Part Two:
The prosecutors looked to their experience to guide them, as well as the investigators and the forensics. Luttrull did not pay any attention to social media, just on the case. The families had the right to expect of them, and what the officers who put their all into the case, that they would try the case without being distracted.
He was "the old guy" on the case. But there was a benefit to approaching the case without an ego. He was at a time in his career where he was only there for one reason and he was able to be devoted to it.
The investigators were under incredible pressure and scrutiny. Luttrull came in as an outsider after a lot of it had already taken place. From what he saw, they were excellent to work with. He reminds that everyone is human and we all make mistakes. There was a big emphasis on "okay, now that we know what we have to deal with, let's move on and make the best of it with this new information" (paraphrased).
Luttrull is a big fan of the ISP lab division and thinks they do great work. He worked on the toolmark evidence, autopsy, blood spatter, etc. This was his area of focus.
The prosecution team respected the jury - the time they put in, their attentiveness, their questions. It motivated them to do their best. The host of the podcast mentions that there was a point in the cross-examination of one particular witness that Luttrull wanted to ask a specific question and it was overruled. A member of the jury then immediately asked that same question.
To prepare the expert witnesses was the most enjoyable part of the case (though it was a challenge). These experts were true professionals and patient with Luttrull too. He acknowledges that some of these forensic topics are not things the average person has much background knowledge about.
He describes questioning an expert witness in such a way that you "build a wall" of evidence that the defense cannot break down.
During the DNA testimony, when it came out that there was no usable offender DNA recovered, this may have been a shock to some who follow trials more casually (aka the "CSI effect"). Luttrull (somewhat delicately - read between the lines) says that we must follow the science and recognize that in crimes, there are "rich sources of DNA" and "poor sources of DNA" and given the facts of this case, any touch DNA that could have been present would have been overwhelmed by the incredible amount of DNA in the blood from the victims. All of those locations where touch DNA might have been deposited, were covered in the blood of the victims. Getting this point across to the jury was the challenge. Their effort was to show the thoroughness of the crime scene investigation and that because of time, environment, the creek, sand and dirt - there were inhibitors present that limited how offender DNA could be recovered.
Rozzi was very prepared regarding ballistics. He was a skilled and experienced lawyer who had done his homework, as would be expected from a defense attorney in court. "We were both doing our jobs."
He says the job of the prosecutor is to "be invisible" during direct examination of your own expert witnesses and then maintain control during the cross-examination of the other side's expert witnesses.
For Luttrull, there were several memorable moments in the trial, such as family testimony. But the most memorable was McCleland's closing argument. Knowing that the evidence they wanted to show, especially regarding the timeline, did come into the record in compelling ways.
Judge Gull had a difficult job to do. He notes she had already been involved in several high profile cases, which served her well. She maintained control and order as a judge is supposed to do.
The defense team was skilled, experienced, and smart. "They saw this case differently" than the prosecution did. That's all he can say at this time.
He describes what it's like to wait for the verdict. "The jury deliberation had been long enough" that any outcome was plausible, including the possibility that the jury had hung. This was something they were afraid of and it was a nervous time. Though he has been through this over 200 times, he never knows what a jury will do.
He talks a bit about Kathy Shank and why she was a necessary witness.
He had high expectations for the victim impact statements. But even so, they were above and beyond. He was grateful to be a small part of the families getting to the point where they could speak and talk about their pain and demand for justice.
When he thinks about Abby and Libby, he thinks about their families. He sees them through these family members he has met. And he thinks the girls would be proud of how steadfast their families were. He expresses regret for all the life experiences the girls will never have and how it is such a senseless loss.
Luttrull says his name may be on a list of senior prosecutors who can be called on for other cases like this. He told his wife he wouldn't put his name on this list unless he knew he could say yes. So he's going to wait and see if he gets called upon.
He took a short story writing class so you may see a story from James Luttrull at some point in the future.
The Delphi Murders: First Person: James Luttrull Part Two We interviewed James Luttrull, a veteran prosecutor who worked with Carroll County Prosecutor...
murdersheetpodcast.com
www.courttv.com
"evidence" that proves Rick's innocence.
