
Messages
18,127,474
Members
231,109
Latest member
drella444
Back
Top